Well said. While not definitionally an aspect of atheism, I cannot help but observe that atheists will often express a “faith” that science will eventually explain the origin of matter/energy/laws of nature question/problem....in spite of the contingency problem. While Christians can intelligently explain the rational need for an uncaused cause (e.g. god), I don’t understand the leap to specific religions (e.g. Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc.). I understand a middle ground between those two positions to be something like deism.
@@StrategicWealthLLC Christians believe that the deist God has revealed himself so that we can know him much better, deeper and in a more meaningful way. The claim of the Bible (Abrahamic faiths) is that the deist God has revealed more about himself than we could have known by our reasoning alone. He freely revealed all these information in the Bible in order to communicate his message of salvation for us.
@@StrategicWealthLLC I'll offer some respectful pushback on your comment about atheists needing faith that science will explain things eventually. It's not faith, it is expectation based on evidence and the trajectory of past events.
@@TheRealShrike I think he doesn't mean that atheists see science as a "vehicle" or "replacement" for God, but that, as you stated, they expect science to answer the questions that humans could have about the world, now and in the future. Which is a position I think could be defended if you include philosophy amongst those sciences. I don't think purely material science could possibly answer many aspects of reality.
I'm not a catholic myself, but bishop Barron sounds like a warm, openminded person. He's very polite and doesnt get his ego conflicted in his arguments. This is the goal of christianity. Love, kindness, courage and little ego. He's a true christian.
He’s a member of an organisation which has hidden up child abuse and which makes condom wearing against the teachings despite it causing misery and deaths of millions.
Although his views on hell I still find toxic. But, then, I usually do. Especially the 'choosing' bit. Ever since Paul drastically overstated the case, for Romans 1:20... it's gotten more and more clunky.@@flexzone7045
Or mayhaps, a true Christian who has found success on their path. Others are taking their time making something of themselves. Not there yet, but trying. And a man like this is the perfect example for those to look too. Good for I as an athiest to look too.
I disagree. Barron defended weak deism, not Christianity. He hardly addressed the premise of the entire debate. A Muslim, Hebrew, or Mormon could’ve been in his seat using the same words and it would’ve been the same.
@@bobloblaw4102 Yes, you are right. Barron didn't push insistently for Christian understanding of God or for unique Christian dogmas and doctrines. He himself even declares this 38:30-38:45. Barron is useing the classic 2 step apologetic. (Step 1: Argue for general theism or some sort of basic causal contingency. Then step 2: argue for a specific religious view on God, i.e. for the Christian God specifically known from the scriptures and the revelation of the person and work of Jesus Christ- the only begotten Son of God. This approach is not the only apologetic approach, but is a popular and usually sufficient approach. For interest in other Apologetic approaches see Five Views of Apologetics by Steven B. Cowan, zondervan Publishing, 2000) Regardless though my point as to why this is a "good debate" is because it was civil, humble, and kind towards each other. Both Alex and Bishop Barron listened to each other, thought about what the other was saying. Asked meaningful and relevant questions and gave meaningful and relevant comments. They did not just spout their own talking points and dictums as so many debaters do. Far too many Christian and Atheist debates are conducted in such a way that neither side listens, nor cares to even hear what the other says. So while neither Alex nor Bishop Barron makes a demonstrable case for their own positions respectively, and while neither "won" so to speak, and while neither destroyed the other with some particular piece of rhetoric or sophisty, both humbly presented a section of their idea, and allowed for a kind but critical diologue on the topic, allowing the conversation to go where the conversation ended up going. The nature of the unbelievable podcast doesn't afford either man the time they need to properly debate and tell the full story. If that is what you were looking for, other more formal debates and scenarios are more likely to provide that.
Agreed. It was a conversation, and provides a lot of food for thought, while not resolving. But the point of discussion was Christian or Athiest, and as such God is assumed as Christian by the question. There are many Christian examples chosen too
@@andrewmorgensen326 civility is all very well, but it does risk an absurd argument getting more respect than it deserves. I think all too often, respect for your opponent gets confused with an unwillingness to be frank regarding their ideas, and I think Alex lets his opponents get away with far too much sometimes. The opposite of a shouting match is not a passive refusal to confront a bad argument.
@@bengreen171 I don't see Bishop Barron nor Alex presenting an "absurd" argument. Nor is either of them passive..they both seem quite frank to me in pointing out places they agree and disagree with each other. I'm not sure what it is that Alex let's his opponents get away with? Yes, they did not shout or berate or scoff at each other, but I also don't see how it is that either of them failed to confront a "bad argument".
And Alex is a brilliant example of how to live good fulfilling lives without this belief. I think it’s a little odd to make this comment without also mentioning that Alex is a good person and lives for lack of a better term “Christlike”
@@homeofthefree8656 I never said that Alex isn’t a good person. I can’t judge that because I don’t know him. Me saying that Bishop Barron makes me proud to be a Catholic doesn’t mean I don’t think that Alex is a good person. I do think he’s a good person even though I didn’t explicitly say that
@ my mistake, so how does being respectful in debate make you a proud Catholic? What did he say about the faith that makes it worth praise to you? Can this sentiment not be derived from Alex’s worldview?
@@bearistotle2820 Thanks for the reply. I have started a channel TheXaminedLIfe for the positive discussion of ideas from the tremendously important to the trivial but interesting. My goal is also to raise money for Doctors without Borders, Feeding America, and Oxfam. Just getting started pretty cringeworthy with 15 subs. You're welcome to become # 16.
Wow! This was great! I'm a Catholic and I really loved the nature of Alex. A kind man with a sense of acceptance and understanding and with great formidable arguments. Also, Bishop Barron never disappoints me :")
@Avingay Anfordstay Einstein was a pantheist, didn't believe in a personal savior. Francis Collins himself admits he doesn't have a good argument for christianity. I could go on for days.
While not a Catholic (yet), I really appreciate the theological intellect of Bishop Barron. As a searching pilgrim, I really enjoyed this conversation.
I advise you strongly to be aware that Catholicism and Christianity are not two identical entities. Be very careful in your search. Yes, a true follower of Jesus is Christian by definition. But what other label is safe to put on him? Catholic? Protestant? Baptist? Jehovah's witness? Only Bible can tell you. If you ever choose to get serious with Christianity, then follow Christ and not people. Pray for your answer, wait for an answer from God. Make sure it is no pure accident.
Be careful you don’t fully absorb the hell and damnation part of catholicism. I’ve heard too many stories of people who left the faith but, despite having realized the church’s doctrines are illogical and baseless, can never fully rid themselves of the horror of hell, even though they’re convinced that place doesn’t actually exist
@@kyoglesageI think the whole “fire and brimstone” characterization is widely characterized to be an evangelical fundamentalist idea, even though it is not fundamentally necessary that this is the case
If you fulfil John 14:12, we'll believe you. Otherwise, watch Barron make excuses for hell, on another vid. It gets... so... wool gather-y! Meantime, a lot of us, choose not to wait. Not indefinitely.@@DartNoobo
@@zero_gravity5861 catholics only recently and only under the pressure by public admitted that there is no hell as a fiery place of eternal torment. But they still insist that there is hell after death.
This debate piqued my interest of and curiosity about Catholicism. I was baptized and confirmed in the 2023 Easter vigil at Saint Louis De Montfort church of Fishers IN. After this debate I hunted down every lecture and homily presented by Bishop Barron as I stripped and stained my fence during Summer of 2021. I spent the next year attending Mass every week and finally completing the RCIA program. Thank you Bishop Barron, today I have an incredible, fulfilling life that I never imagined possible
teach the children How does all religion start? It starts with the children . Here is a short 4:00 min video that sets the stage. Look it up on TH-cam “Welcome to This World”. Sound familiar?
Alex is intelligent. He asks the bold questions. And Bishop Barron never disappoints. The passage of the Bible where Jesus says 'Don't worry about what to say, the Holy Spirit will give you what to say' is really at play in Bishop Barron.
@@tommore3263 So I get the correct words handed to me on a silver platter by the "Holy Spirit", but I might choose to ignore them. That reminds me of the time God handed me the winning Powerball numbers but I said no thanks, I'll come up with better numbers on my own. Because that's a thing.
Except it isn’t at work in him at all because he couldn’t even answer him at 53:05 about what a definition of faith is- when we have an actual definition of it recorded and explained in the Bible. It’s ridiculous. It’s exactly why so many turn away from Christianity
Man this was good. I’ve been following Alex O’Connor for several years now. And I’ve found his arguments pretty impenetrable on most fronts. But Bishop Baron made some great points. I’m gonna have too look up more stuff on him. Mad respect to both of them.
