A thoughtful yet misconstrued discussion on free will

I like the presenter and the thinker very much. He is amongst the few who seems to have mastered an eloquent and cohesive way to present plainly his point or hold up his ground of argument. He enjoys a quick and some time "unbiased" mind. It is always a pleasure to hear his speech.
--------

My two cents:

As much freewill itself is a misleading concept which usually framed out of theological dialogues, as it is in the framework of any philosophical discussion when the definition of itself is never fundamentally agreed upon.

Will is not merely knowledge or human thoughts or intents, being it "conscious" or "subconscious", or beyond consciousness itself, which demands the inclusion of the spiritual dimension of human existence and experiences. The presenter fails to distinguish the differences between these two dimensions of human conditions and behaviors. He alludes to the idea of "soul", yet never clarity it as the core of a human being.

Demanded by his conclusion, he trys to bridge the two with the argument that thought life is not the direct product of reason or knowledge, which then in turn, undercut the whole assumption of rational thinking, where his whole argument is built upon. Unfortunately he is not the first thinker who is lost in the jungles and mazes of his own making. Most of them did and are still passionately doing, futile as it is.

If we don't own our thought, then we can't say we own our will. Then where comes the moral or rational compass of any human thought or behavior? Man is then subsequently the product of an alienated world and a superimposed past. This is a depressing and unsubstantiated position on the condition and the possibility of human life.

But the greater failure is not his flawed reasoning, rather it is his adamant denial of spiritual realities, which presumably based on his faith in the soundness and overarching practicality of scientific methodology concerning spiritual dimensions of existence and human experience.

All his reasoning or assumptions will fail had he encountered an angel or some kind of genuine supernatural encounter. He never cast out a demon, then how would he know there is such a thing called demonic influence or manifestation, not mention demonic wisdoms?

I used to deny the existence of the supernatural and the divine. Not until I was caught up in heaven and healed the sick and cast out many demons. How can you tell a person who is baptized by the power of the Holy Spirit that God is not real and not relevant, which is happening in our teaching time almost every week?

The pride of the modern intellectualism is beyond belief. If only some from the camp really read carefully what Paul plainly shared in his epistles (1 Cor 1-3).

gee, i just noticed the quotation marks in "unbiased".  

i checked wiki page for sam harris. this topic is probably too deep for me.