Skip to content

The Incoherence of Ben Shapiro’s Free Will Argument for God

  • by

The argument presented posits that belief in free will is the best argument for the existence of God. However, this argument is riddled with logical inconsistencies and lacks empirical evidence, rendering it incoherent babble rather than a cogent argument.

A rough transcription of this incoherent babble
The best argument for god is that I believe in free will. If you believe that human beings are essentially just balls of meat wandering around aimlessly in the universe and you don’t believe in free will then there’s an internal coherence and logic to it. if you believe that you have the ability to make independent choices, that you can actually supersede your own biological drives and the environment around you to any extent, this means that you believe in something that can’t actually be proved by science but yet you are living every single day. And the notion that you have that will but that will is capable of comprehending the universe around you, your ideas, your ability to comprehend the universe is a reflection of a reality, of an objective truth that is out there, that says to me that there is a god. There’s a common source that stands behind that objective truth and stands behind the mind that can comprehend that truth.

He Misunderstands Free Will

His lame argument begins with the assertion that belief in free will necessitates belief in God. This is a non-sequitur; the two concepts are not inherently linked. The type of free will that he’s referring to is the ability of individuals to make independent choices, free from deterministic influences like biological drives or environmental factors. This concept does not require a divine entity to exist. Many philosophers and scientists who affirm free will do so from a secular perspective, arguing that our consciousness and decision-making processes, though rooted in physical processes, are complex enough to allow for a form of free will. It’s worth noting that the scientific community is currently mired in debate over whether we have free will or not. There is a strong argument for the notion that our “brains run calculations that give us the perception of our own choice but the outcomes of those calculations are pre-determined by the makeup of our brains.” Atheists can discuss that topic here. 

Shapiro Presented No Scientific Evidence

His argument also seemed to claim that free will cannot be proven by science, and as such is evidence for a god, fine the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real. He misunderstands how science works. Science deals with empirical evidence and testable predictions. While it’s true that free will is a challenging concept to study scientifically, this does not automatically validate the existence of God (begging the question fallacy on his part). There are many phenomena that science currently cannot fully explain, but this does not mean we should default to supernatural explanations. But if he insists, I’ll accept the Flying Spaghetti Monster as the source of my free will. 

Misconception of Objective Truth

The argument then leaps to the idea that our ability to comprehend the universe is a reflection of an objective truth, suggesting this truth indicates the existence of God. This is another non-sequitur. Our ability to understand the world around us has been honed by millions of years of evolution and is continually refined through education and learning. It does not necessitate an underlying divine entity or objective truth. But if he insists that there’s a common source of objective truth, I’ll accept the Flying Spaghetti Monster as the common source. 


In conclusion, this argument failed to provide a coherent or compelling case for the existence of God. It misrepresents the concept of free will, misunderstands the role and limitations of science, and makes unfounded leaps from our cognitive abilities to the existence of an objective truth and a divine entity. A robust argument for God’s existence would need to address these issues, providing clear logical links between its premises and conclusions and supporting its claims with empirical evidence.

Atheists can discuss this incoherent babble at the largest atheist-only group in the world here

Leave a Reply