Well said! Totally agree with you Bishop Barron was really respectful, knowledgeable and made some very strong and rational arguments for theism with out appealing to emotion or using rhetoric as Alex did. ❤️
@@roneldsilva546 Hi Ronel Alex was very polite but his constant appeals to emotion didn’t work at this level of debate. I think it speaks volumes that Bishop Barron was unbelievably patient and didn’t use any of these rhetorical devices. These kind of rhetorical devices utilised by Hitchens who Alex is trying to emulate don’t work at this level of debate and honesty because it stands out like a sore thumb when used against someone who is genuinely trying to engage with you as a person in your own right and respect where you’re coming from. Nevertheless, I’m impressed by Alex’s work ethic especially if he genuinely believes he is holding this world view for moral and ethical reasons. Also many of the issues raised by Alex are important as they are a good learning tool for those who are genuinely searching for truth. I found Bishop Barron very honest and more clear but also more nuanced in his explanations. This speaks volumes because if you’re going to constantly appeal to morals and ethics like Alex did then you need detailed hard evidence that you can ground values such as morals and ethics in the materialistic/atheistic paradigm. But the fact is that you can’t as appeals to values such as morals and ethics are a metaphysical presupposition that is a transcendental category that obviously can’t be grounded in the materialistic/atheistic paradigm as everything is just arbitrary and ad hoc under this world view. No offence intended all the best to you. ❤️
You can’t ground metaphysical presuppositions that is transcendental categories such as values like morals and ethics, not to mention logic and empiricism in the materialistic/atheistic paradigm as it excludes these things because they are arbitrary and are clearly ad hoc under this world view. However, you can ground metaphysics in the qualitative subjective experience of mind and consciousness/theism. Because mind and consciousness is fundamental unassailable and irreducible to “matter”. Hence the common term among experts on mind and consciousness (The Hard Problem of Consciousness). Ironically it’s only a “hard problem” if you assume that “matter” is all there is to reality and existence. The double irony is that quantum physicists agree that we don’t even know what “matter” or substance actually is (Roger Penrose/Richard Feynman). It is clearly incoherent to complain about people finding some kind of meaning in suffering by appeals to “matter” and morality when under the materialistic paradigm morality and ethics are just the by product of a blind, mindless, pitiless and merciless process and are just arbitrary and ad hoc. This is begging the question when we don’t even know what “matter” is as “matter” is a theoretical abstraction of the mind. Alex clearly knows morality is a big problem for atheists which is why Alex struggles with Richard Dawkins because Dawkins is actually a consistent materialist/atheist. Dawkins, Nietzsche, Hume and Quine were all consistent atheists. For example Nietzsche is viewed as one of the founding fathers of the very harmful religion of eugenics and Richard Dawkins tweeted to 2.8 million followers that eugenics would work on humans and on a separate occasion when he was asked about values and whether the rape and murder of a child was immoral he responded that the (belief) that the rape and murder of a child is immoral is as arbitrary as the fact that we evolved five fingers instead of of six. Most people naturally recoil in disgust at this cold response to such an horrific and evil act committed against a child. But Dawkins was just being consistent with the materialistic/atheistic paradigm as morals are just ad hoc and arbitrary under this world view. I don’t subscribe to this world view because it is obvious that materialists are completely blind to the elephant in the room because the bereaved parents of children who have been raped and murdered would beg to differ that their belief that this was evil and depraved “is as arbitrary as the fact that we evolved five fingers instead of six” !!. It’s clearly an absurd and potentially harmful world view as it could easily lead to nihilism and fatalism!! (Arbitrary) “based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.” (Oxford Dictionary). The bereaved families of the victims of the Nazis eugenics policy would also beg to differ with Dawkins claim that eugenics “would work on humans”. You can’t ground values in the materialistic paradigm!!. Objective morality is so unbelievably compelling and points to a deeper and transcendent value which is why this has been a big part of many atheists rejection of their atheism/materialism and their move towards the belief in the fundamental nature of mind and consciousness/theism/God. The fundamental nature of mind and consciousness is more logical and has the greatest explanatory power and is the most parsimonious hypothesis. The belief in the qualitative subjective experience of reality such as love, altruism, bravery, beauty, self sacrifice, morals, ethics, meaning and purpose, that is mind and consciousness/theism is just a default position until materialists can provide empirical evidence that “matter” is all that there is to reality. However, the fact is that “we cannot empirically observe matter outside and independent of mind, for we are forever locked in mind. All we can observe are the contents of perception, which are inherently mental. Even the output of measurement instruments is only accessible to us insofar as it is mentally perceived.” (Bernardo Kastrup) At least be a consistent materialist/atheist like Dawkins, Nietzsche, Hume, Dennette and Quine etc. “logic is an illusion” (Nietzsche) “You can’t get an (ought) out of an (is) - (David Hume) “The Two Dogmas of Empiricism” (W. Quine) “Consciousness is Just the brain's 'user illusion' of itself” (Daniel Dennette) “logical positivism is (self) refuting” (Vienna Circle) “The belief that the rape and murder of a child is immoral and evil is as arbitrary as the fact that we evolved five fingers instead of six” (Richard Dawkins) I rest my case!!
Inspiring! This is what the Internet is supposed to be!!! Ideas, enlightenment, civility, wisdom. Barron and O’Connor respected each other’s positions and engaged thoughtfully and persuasively. Thank you for another great episode of this series.
it is a cycle I think, internet civility. people get bored so they get more and more extreme until it becomes kind of toxic. then civility becomes a virtue again until the novelty wears off and it all repeats. think so anyways.
Exactly so... Conversation implies listening 👂 as well as speaking 👄 and requires understanding, intelligence and as you said, civility. Both of them had these in abundance. Bravo 👏!
Bless the Bishop for patiently combing through the different strands and teasing them out like a rat's nest in a person's hair. It is so fulfilling to have terms defined well-that is the key to finding the common ground necessary for respect and peace.
An atheist here, and I found the Bishop to be remarkably patient and composed. Although I don't agree with a few premises and conclusions of his, but I am nevertheless glad I listened all the way through.
@@noone-jq1xw I'm very glad to see the fruits of Bishop Barron's work blossoming ever so brightly. Earlier this summer, I met a teenager who had converted from atheism to Catholicism after he had watched a lot of Bishop Barron (and other apologists... but mainly Bishop Barron) and what he said to be most convincing in Bishop Barron's apologetics is his focus on beauty itself, which is NOT rational or logical in nature, which means that anybody, regardless of their belifs, can appreciate it (unless one has become ENTIRELY deluded by postmodernism (nihilism)... In those cases, they need a personal intuition about or from God, himself, for them to be free from the trap and delusion caused by postmodernism. I wish you all the best in your searching for the truth, if that is sincerely your ambition.... :P Merry Christmas and soon-to-be happy New Year!
Late, but I’m pleasantly surprised at how respectful not just this debate but the comment section is. Good job everyone, we need more legit discussions like this.
Being raised in a catholic school and being exposed to bishop barron both through his word on fire ministry and just youtube clips, I have great respect for Bishop Barron and his works. And as a young athiest I have been watching Alex's videos primarily (I consider him top tier athiest material if not the best) as well as many other athiest channels. Let me just say that I've always been wanting to hear these two debate and it was phenomenal. I'm surprised this isn't on Trending or more popular because this is truly a great discussion where many important things were discussed in detail and with great passion and care. The best part is the mutual respect and care both O'connor and Barron show towards each other and their arguments. In the entire hour and a half, all were enjoying their discussion and they were truly debating some of the most important parts. We need more great content like this. It far outshines basic apologetics and rash athiest commentary videos. And thank you for your time.
I have always found Alex O'Connor to be one of the brightest young minds around. This was one of the best debates if not the best debate I have ever seen. This is my first experience listening to Bishop Barron and although I am not Catholic I was very impressed with the bishop and his answers and how he responded to Alex. All that being said I must say that the bishop, in my mind, exposed Alex. I have listened to Alex a number of times in the past and was genuinely concerned for him having been raised Catholic and hoping that he might find his way back to the Christian faith however I have serious doubts now that that will ever happen.
@@mikeyseo i mean... You obviously know best mr. Big brain. Why have billions of people been trying for millions of years to figure out this problem if it only took you a few years?
@@elliotalderson8358 bc most ppl are blinded by their own arrogance and ego. Let’s take you for example. You think bc. U are not smart enough to solve the problem. Neither am I. That’s projecting your own flaws in on me. Quite arrogant n presumptuous
Is it weird to you that I can make the same comment about Alex and his behavior, only he’s not Christian? He lives a life that I think any reasonable Christian would claim is a Christian life.
teach the children How does all religion start? It starts with the children . Here is a short 4:00 min video that sets the stage. Look it up on TH-cam “Welcome to This World”. Sound familiar?
Really loved this, but absolutely loathe the time limits on these kinds of conversations, especially when it’s clear there is more to be said. These are the kinds of discussions that are worth pouring 4-8 hours into. Have lunch. Go for walks and take breaks. Do whatever, but it’s worth having long form dialogues on questions and ideas that mean the most in this life. Very grateful, regardless, for this.
@@2Uahoj Where do you draw the line, though? Why even speak of it for an hour if it’s all been said and done before? I agree with amndemo. If the host and the speakers have the time and are willing (seems obvious that both Alex and Bishop Barron were very willing), it should be longer. Like others have said, right when it started to get good, it ended. If there isn’t a specific reason as to why it is an hour or two, it would be great if perhaps the speakers were given the option to go for as long as they’d like. Perhaps, due to many restraints, this may not happen, and perhaps it wouldn’t be as fruitful and entertaining and civilized as it was with Alex and Bishop Barron, but it would be nice to see in some circumstances nonetheless.
@@ZekeMagnar Wish he'd actually gotten INTO free will, though, the Bishop, and how it works, and how it DIFFERS from angels' free will - as I suspect that will turn out to be critical, to many future apologetics. As well as how inevitable was the Fall or not.
@@2Uahoj And people have been convinced by one side or the other. Really smart people have changed their mind on this after reading or discussing with proponents of opposing views. So, it seems there is always value to be found in more conversation, especially in such matters where you have to find and deal with all kinds of underlying difficulties, misunderstandings, conceptual confusions etc.
Suffering is often caused by free will or weaknesses in the human condition. God is love and therefore cannot "cause" evil, but may allow it because we have been given free will. God can however bring a good out of the suffering.
I once heard a Christian on the radio advising his fellow Christians on how to comfort someone who is grieving and asking the question "How could God have allowed this to happen?". His advice was this: Don't even try to explain God's reasons for letting this tragedy happen, because no matter what you say you'll come off sounding like a jerk. That seems wise.
"god kills everyone in the end" is all you need to say. i find that reassuring and honest, let's face it god knew from the outset everyone is going to die.
@@HarryNicNicholas Does that include all the various grotesque ways of dying? I think that could work if people thought all deaths are equal but we don't.
@@kubli365 I mean, it's believed he sent his son to be killed in one of the most painful and humiliating ways at that time. Scripture says that those who are last will be first in heaven, and that this life isn't all there is.
@@MegaAzn frankly, the lingering death of David's son in 2 Samuel 15 must somewhat compare with crucifixion, for pain. And just how many stones hit Achan in Joshua 7:24 - and more importantly, it seems, his children, too (of what age?) And just what did occur in Jeremiah 2:30, and to whom.
But does he believe you should burn in hell, as he is supposed to? This is why I am always reticent to say "oh isnt he nice" because very often theres something rotten.
@@bertrandrussell894 God doesn't will , wish or cause people to "burn in hell". Hell is the rejection of perfect love for something smaller. My favorite analogue is the tragic figure of an old drug addict looking for his next fix in his chosen hell. We have free wills and intellects and evil is the free choosing of something lesser while ignoring a higher good. Our intellects and free wills cannot be physical in nature just as the number 3 is not physical and there is no reason to believe this root of our personhood does not continue past physical death. And if non physical, how do we die... hence eternity which is just the continuance of right now the only time that ever exists. God gives everyone the grace to know and do better whatever their circumstances but a loving relationship presupposes the freedom not to love; to choose something lesser. Like hell. Burning like an addict. This is not the will of the Author of life who literally IS Love Himself.
@@tommore3263 except none of things you've said make sense if we reject the idea of free will, which makes much more sense in my opinion than having "free will" (both philosophically and scientifically) free will is something people often take for granted not really giving it much of thought, but even if we assume free will, how does commiting temporary, limited in time and space "crimes" against God's love, make it just to suffer an infinite "lack of that love" as you put it, which is very often presented as incredible pain and suffering, I wouldn't call such a God "just". If God is a cause of everything, he's also a cause of that infinite and unbelievable suffering, so an argument "you chose the punishment willingly" doesn't take the responsibility off of God, he's also a cause for all the thoughts that reject his love (if we assume cosmological argument to be valid). So he's also, even if indirectly, still, responsible for it. And if someone doesn't believe in God, you can't say that he is "willingly choosing to go to hell" that just doesn't make sense, people not believing in hell, acknowledging that they can't know if it exists or not, cannot be said to be "willingly directed at it". Our intellect is bound to our physical brain, whether you like it or not, there is every reason to think and believe based on reason and evidence that when brain dies, person and their intellect and so called "free will" dies as well, if arithmetics could "cease to exist", its perfectly reasonable to assume that number 3 would cease to exist, or at least stopped making sense (by cease to exist, I mean if it never have had existed) which would be analogous to our brain and mind. "Non physical", doesn't entail eternal, how did you make sense out of that? People can't know what's better for them to do whatever their circumstances, in order for that to be true, people would have to be able to perfectly predict the outcome of every decision they make, which is impossible, so no, we don't have a gift like that, we are limited in that regard by our circumstances.
@@bertrandrussell894 Hell is actually the awareness.. eternal .. that we have rejected the most infinitely lovable and chosen something incomparably lesser, just as we choose the low road at times in life and know it. God's will and life is all for you. To the point of even our rejecting Love Himself. Eternally. Love requires the freedom not to love what is most lovable.
@@polmccharmly6293 You are wasting your time. Some people are so desperate to live forever that they will believe any hokum no matter how poisonous. Its sad they won't ever actually find out, but that while alive they have been insufferable and cruel and incoherent. It's very nauseating... Imagine cuddling up to that kind of dictator and just how little self respect and love for others one has in order to do it. It's creepy.
reality How does all religion start? It starts with the children . Here is a short 4:00 min video that sets the stage. Look it up on TH-cam “Welcome to This World”. Sound familiar?
I've been waiting years to see Bishop Barron debate someone on these ideas. He is a master of this type of discourse. Alex O'Connor is intelligent and respectful, which made me happy to see. I wish him all the best. Bravo to Unbelievable for putting this together! All the best to all who watch!
Bishop Barron is at best a theologist, and very far from the likes of great thinkers and philosophers. I mean no disrespect when I say this but I hope Alex gets on debates with more competent people to bring out the best in him
@@rabbitrun777 if you look up famous philosophers on Google it displays first the famous pagan Greek philosophers, you then find Immanuel Kant a untraditional theist, Nietzsche who is an atheist then Karl Marx an atheist, Confucius who was another pagan who didn't believe in God, David Hume another atheist.
What an absolutely excellent, deep, respectful, and sharp discussion! Absolutely love it! I wish, more discussions and debates, particularly on this topic, would go about in such a manner. Thank you so much to all the three of you. Much appreciated.
@@CarapaceClavicle Question is whether they did it because they were catholic or because they were fallible. Maybe in the modern day they wouldn't do it, but you could argue that's because of the development of secular human rights; that otherwise many passages in the bible (stoning of witches) would have continued to support the burning of heretics. Its an interesting question. Leviticus 24:16: Whoever blasphemes the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall stone him. The sojourner as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death.
@@radscorpion8 Blasphemy is the worst offense any human can commit. It's worse that murder because it's a direct attack on God's person/character. Blasphemers have the propensity for corrupting society on a massive scale. So it's reasonable in a theocratic government to eliminate such evil from the society either by imprisonment or execution, which ever works for the society.
Intelligent, civil discourse like this, regarding this incredibly, even critically important idea is very much appreciated and unfortunately, far too rare!
It's not all that important, actually. We've only been led to believe it is because someone told us we have an eternal soul, and that it's in jeopardy. They invented a problem, and now our culture believes it's "critically important" to address it. Imagine the infinite number of potentially critically important problems we've never worried about, because they've yet to be conceptualized and brought to the table.
@@-Zer0Dark- Who is this "someone" who "told us", and similarly, who are the "they" who "invented" the "problem"? For that matter, what is the "problem"? Additionally, if this idea is not important, even critically important, then what might be, not including, of course, the as yet, not "conceptualized"? Finally, if the ideas discussed in this conversation between Mr. O'Connor and Bishop Baron are not important, in your view, then why would you spend any time on it, let alone comment in regards to it?
I love Bishop Barron and also at times in this discussion, perhaps because he was speaking with a philosophy major, I felt he was speaking at a level where one would need to be one of the latter to follow some of his points. He's usually is a little more accessible
This was a very insightful conversation. This is how these very important topics should be discussed, not in a combative or hostile manner. God bless Bishop Barron and Alex. Great job with Justin's moderation too!
the problem for Catholicism really is how it is presented to the masses. When I was young, I have a lot of questions as well that I can't get answers from the people I was asking from. They can't provide philosopical answers that every believers at least should know. Thank God for the youtube videos today that I got the answers enough for me to explore and at have a relationship with Him. Having a somewhat high intellect is both a gift and curse in terms of asking what's the truth behind what is the standard set by the community.
This was riveting! I have been following Bishop Barron for about a year and find his knowledge and intellect of my faith without comparison. But along comes someone, half his age, able to talk on his level and counter his points with the finesse and ability of a seasoned scholar. I have never heard anything like this on You Tube.
@@HarryNicNicholas your opinion is not to be taken seriously since you are obviously bias, im sure that for you every debate is an atheist winning debate, aint that right?
Holy smokes! That was great! They both were so gracious, respectful and put forth compelling arguments! I could have watched them go back and forth all day!
I enjoyed listening to both Alex and Bishop Barron. One thing I did not hear either person state is that a suffering is part of being human & death is part of the cycle of life. That is my view, so rather than expecting life to be easy; without suffering & death, I choose to humbly accept suffering & death as an opportunity to learn. An opportunity to look at a situation I perceive to be difficult from another perspective. I choose to try to learn something and make the most of the experience rather than find someone to blame, because to me; “Life happens”. I can only control my choices & responses to my life and I don’t see God’s purpose to bubble wrap me and prevent me from suffering. In fact, that view robs me of my own power and ability to experience my life. As a Christian and a parent, I find that sharing this perspective with my children helps them see the world not as a world that exists to please them, rather as a place where good and evil exist and how they respond to those things in their life, will affect the quality of their life.
@@Lerian_V Very interesting. However, I am not sure that I understand the difference between pain and suffering. Is what you said the case for all animals or do you think it is possible that some animals suffer? Do you think it is possible that some humans don't suffer but only feel momentary pain? And finally, if I experience something bad, how can I know of it is suffering or momentary pain?
So you support child abusive organization who hides and protects the priests who like children in wrong way, ok got it. And you still think god would be ok with organization like that, ok got it too. And you probably think that morals are objective and catholic morals are good? I don't get it why anyone would call them catholic after what came out that had happen for decades and popes etc knew about it and did nothing to stop it. Just shows me the morals of these religious people.
Oh boy, if you think the bishop is "big-brained" you've got another thing coming when you eventually find yourself on the secular side of the conversation. Good luck in your journey.
Sorry for my fellows. Some forget that in their effort to "see more". They forget to be watchful of their own rhetoric. I miss the days of Real Atheism.. When we questioned because we wanted to actually know. Now it's just a game of "bash the believers". Once again, sorry for those who can't be decent about this.
@@KalousTheGuy Real atheism? What is that? If you don't believe in god like being, that's real atheism. If you are bash the believers or asking question type person, is all up to you. I'm little bit both to be honest. When I meet new religious person I ask them politely if we talk about religion and beliefs, if not then I don't bring it up. I do bash some, if they tend to be smug and claim to know for sure, then it's time to bash that believer and show him the contradictions and closed mindness of his religion and how they are morally horrible person, tho I'm not as good at it as Hitchen's was. He was a master at bashing religions and believers while being civil and asking questions from them. We don't usually bash the believer but the beliefs and faith, there is difference. Not all, but most don't claim to know that any god type being is impossible, we just know that religious type gods are impossible because all of them are walking contradictions.
@@all2jesus Id say if by “pray” you mean some type of correlation with “worship” then no. Worship is to God alone. But, If by “pray” you mean the old English term/original meaning of “privy” or “to ask” then yes, all we’re doing as Catholics is asking Mary or any other Saint to pray for us, or guiding our prayers up to God, just as you’d ask your family or friends to pray for you during a hard time. We’re not asking any questions or conjuring up spirits. Hope that helps
I was an militant atheist before. Scientific evidence, inductive logic caused by facts of material world, brought me a lot of doubts about my former belief. It’s very hard to be an atheist facing the details of space-time-matter, so perfectly balanced that’s easier to believe in a computer found buried in earth coming from random than believing that “chance” can explain our existence, consciousness, feelings, and order of things. As Bishop Barrows said, there are many paths. I’m walking on mine yet, but “Something” made me start searching the way, the truth and the life. God bless manking. I can’t explain Him, but I wish to know Him, in the end of my short trip inside this universe.
So far I never liked theological arguments from any one untill this video. I like Bishop Barron views and ideas 🤗 This discussion does put my mind to think , thank you Alex and Barron
As a practicing Catholic, I found the discussion on suffering between the 2 guests here quite moving. Especially Alex's emphatic point made at 1:11:30 brought to mind the lyrics of the "Exultet" hymn which is sung in the darkness of the Church at the beginning of the Easter Sunday (Saturday night) liturgy, "...Oh truly necessary sin of Adam, destroyed completely by the Death of Christ. Oh happy fault which earned so great, so glorious a Redeemer." These are not easy words for any one of us to comprehend. Thank you for this video.
@@AJ_Jingco This is the question of all questions! I'll try my hand at answering it. Adam's sin in the garden introduced death, suffering, and pain into the world - it is our Catholic belief that before the fall, mankind lived in "beatitude" with God. The lyrics "Oh happy fall of Adam..." from the Exultet prayer emphasize that although we experience death and suffering on earth now as a consequence of Adam's sin (and that this sin was not part of God's will for us), it moved God the Father to write our story of salvation that he achieved through the sacrifice of His Son Jesus Christ. This event happened in history, and flipped the religious world on its head. This mystery, as backwards as it may sound, suggests that a life without the need for salvation/redemption could be ultimately lacking, compared to a life of great suffering and intimacy with God the Son - Jesus.
It wasn’t correct, though. Permitting something doesn’t mean and admittance that it had to happen in order for some good to happen. It also doesn’t mean we can’t make judgements within the broader picture.
@@whatisiswhatable if it hadn't to happen, the why i happen? God can bring good different ways. And what "judgement" can you make? "It's bad, but it's God's work, so it's good actually, even if I don't know why."
Two brilliant minds, great arguments both but what passes through the screen is peace and humble joy that was unmovable on one side and sad disguised anger, and resentment to the point on despair on the other. Paradox: Young body, old spirit and viceversa?
I’m curious, why do you call yourself non theist? Is it different to you then atheist, if so how? Most people would probably say atheist/anti-theist so you got me wondering about your word choice.
@@Lanthardol I identify as a non-theistic Christian along the lines of Bishop Shelby Spong, if you are familiar with his work. I don’t believe the classic theistic God exists, but the Jesus tradition and Christian mysticism are very important to me. I don’t have a problem with ‘normal atheists’, but I don’t like identifying with just not believing in something. However, for the purposes of commenting on this channel, I thought non theist would be the easiest way to simply indicate that I don’t believe that the God bishop Barron believes in exists. If I said “as a humanist Christian”, most people would have no idea what I’m talking about lol
@@CB-fb5mi “humanist Christian” sounds like an oxymoron/contradiction to me. Do you believe in the resurrection or that Jesus was supernatural? Do you believe in all the teachings of the bible or just the bits that are compatible with humanism? What does Christianity add to humanism? Cultural identity?
@@shankz8854 You can think what you want about it I guess. For me, Christianity is a choice about how you live your life, it’s not a set of beliefs/propositions. I fully accept that Jesus of Nazareth was a normal human just like everyone else. I of course started my journey as a conservative Christian, as I would imagine every humanist Christian has. It’s a perspective that comes from hard won wrestling with conservative theology, I’m not just picking two worldviews at random and trying to do a mashup...
Issue is I can think of something more important (a super god for example). Should we study that? Obviously not because there is no proof; it is a baseless assertion. So it is with Christianity. Other than the social impetus of it (which is a poor reason to study it in the context of a truth claim), there is nor reason to study it. There is no real proof Christianity is valid.
@sirbaldex7050 You're actually just parroting. Yes, there isn't sufficient evidence to disprove all god claims. That's why strong atheism isn't a tenable position either. Point is, the Christian God has certain ascribed qualities and actions. But there is no evidence for these things, so we can reasonably determine the Christian God likely doesn't exist. This is all whataboutism anyway. Even if my belief system were nonsense, that does nothing to prove Christianity
sadly the religious will continue to keep their fingers in their ears and carry on believing in sky daddies and heavens and enjoy punishing people and hell, cos they never actually LISTEN to what atheists and scientists are saying.
Great conversation! Wonderful to have Bishop Barron eloquent contribution in the philosophical space. Keep going Alex - I came to faith through suffering, following an experience I had whilst studying Theology at Kings College.
@@OneTrueScotsman Sir Isaac Newton once had faith that there must have been something or force pulling objects toward each other. Then he laid out the ground work for today modern world, such as car, airplane, space exploration. He didn’t have any particular reason to believe that “something” ever existed. Regardless, yes, I agree with you, there must be a reason or reasons. “Faith” doesn’t mean “not to ask question”. Blessing!
@@kuantumdot apparently god allows suffering cos it leads to a greater good, so i cause as much pain and suffering as humanly possible cos it's going to be sooooooooo great for someone some time in the future and i imagine i am guaranteed a place in heaven.
@@OneTrueScotsman odd you should say that cos isn't the reason god hides that you can't know for certain he exists, isn't "faith" the WHOLE POINT of the christian mythology? it's a bad day when an atheist has to explain how your religion works. if you're certain god exists you're doing something wrong mate.
@@kuantumdot Calling a theory "faith" is just wrong. You can observe things drop the ground. It happens all the time. Ergo, there is a pretty good chance there is a reason. God does not show up similarly. I realize Christians will probably say otherwise, but if you can't convince a good-faith observer, then you are not convincing. You can convince me things drop to the ground. You cannot convince me (at least I have yet to be convinced by Christians and their lack of evidence) Jesus rose from the dead or many other things Christianity asserts. If you feel you do have proof, feel free to show it.
The last section on evil was a really good conversation. Alex's challenges were good, and I think Barron's arguments were compelling, however, as is usually going to be the case, their worldviews shaped how they saw the end product (which is pretty much the case for all of us). But it was great to see them really hashing things out!
Question: Is it the problem of "evil" as much as the problem of "suffering". Breaking it down as simply and quickly as possible for time and space sake, allowing/granting free will allows for evil, but it is more the unnecessary suffering, whether from natural disasters, a baby born with cancer, that seems more problematic to many. Would just appreciate your thoughts. Best Regards.
@@Hazay19 Yh I think it's a good point. I'm no apologist but I know that the usual distinction is made between 'natural' evil vs 'human' evil. So Alex's emphasis on suffering seems to be on the 'natural' evil side and I think Alex actually has a good point here. It is certainly the case that seemingly unnecessary sufferings, as you listed, are a big problem because from a Christian perspective (as is Barron's point) we simply can't give an ultimate reason as to why they happen. In philosophical circles, the free will answer largely deals with human evil, so natural evil tends to be much more difficult to deal with because of its emotional/existential and non-controllable nature. But there are two observations of my own from this against both speakers: 1) ALEX - Alex states in the video that he is ok with not having all the answers to life; this is part of his atheist viewpoint. He says that it is a bit arrogant to suggest that one religion (such as Christianity) does have all the answers. But when Barron says that he doesn't have the ultimate answer to evil (aside from the work of Christ of course), Alex almost seems to not be satisfied with this. Alex tries to push Barron to give a full explanation when Barron has already stated that Christianity doesn't = all the answers being known. 2) BARRON - Barron missed an opportunity to talk about the fall of man in Genesis (of course this depends on how you view Adam and Eve). But Barron maybe could have emphasized that this suffering was not the way that the world was initially intended to be, and that there was a cause of this suffering on earth (at least human suffering) that goes back to Adam and Eve. (Joshua Swamidas has shown that a literal-recent Adam and Eve doesn't contradict origins science which is also helpful.)
teach the children How does all religion start? It starts with the children . Here is a short 4:00 min video that sets the stage. Look it up on TH-cam “Welcome to This World”. Sound familiar?
@@nathanbossoh Swamidas' argument is pretty weak for a variety of reasons. A miniscule "possibility" of a "real" Adam and Eve does not equal a "probability." Science overwhelming points in one direction, and it's more than just the field of anthropology producing the evidence against a real, physical first "pair" of humans.
This is a fascinating discussion to watch, thank you. This respectful manner of debate where people essentially give their side and are open to the other is what I wish all of them were.
I want to thank both sides for a very civil and insightful conversation. I was once a Christian who had many thoughts like Bishop Barron and now am an atheist with many of the same questions as Alex and am finding myself feeling strangely reconciled with both times of my life. I still know nothing but find meaning in trying to figure it all out anyways.
@@repearsonjr Atheists are searching for answers to unanswered questions. Barron and the religious claim to know the answer.....God. That is a dead end
The discussion on the "celebration" of suffering reminded me of the interview between stephen colbert and anderson cooper, where colbert ultimately said he was grateful for the tragedy of his dad and brothers dying. It kind of rides this knife's edge of being odd and perverse, but also demonstrating a deep appreciation for the complexity of life, and the suffering we go through being a part of that
It's honestly the only explanation for the existence of suffering. The other end is just logically nihilism and it explains why SO MANY people nowadays commit suicide. It's a tragedy and a horror that so many have been deprived of the understanding of suffering in our broken world.
@@TacosnZorro well, I personally wouldn't say it "explains" suffering, but I'm kind of an existentialist. I also don't think we need to assume that suffering is justified or has some greater purpose, at least not initially. The argument I start with is that we can either choose to view life as a good thing, or view it as cruel and not worthwhile. I'd rather choose the former. And, suffering is an intrinsic part of life, so what do you do with that? The story of Job is gut-wrenching and apparently cruel, but I think it says something that it's the oldest part of the Bible. I think it appears cruel because our idea of God now is very personal, but if you view God in this story as "nature" or "reality", I think it makes more sense. I don't expect nature to care about me, but I am trying to survive in it- and I need to respect it and be grateful for it. Even though it might try to kill me at times haha, it has also given me the chance to live at all.
Oh, and I forgot to mention how job's wife embodies the second choice: "curse God and die." Give up, because life is awful. He chooses to have faith in God/reality, and the moral of the story is that is the correct choice. Which I think is wise
@mike mcmike right. I think a lot of people fall on the wrong side of the knife's edge so to speak, and they talk about suffering like it's a "good" thing. I try to have grace for that, because I think they are close to being correct. It's just being expressed clumsily
@mike mcmike I definitely see what you mean, although at this point it gets a little murky, trying to imagine exactly what "God" is. Like I said, I think imagining a personal omnipotent God makes less sense here. Imo, the old testament talks about God more like he is nature itself, with his rigid rules and consequences. I often like to start in the realm of utility- what attitude would be useful for me to have about suffering. That conversation is easier to have. Then maybe later, after establishing a lot of common ground with someone, discuss metaphysics and more traditional views of God.
Justin, excellent job again! Thank you for being an amazing host to an awesome show. I came here once again to watch Alex debate, but I love how professionally and kindly you run these. Long time listener from Japan
Alex I am grateful that you are exploring your own understanding about God and faith. I was once young and doing the same thing, and converted to the Catholic faith when I was in college. That was 45 years ago. The journey of my faith is continuous and always evolving--and I am so very grateful. More than anything, I want people to know and understand how very much God loves them. It literally saved my life. I am praying for you daily and I know you will find your way. God bless you always.
"I want people to know and understand how very much God loves them. It literally saved my life. I am praying for you daily and I know you will find your way." What an awful condescending thing to say wrapped in a loving comment. Wich God exactly? The one from the bible? I doubt that because that´s not a loving God at all.
@@peteraschaffenburg1 I did not intend for the post to sound at all condescending and I am sorry if it sounded that way to you and others. Thank you for your feedback.
The Christian God requires that we not question his motives, that we love and worship him even though he is fully permitted to destroy even his most devout followers' lives (and has done so, if you believe the story of Gob) on a whim, or to settle a bet with the devil. No one asked Jesus to die for our sins, but now the Church is holding that act over our heads as though we owe God something for doing us a favor we didn't ask him to perform, and otherwisewe will burn and scream and choke and cry in hell forever. But God loves you! That doesn't sound like love, it doesn't sound like a blessing, it sounds like emotional manipulation and blackmail
@@Dumbstuffwatcher You sound very angry. My life experience is very different from what you describe, and we can disagree. Thank you for your honest feedback.
That natural progression of growing a friendship and building trust that Bishop Barren described: it's too bad we can't have that with a deity that doesn't make themself plain to us. If you need faith or trust to believe they exist you've turned the whole model upside down.
Faith- “ my response to the self- revealing God”- I can never forget that. For an Atheist, Alex has more “Christian” thinking than most Christians I have come across. Great conversation. Thank you.
I came into this video with the biases of a non-believer. Even so I enjoyed it and found it very pleasant compared to most debates on the subject. I did not have my mind changed but I will say the first 40 minutes or so was some of the best apologetics I have seen in a very long time. Alex started to hit the nail on the head and drive it home in the later half, but until that point a younger me might have came away with a different mindset
Alex misses that the "good" is necessarily logically prior to what is not good. It all starts from the goodness of things. He's a young man and deeply moved by the reality of suffering here and now. Bishop Barron's point is solid. And even God can't create something perfect and infinite... for that is God. He can however share his being, his goodness. And incidentally , of course God is personal and not an "it" although transcending our knowledge. But we can still know a great deal as Bishop Barron and Aquinas show us.
What Alex misses is that suffering can only exist if you believe in good. Suffering cannot exist to an atheist. That explains the cognitive dissonance and Alex's grasping for an answer. He has not yet learned in life to accept suffering. As humans, we experience suffering, but we can also know that there is a deeper meaning of ultimate good. They are not mutually exclusive. Alex seems to only be able to entertain one viewpoint at a time. It's like when you are working towards a goal - say running a marathon - there will be suffering, you will experience pain, but you also know that there is a bigger picture to the pain. That is the tragic human condition. We are aware of our suffering.
@@aisthpaoithtTaking Genesis literally, we could have been allowed to stay in suffering-less Eden forever if God hadn’t put a serpent in the garden. Suffering, then, is a choice God made.
I showed this episode to my bishop recently, and he and my clerical brothers agreed - wow, we kind of need these guys, don't we? These "learned atheists" are serving a wonderful "check and balance" purpose. Now that is mindboggling if you ask me:)
gosh, that was patronising. apparently god allows suffering cos it leads to a greater good, so i cause as much pain and suffering as humanly possible cos it's going to be sooooooooo great for someone some time in the future and i imagine i am guaranteed a place in heaven.
@Caroline Rose Ah, but they can in theory, still keep their POSITION, and harm many people, in wars, pogroms, an Inquisition, etc, and get less open chastisement, than one man collecting sticks on Sabbath got, or people using the wrong incense, in a ceremony? (Numbers 15 and 16) Or can pour fuel on later fires by translating the word 'typoi' in 1 Corinthians 10, making it lean more towards racialistic and hereditary blame of Jews - or something...
@@HarryNicNicholas God doesn't create evil, but allows us to freely decide between good and evil, for what merit would be there into doing good things without an effort, but by force of nature? Moral responsability and moral desert is predicated on being able to make such choices. The actions that are worthy of most praise, those that are most noble, are precisely those done by agents that had every reason to give up, to do otherwise, but kept going, in spite of all difficulties. Not being able to take the easy way out, would rob these actions of their nobility and splendour, in the eyes of God. Because God wants noble beings to exist and to shine his light on creation, and because God values merit and being able to do the hard things that are good despite easy alternatives, therefore he wants beings to exist that have the capacity for evil. Does a good father teach his children by forcing them to do the right thing? No, for they would continue to be children. Maturation requires that they have options, requires having temptation stare you in the face and choosing not to yield to it. A good father teaches his children to be strong in the most dire situations.
@Caroline Rose Except the argument makes no sense either way. If God creates a universe in which there will be equal or more suffering than not, then it would have been immoral to create a universe that contains beings that can suffer in the first place, especially if you are going to include an eternal state of suffering for specific individuals. What makes it so disturbing on the side of theists, such as the Bishop, is that they are basing their view that God is good and all this suffering is worth it on faith. The problem of evil has very little to do with why I don't believe that God exists though, but it is still something I have thought about a lot. That argument is only an argument against the Abrahamic God anyway.
I think it's always hard to combat the "god and his works is unknowable" position as it is unfalsifiable. Alex was as usual coherent and thoughtful. This conversation highlights both the huge divide between atheism and belief in an all knowing all powerful god but also the ability for two people with such opposing views to have a thoughtful and respectful conversation.
"hard to combat the 'god and his works is unknowable' position as it is unfalsifiable"---- One must not confuse permission with intention. God never requires nor intends evil. Evil, as a non-thing, is by definition irrational, pointless, and un-knowable. Peace be with you.
@@andrewferg8737 True, one cannot define the nature of Evil without using the negation of the concept of Good, hence, the metaphysical starting point of the whole question cannot be focused on the use of Evil a thing itself. I think it has to do with our own intrinsic way of perceiving life and existence themselves, Good is almost something you physiologically feel, for example when you're relaxed, when you eat food and drink, even when you breath your deep consciousness already elaborates that as something "Good" for you, and when you lack air in your lungs for just some seconds your mind is just going nuts and feeling terrible, bad, "evil"... It reminds me of the first verses of Genesis when God is creating everything and after every creative period he repeats: "this is Good". There must be surely something transcendent, something outside the limits of reason and individual consciousness about the nature of Good, and as christians (I'm a Roman Catholic like Bishop Barron) we know that very well
@@didacus199 I find that the popular atheistic formulation for the "problem of evil" does not represent a valid question. It demands an explanation for what is by definition irrational--- that is "evil". The atheist (and some theists unfortunately) confuse permission with intention. There can be many rational reasonings for God's permissive will. There are, however, no rational explanations for evil. Evil is never required, nor does God ever intend evil.
Then you don't critique it on rational grounds, but moral or pragmatic grounds at that point. There may well be an invisible, undetectable teapot near Jupiter, but if it makes no difference in my life practically speaking, or even causes demonstrable harm to believe such a thing, then we have reason to dismiss such a notion altogether.
@@Magnulus76 Existence is neither invisible nor undetectable in its effects and is profoundly informative of all that is. It would unreasonable to posit the non-existence of existence.
hear is another great show How does all religion start? It starts with the children . Here is a short 4:00 min video that sets the stage. Look it up on TH-cam “Welcome to This World”. Sound familiar?
Was an excellent discussion. It is all about one's belief. God is infinite and all loving. I believe Bishop Barron said it well, "one should never start with the pain and suffering, as you'll be on shaky ground".
I appreciated Justin pulling conversation towards the pragmatic and experiential, because that is where it hits home for so many of us. Tragedy can strike at an early age, but as the years pass we become more contemplative. I experienced acute suffering and death of my spouse, and was afforded the opportunity to sense God’s presence and peace through the process. I didn’t expect that, and to be clear I didn’t, and still don’t, want it, but it changed me. In a visceral way, not through reason or intellect, my faith was affirmed.
@@Dumbstuffwatcher I think it was based on his personal life experience, knowing himself, his beliefs, how his mind works, how his emotions work, how his senses work and then experiencing something that was not from himself or from "beyond" himself that he knew from intuition, that it was divine. As to being able to "prove" it was God, that is not possible, because God is always greater (as Bishop Barron reminds us) than our rational mind's ability to comprehend. Finally, I would say that is where "faith" comes in, which is the ability beyond reason for us to "know" God exists and he is trustworthy.
Love the dialouge...very informative and fruitful. I would love to see Father Spitzer, Father Gregory Pine, Roy Abraham Varghese, or Peter Kreeft...Bishop Barron did a great job!!! I like how Alex is very respectful and seems to be open minded.
teach the children How does all religion start? It starts with the children . Here is a short 4:00 min video that sets the stage. Look it up on TH-cam “Welcome to This World”. Sound familiar?
The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose. (Such as Religious Books full of immoral thougth, hypocrite argument and Sophistry) An evil soul producing holy witness Is like a villain with a smiling cheek, A goodly apple rotten at the heart. O, what a goodly outside falsehood hath! William Shakespeare, The Merchant
Till 325 AD, not a single historian or writer wrote about Jesus Christ or any of his disciples . BEFORE THE FIRST COUNCIL OF NICEA IN 325 AD, NOBODY ON THIS PLANET EVER HEARD OF THE NAMES JESUS CHRIST OR CHRISTIANITY. JESUS/ BIBLE / CHRISTIANTY WAS COOKED UP IN 325 AD, BY JEWESS HELENA , WHO SAT ON THE POPE'S CHAIR.. "Vatican is Evil terrorist satanic organisation." If Satan does exist, then he thrives inside the Roman Catholic Church. The dead sea scrolls covering the period from Birth of Jesus to 68 AD , does NOT say one word about Jesus or his 12 Apostles. In the entire first Christian century Jesus is not mentioned by a single Greek or Roman historian, religion scholar, politician, philosopher or poet. His name never occurs in a single inscription, and it is never found in a single piece of private correspondence. Zero! Zip references. Till 325 AD, not a single historian or writer wrote about Jesus Christ or any of his disciples . BEFORE THE FIRST COUNCIL OF NICEA IN 325 AD, NOBODY ON THIS PLANET EVER HEARD OF THE NAMES JESUS CHRIST OR CHRISTIANITY. JESUS/ BIBLE / CHRISTIANTY WAS COOKED UP IN 325 AD, BY JEWESS HELENA , WHO SAT ON THE POPE'S CHAIR.. "Vatican is Evil terrorist satanic organisation." If Satan does exist, then he thrives inside the Roman Catholic Church. The dead sea scrolls covering the period from Birth of Jesus to 68 AD , does NOT say one word about Jesus or his 12 Apostles. । Hellenistic philosopher Philo Judaeus of Alexandria (20 BCE-50 AD/CE)-alive at the purported time of Jesus, and one of the wealthiest and best connected citizens of the Empire- makes no mention of Christ, Christians or Christianity in his voluminous writings. Nor do any of the hundreds of other historians and writers who flourished during the first THREE centuries of the common era. The DEAD SEA SCROLLS were all written by Pagan Essenes . None of them have been edited by later Christians, as is the case with some other Jewish literature. All the scrolls (except a treasure map known as the Copper Scroll) can be dated prior to A.D. 68 or 69, when the Qumran settlement was believed to have been destroyed by the Romans in the Jewish revolt. The oldest of the scrolls probably goes back to the middle of the third century B.C. The people of Qumran belonged to a Pagan religious group known as the Essenes. Pliny the Elder, who died during the volcanic destruction of Pompeii in the year 79 A.D., described a community of pagan Essenes living on the western shore of the Dead Sea, close to where Khirbet Qumran is situated. John the Baptist was an ascetic Essene . He was a vegan and was uncircumcised . Various literary sources like Josephus and Philo tell clearly that Essenes were ascetics. We also know, from literary testimony, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the archaeological remains of Qumran, that the Essenes practiced many water baptisms for ritual purification-similar to a dip in the Ganges or the river Pampa or at Thiirunelli. At Qumran, however, all members of the community were baptized with water for ritual purification. Josephus writes, "And as for their piety towards God, it is very extraordinary; for before sunrising they speak not a word about profane matters, but put up certain prayers which they have received from their forefathers, as if they made a supplication for its rising" (Wars, 2.8.5). This testimony accords well with what we know from the Dead Sea Scrolls. Prayer and humility was one thing that the Essenes . When they cooked up stories about Jesus they wrote that Jesus Christ ate the Last Supper in the Essene part of town. Jesus is not historical character, The Dead Sea Scrolls have produced increasing evidence to cement the fact that Jesus Christ never existed and the whole story was cooked up at the First Council of Nicea in 325 AD. The FAKE gospels were written after 325 AD after Jesus was cooked up at the first Council of Nicea.. Twelve apostles of Jesus never existed. Jesus Christ names 12 apostles to spread his gospel, and the early Christian church owes its rapid rise to their missionary zeal. Yet, for most of the Twelve, there's scant evidence of their existence outside of the New Testament.
The sign this was a great debate: I'm something like an agnostic, and every time one of them spoke I went from theist to atheist to theist to atheist...
@@pop3stealth97 I think his religious views are kind of... well, let's say strange. He just defines "truth" as something totally different than its usual definition. I do think he has quite a few interesting views though.
I'd like to make you a suggestion: try talking to God instead of only thinking about it. Say the Lord's prayer twice a day, and talk honestly to God about your doubts and ask God for the truth. You have nothing to lose. Worst case scenario, you tried.
Maybe, but he was contradicting himself. Faith was supposed to be rational in his argument, and yet it is based on emotional appeal. On feelings of trust, not data and arguments.
@@ontariolacus When you trust a person, it's not devoid of reason and evidence. It's not irrational to trust a person. It just also involves more than that. I think that's what his point is: faith isn't less than reason, because it involves reason to the fullest extent it can go. It just includes more than that as well.
@@repentantrevenant4451 the argument is does it consist of sufficient reason, either it does and is therefore indistinguishable from reason, or it doesn't and therefore is not reasonable.
@@repentantrevenant4451 when you trust a person based on evidence, then it is rational. But you mean emotional trust, so it is not rational. That's it.
Nice job, Alex, Bishop Barron and Justin! It is refreshing to have an engaging, respectful exchange of ideas, I too would have liked the discussion to have continued as the topic of suffering was taking center stage. As a life-long Catholic, I too have had to confront challenges to faith - presented by evil and suffering in the world and by the limits imposed by rational/reasoned thought itself. I volunteered in Calcutta at Mother Teresa’s Home for the Dying (Nirmal Hriday), an extraordinary experience that I would recommend to anyone. In his book on the suffering of Christ: I thirst - Fr. Joseph Langford writes that an Indian mullah [who had gone to Nirmal Hriday]. “After once silently observing incarnate love in action [the love that the Missionaries of Charity sisters, Mother Teresa and volunteers showed to the destitute and dying] said to Mother Teresa: ‘All my life I have known that Jesus was a prophet. But today I know that He is God, for only a God could give that kind of joy in serving one’s fellow man’”. I believe this is where the key is to understanding suffering. First, that we will never fully understand it, but rather that it is only a God who could ever have the possibility of doing so. Secondly, as with the Mullah, it is only our own love, expressed even to the point of loving and caring as to be done joyfully that provides a visible truth of a loving God who inspires this in all of us.
How did that mullah know it HAD to be a God that gave us the capacity for joy and love and kindness? And if that were the case, how cannwe be sure it's the Christian God specifically, and not the God or gods of any of the other thousands of religions?
I left the Church almost 30 years ago. Bishop Barron did nothing to make me regret leaving. It actually reinforced my reasons for giving up believing Christian theodicy. Alex did a wonderful job of countering the Bishop’s word play.
the joy of children How does all religion start? It starts with the children . Here is a short 4:00 min video that sets the stage. Look it up on TH-cam “Welcome to This World”. Sound familiar?
It should have been much shorter and got to the big issues quicker. Barron just wanted to use the cosmological argument and I agree that it got interesting around 1hrour mark, becasue Barron was floundering on the issue of suffering. Alex was very dignified, I would have pointed to examples of suffering caused by the direct actions of the catholic church clergy on children.
@@Emmalittlepengelly1690 I am sure Alex focused on natural suffering to avoid the free will response for intentional evil perpetrated by rational beings.
@@HauxYZ250 Why? The "free-will defense" is indefensible. It is false according to Christian doctrine and the Bible. If evil is a necessary consequence of free-will, then Heaven is either full of automatons without free-will or there is evil in Heaven (in which case, it would not be Heaven by definition).
@@MrFungus420 It’s not a necessary consequence of free will. It is logically possible that all rational creatures could freely choose to not commit evil.
As an atheist, I can say that Bishop Barron is an intelligent, warm and interesting individual. It was a pleasure to appreciate his ideas.
Well said.
While not definitionally an aspect of atheism, I cannot help but observe that atheists will often express a “faith” that science will eventually explain the origin of matter/energy/laws of nature question/problem....in spite of the contingency problem.
While Christians can intelligently explain the rational need for an uncaused cause (e.g. god), I don’t understand the leap to specific religions (e.g. Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc.).
I understand a middle ground between those two positions to be something like deism.
@@StrategicWealthLLC Christians believe that the deist God has revealed himself so that we can know him much better, deeper and in a more meaningful way. The claim of the Bible (Abrahamic faiths) is that the deist God has revealed more about himself than we could have known by our reasoning alone. He freely revealed all these information in the Bible in order to communicate his message of salvation for us.
@@Lerian_V - Thanks.
@@StrategicWealthLLC I'll offer some respectful pushback on your comment about atheists needing faith that science will explain things eventually. It's not faith, it is expectation based on evidence and the trajectory of past events.
@@TheRealShrike I think he doesn't mean that atheists see science as a "vehicle" or "replacement" for God, but that, as you stated, they expect science to answer the questions that humans could have about the world, now and in the future. Which is a position I think could be defended if you include philosophy amongst those sciences. I don't think purely material science could possibly answer many aspects of reality.
I'm not a catholic myself, but bishop Barron sounds like a warm, openminded person. He's very polite and doesnt get his ego conflicted in his arguments. This is the goal of christianity. Love, kindness, courage and little ego. He's a true christian.
He’s a member of an organisation which has hidden up child abuse and which makes condom wearing against the teachings despite it causing misery and deaths of millions.
@@MarlboroughBlenheim1 This is not true
Although his views on hell I still find toxic. But, then, I usually do.
Especially the 'choosing' bit. Ever since Paul drastically overstated the case, for Romans 1:20... it's gotten more and more clunky.@@flexzone7045
Or mayhaps, a true Christian who has found success on their path. Others are taking their time making something of themselves. Not there yet, but trying. And a man like this is the perfect example for those to look too. Good for I as an athiest to look too.
Still unable to demonstrate his batshit crazy beliefs are true, though.
Alex and Bishop Barron both did an amazing job. This is how a religious debate should go.
I disagree. Barron defended weak deism, not Christianity. He hardly addressed the premise of the entire debate. A Muslim, Hebrew, or Mormon could’ve been in his seat using the same words and it would’ve been the same.
@@bobloblaw4102 Yes, you are right. Barron didn't push insistently for Christian understanding of God or for unique Christian dogmas and doctrines. He himself even declares this 38:30-38:45.
Barron is useing the classic 2 step apologetic. (Step 1: Argue for general theism or some sort of basic causal contingency. Then step 2: argue for a specific religious view on God, i.e. for the Christian God specifically known from the scriptures and the revelation of the person and work of Jesus Christ- the only begotten Son of God. This approach is not the only apologetic approach, but is a popular and usually sufficient approach. For interest in other Apologetic approaches see Five Views of Apologetics by Steven B. Cowan, zondervan Publishing, 2000)
Regardless though my point as to why this is a "good debate" is because it was civil, humble, and kind towards each other. Both Alex and Bishop Barron listened to each other, thought about what the other was saying. Asked meaningful and relevant questions and gave meaningful and relevant comments. They did not just spout their own talking points and dictums as so many debaters do.
Far too many Christian and Atheist debates are conducted in such a way that neither side listens, nor cares to even hear what the other says.
So while neither Alex nor Bishop Barron makes a demonstrable case for their own positions respectively, and while neither "won" so to speak, and while neither destroyed the other with some particular piece of rhetoric or sophisty, both humbly presented a section of their idea, and allowed for a kind but critical diologue on the topic, allowing the conversation to go where the conversation ended up going.
The nature of the unbelievable podcast doesn't afford either man the time they need to properly debate and tell the full story. If that is what you were looking for, other more formal debates and scenarios are more likely to provide that.
Agreed. It was a conversation, and provides a lot of food for thought, while not resolving. But the point of discussion was Christian or Athiest, and as such God is assumed as Christian by the question. There are many Christian examples chosen too
@@andrewmorgensen326
civility is all very well, but it does risk an absurd argument getting more respect than it deserves. I think all too often, respect for your opponent gets confused with an unwillingness to be frank regarding their ideas, and I think Alex lets his opponents get away with far too much sometimes. The opposite of a shouting match is not a passive refusal to confront a bad argument.
@@bengreen171 I don't see Bishop Barron nor Alex presenting an "absurd" argument. Nor is either of them passive..they both seem quite frank to me in pointing out places they agree and disagree with each other. I'm not sure what it is that Alex let's his opponents get away with?
Yes, they did not shout or berate or scoff at each other, but I also don't see how it is that either of them failed to confront a "bad argument".
Bishop Barron makes me so proud to be Catholic! God bless you!
Well said.
And Alex is a brilliant example of how to live good fulfilling lives without this belief. I think it’s a little odd to make this comment without also mentioning that Alex is a good person and lives for lack of a better term “Christlike”
@@homeofthefree8656 I never said that Alex isn’t a good person. I can’t judge that because I don’t know him. Me saying that Bishop Barron makes me proud to be a Catholic doesn’t mean I don’t think that Alex is a good person. I do think he’s a good person even though I didn’t explicitly say that
@ my mistake, so how does being respectful in debate make you a proud Catholic? What did he say about the faith that makes it worth praise to you? Can this sentiment not be derived from Alex’s worldview?
Of all the time I've wasted today, this has been the most worthwhile.
Lmao well said.
@@bearistotle2820 Thanks for the reply. I have started a channel TheXaminedLIfe for the positive discussion of ideas from the tremendously important to the trivial but interesting. My goal is also to raise money for Doctors without Borders, Feeding America, and Oxfam. Just getting started pretty cringeworthy with 15 subs. You're welcome to become # 16.
Definitely not time wasted, these are the important questions!
Lmao
God be with you
Wow! This was great! I'm a Catholic and I really loved the nature of Alex. A kind man with a sense of acceptance and understanding and with great formidable arguments. Also, Bishop Barron never disappoints me :")
Did you thank God for the corona virus already?
@@thorhansen1333 way to tackle the topic
@Avingay Anfordstay where does the nature of god come from?
@Avingay Anfordstay
Belief in christianity is like belief in Bigfoot-ism.
@Avingay Anfordstay
Einstein was a pantheist, didn't believe in a personal savior. Francis Collins himself admits he doesn't have a good argument for christianity. I could go on for days.
While not a Catholic (yet), I really appreciate the theological intellect of Bishop Barron. As a searching pilgrim, I really enjoyed this conversation.
I advise you strongly to be aware that Catholicism and Christianity are not two identical entities. Be very careful in your search.
Yes, a true follower of Jesus is Christian by definition. But what other label is safe to put on him? Catholic? Protestant? Baptist? Jehovah's witness? Only Bible can tell you. If you ever choose to get serious with Christianity, then follow Christ and not people. Pray for your answer, wait for an answer from God. Make sure it is no pure accident.
Be careful you don’t fully absorb the hell and damnation part of catholicism. I’ve heard too many stories of people who left the faith but, despite having realized the church’s doctrines are illogical and baseless, can never fully rid themselves of the horror of hell, even though they’re convinced that place doesn’t actually exist
@@kyoglesageI think the whole “fire and brimstone” characterization is widely characterized to be an evangelical fundamentalist idea, even though it is not fundamentally necessary that this is the case
If you fulfil John 14:12, we'll believe you.
Otherwise, watch Barron make excuses for hell, on another vid.
It gets... so... wool gather-y!
Meantime, a lot of us, choose not to wait. Not indefinitely.@@DartNoobo
@@zero_gravity5861 catholics only recently and only under the pressure by public admitted that there is no hell as a fiery place of eternal torment. But they still insist that there is hell after death.
This debate piqued my interest of and curiosity about Catholicism. I was baptized and confirmed in the 2023 Easter vigil at Saint Louis De Montfort church of Fishers IN.
After this debate I hunted down every lecture and homily presented by Bishop Barron as I stripped and stained my fence during Summer of 2021. I spent the next year attending Mass every week and finally completing the RCIA program.
Thank you Bishop Barron, today I have an incredible, fulfilling life that I never imagined possible
That’s amazing, welcome home ✝️
What an amazing testimony! Welcome home🙏🏼
I just thought I'd come straight to the comments to hear the real experts
teach the children How does all religion start? It starts with the children . Here is a short 4:00 min video that sets the stage. Look it up on TH-cam “Welcome to This World”. Sound familiar?
... Ha ha ha... I like it... Very funny!!! 👍😜🇮🇪
@@michaelcallaghan3070 👋🇦🇺
Made me laugh. Good sense of humor.
😂 + 😢 meta-comment on the state of online discourse.
Also, as an atheist, I was extremely impressed by the way Bishop Barron presented his arguments. A very intelligent and charismatic individual.
Yes. The first time I heard him, I just couldn't stop listening. He is erudite, but also engaging and accessible.
Still unable to demonstrate his batshit crazy beliefs are true, though.
Yeah he's an idiot!.. oh wait
Alex is intelligent. He asks the bold questions. And Bishop Barron never disappoints. The passage of the Bible where Jesus says 'Don't worry about what to say, the Holy Spirit will give you what to say' is really at play in Bishop Barron.
Doesn't that mean we have no free will, if I can simply sit back and let the "Holy Spirit" simply hand me what to say?
@@thanksforbeingausefulidiot9016 Nope. you are always free to assent or not. We do that instant by instant, even in these exchanges.
@@tommore3263 So I get the correct words handed to me on a silver platter by the "Holy Spirit", but I might choose to ignore them. That reminds me of the time God handed me the winning Powerball numbers but I said no thanks, I'll come up with better numbers on my own. Because that's a thing.
Except it isn’t at work in him at all because he couldn’t even answer him at 53:05 about what a definition of faith is- when we have an actual definition of it recorded and explained in the Bible. It’s ridiculous.
It’s exactly why so many turn away from Christianity
@Ethan Danan It's called an analogy.
I love the way Alex rarely, if ever, resorts to hyperbole, unauthentic or specious arguments, or engages in ad hominem attacks.
Man this was good. I’ve been following Alex O’Connor for several years now. And I’ve found his arguments pretty impenetrable on most fronts. But Bishop Baron made some great points. I’m gonna have too look up more stuff on him. Mad respect to both of them.
Which good point did he make again? I didn't find any
Well said! Totally agree with you Bishop Barron was really respectful, knowledgeable and made some very strong and rational arguments for theism with out appealing to emotion or using rhetoric as Alex did. ❤️
@@roneldsilva546 The Bishop seemed to think he made good points, you're welcome to disagree with him though.
@@roneldsilva546
Hi Ronel Alex was very polite but his constant appeals to emotion didn’t work at this level of debate. I think it speaks volumes that Bishop Barron was unbelievably patient and didn’t use any of these rhetorical devices. These kind of rhetorical devices utilised by Hitchens who Alex is trying to emulate don’t work at this level of debate and honesty because it stands out like a sore thumb when used against someone who is genuinely trying to engage with you as a person in your own right and respect where you’re coming from. Nevertheless, I’m impressed by Alex’s work ethic especially if he genuinely believes he is holding this world view for moral and ethical reasons. Also many of the issues raised by Alex are important as they are a good learning tool for those who are genuinely searching for truth. I found Bishop Barron very honest and more clear but also more nuanced in his explanations. This speaks volumes because if you’re going to constantly appeal to morals and ethics like Alex did then you need detailed hard evidence that you can ground values such as morals and ethics in the materialistic/atheistic paradigm. But the fact is that you can’t as appeals to values such as morals and ethics are a metaphysical presupposition that is a transcendental category that obviously can’t be grounded in the materialistic/atheistic paradigm as everything is just arbitrary and ad hoc under this world view. No offence intended all the best to you.
❤️
You can’t ground metaphysical presuppositions that is transcendental categories such as values like morals and ethics, not to mention logic and empiricism in the materialistic/atheistic paradigm as it excludes these things because they are arbitrary and are clearly ad hoc under this world view. However, you can ground metaphysics in the qualitative subjective experience of mind and consciousness/theism. Because mind and consciousness is fundamental unassailable and irreducible to “matter”. Hence the common term among experts on mind and consciousness (The Hard Problem of Consciousness). Ironically it’s only a “hard problem” if you assume that “matter” is all there is to reality and existence. The double irony is that quantum physicists agree that we don’t even know what “matter” or substance actually is (Roger Penrose/Richard Feynman). It is clearly incoherent to complain about people finding some kind of meaning in suffering by appeals to “matter” and morality when under the materialistic paradigm morality and ethics are just the by product of a blind, mindless, pitiless and merciless process and are just arbitrary and ad hoc. This is begging the question when we don’t even know what “matter” is as “matter” is a theoretical abstraction of the mind. Alex clearly knows morality is a big problem for atheists which is why Alex struggles with Richard Dawkins because Dawkins is actually a consistent materialist/atheist. Dawkins, Nietzsche, Hume and Quine were all consistent atheists.
For example Nietzsche is viewed as one of the founding fathers of the very harmful religion of eugenics and Richard Dawkins tweeted to 2.8 million followers that eugenics would work on humans and on a separate occasion when he was asked about values and whether the rape and murder of a child was immoral he responded that the (belief) that the rape and murder of a child is immoral is as arbitrary as the fact that we evolved five fingers instead of of six. Most people naturally recoil in disgust at this cold response to such an horrific and evil act committed against a child. But Dawkins was just being consistent with the materialistic/atheistic paradigm as morals are just ad hoc and arbitrary under this world view. I don’t subscribe to this world view because it is obvious that materialists are completely blind to the elephant in the room because the bereaved parents of children who have been raped and murdered would beg to differ that their belief that this was evil and depraved “is as arbitrary as the fact that we evolved five fingers instead of six” !!. It’s clearly an absurd and potentially harmful world view as it could easily lead to nihilism and fatalism!!
(Arbitrary) “based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.” (Oxford Dictionary). The bereaved families of the victims of the Nazis eugenics policy would also beg to differ with Dawkins claim that eugenics “would work on humans”.
You can’t ground values in the materialistic paradigm!!. Objective morality is so unbelievably compelling and points to a deeper and transcendent value which is why this has been a big part of many atheists rejection of their atheism/materialism and their move towards the belief in the fundamental nature of mind and consciousness/theism/God. The fundamental nature of mind and consciousness is more logical and has the greatest explanatory power and is the most parsimonious hypothesis.
The belief in the qualitative subjective experience of reality such as love, altruism, bravery, beauty, self sacrifice, morals, ethics, meaning and purpose, that is mind and consciousness/theism is just a default position until materialists can provide empirical evidence that “matter” is all that there is to reality. However, the fact is that “we cannot empirically observe matter outside and independent of mind, for we are forever locked in mind. All we can observe are the contents of perception, which are inherently mental. Even the output of measurement instruments is only accessible to us insofar as it is mentally perceived.” (Bernardo Kastrup)
At least be a consistent materialist/atheist like Dawkins, Nietzsche, Hume, Dennette and Quine etc.
“logic is an illusion” (Nietzsche)
“You can’t get an (ought) out of an (is) - (David Hume)
“The Two Dogmas of Empiricism” (W. Quine)
“Consciousness is Just the brain's 'user illusion' of itself” (Daniel Dennette)
“logical positivism is (self) refuting” (Vienna Circle)
“The belief that the rape and murder of a child is immoral and evil is as arbitrary as the fact that we evolved five fingers instead of six” (Richard Dawkins)
I rest my case!!
Inspiring! This is what the Internet is supposed to be!!! Ideas, enlightenment, civility, wisdom. Barron and O’Connor respected each other’s positions and engaged thoughtfully and persuasively. Thank you for another great episode of this series.
it is a cycle I think, internet civility. people get bored so they get more and more extreme until it becomes kind of toxic. then civility becomes a virtue again until the novelty wears off and it all repeats. think so anyways.
Exactly so... Conversation implies listening 👂 as well as speaking 👄 and requires understanding, intelligence and as you said, civility. Both of them had these in abundance. Bravo 👏!
Bishop Barron's intellect AND Faith on full display here.
I've rarely seen such polite and complex discussion at the same time. Props to all three of them!
Literally a textbook model of how you have this type of conversation. So so awesome
Amazing Bishop Barron, Jesus bless you and the Catholic Church. Amen
Bless the Bishop for patiently combing through the different strands and teasing them out like a rat's nest in a person's hair. It is so fulfilling to have terms defined well-that is the key to finding the common ground necessary for respect and peace.
An atheist here, and I found the Bishop to be remarkably patient and composed. Although I don't agree with a few premises and conclusions of his, but I am nevertheless glad I listened all the way through.
@@noone-jq1xw I'd recommend checking out his videos/work. I think even Atheists such as yourself would really appreciate Barron's work.
Amen...🙏🏻❤️🙏🏻
@@noone-jq1xw I'm very glad to see the fruits of Bishop Barron's work blossoming ever so brightly.
Earlier this summer, I met a teenager who had converted from atheism to Catholicism after he had watched a lot of Bishop Barron (and other apologists... but mainly Bishop Barron) and what he said to be most convincing in Bishop Barron's apologetics is his focus on beauty itself, which is NOT rational or logical in nature, which means that anybody, regardless of their belifs, can appreciate it (unless one has become ENTIRELY deluded by postmodernism (nihilism)... In those cases, they need a personal intuition about or from God, himself, for them to be free from the trap and delusion caused by postmodernism.
I wish you all the best in your searching for the truth, if that is sincerely your ambition.... :P
Merry Christmas and soon-to-be happy New Year!
We need a part two picking up right where this one left off!
Bishop Barron is one of my absolute favorites! A great man. Great conversation, gentlemen!
He's my absolute favourite speaker on Christianity. He's very intelligent and interesting.
Yes! I love listening to Bishop Barron!
You must be an American😂
Late, but I’m pleasantly surprised at how respectful not just this debate but the comment section is.
Good job everyone, we need more legit discussions like this.
Being raised in a catholic school and being exposed to bishop barron both through his word on fire ministry and just youtube clips, I have great respect for Bishop Barron and his works. And as a young athiest I have been watching Alex's videos primarily (I consider him top tier athiest material if not the best) as well as many other athiest channels.
Let me just say that I've always been wanting to hear these two debate and it was phenomenal. I'm surprised this isn't on Trending or more popular because this is truly a great discussion where many important things were discussed in detail and with great passion and care. The best part is the mutual respect and care both O'connor and Barron show towards each other and their arguments. In the entire hour and a half, all were enjoying their discussion and they were truly debating some of the most important parts. We need more great content like this. It far outshines basic apologetics and rash athiest commentary videos. And thank you for your time.
Watch Jay Dyer if you find Cosmic Skeptic compelling.
I have always found Alex O'Connor to be one of the brightest young minds around. This was one of the best debates if not the best debate I have ever seen. This is my first experience listening to Bishop Barron and although I am not Catholic I was very impressed with the bishop and his answers and how he responded to Alex. All that being said I must say that the bishop, in my mind, exposed Alex. I have listened to Alex a number of times in the past and was genuinely concerned for him having been raised Catholic and hoping that he might find his way back to the Christian faith however I have serious doubts now that that will ever happen.
To you. Whats more Likely to exist? God or Santa Claus?
@@mikeyseo i mean... You obviously know best mr. Big brain. Why have billions of people been trying for millions of years to figure out this problem if it only took you a few years?
@@elliotalderson8358 bc most ppl are blinded by their own arrogance and ego. Let’s take you for example. You think bc. U are not smart enough to solve the problem. Neither am I. That’s projecting your own flaws in on me. Quite arrogant n presumptuous
Bishop barron is the finest example of a true intellectual and Christian!
Is it weird to you that I can make the same comment about Alex and his behavior, only he’s not Christian? He lives a life that I think any reasonable Christian would claim is a Christian life.
Difference is Christians think he's going to hell for eternity lmao. Maybe athiests got it right?
Great conversion. Also REALLY good audio all the way around, which is unfortunately rare these days in remote online discussions.
teach the children How does all religion start? It starts with the children . Here is a short 4:00 min video that sets the stage. Look it up on TH-cam “Welcome to This World”. Sound familiar?
The benefit of all participants being established independent broadcasters!
Really loved this, but absolutely loathe the time limits on these kinds of conversations, especially when it’s clear there is more to be said. These are the kinds of discussions that are worth pouring 4-8 hours into. Have lunch. Go for walks and take breaks. Do whatever, but it’s worth having long form dialogues on questions and ideas that mean the most in this life. Very grateful, regardless, for this.
But how much more time could help? Thesis same ideas have been being debated for thousands of years.
@@2Uahoj Where do you draw the line, though? Why even speak of it for an hour if it’s all been said and done before? I agree with amndemo. If the host and the speakers have the time and are willing (seems obvious that both Alex and Bishop Barron were very willing), it should be longer. Like others have said, right when it started to get good, it ended. If there isn’t a specific reason as to why it is an hour or two, it would be great if perhaps the speakers were given the option to go for as long as they’d like. Perhaps, due to many restraints, this may not happen, and perhaps it wouldn’t be as fruitful and entertaining and civilized as it was with Alex and Bishop Barron, but it would be nice to see in some circumstances nonetheless.
@@ZekeMagnar Wish he'd actually gotten INTO free will, though, the Bishop, and how it works, and how it DIFFERS from angels' free will - as I suspect that will turn out to be critical, to many future apologetics. As well as how inevitable was the Fall or not.
@@2Uahoj And people have been convinced by one side or the other. Really smart people have changed their mind on this after reading or discussing with proponents of opposing views. So, it seems there is always value to be found in more conversation, especially in such matters where you have to find and deal with all kinds of underlying difficulties, misunderstandings, conceptual confusions etc.
Suffering is often caused by free will or weaknesses in the human condition. God is love and therefore cannot "cause" evil, but may allow it because we have been given free will. God can however bring a good out of the suffering.
I once heard a Christian on the radio advising his fellow Christians on how to comfort someone who is grieving and asking the question "How could God have allowed this to happen?". His advice was this: Don't even try to explain God's reasons for letting this tragedy happen, because no matter what you say you'll come off sounding like a jerk. That seems wise.
"god kills everyone in the end" is all you need to say. i find that reassuring and honest, let's face it god knew from the outset everyone is going to die.
@@HarryNicNicholas Does that include all the various grotesque ways of dying? I think that could work if people thought all deaths are equal but we don't.
@@kubli365 I mean, it's believed he sent his son to be killed in one of the most painful and humiliating ways at that time. Scripture says that those who are last will be first in heaven, and that this life isn't all there is.
@@MegaAzn I am well aware.
Oh wait I thought this was a different thread lol pardon that. Yeah I see your point.
@@MegaAzn frankly, the lingering death of David's son in 2 Samuel 15 must somewhat compare with crucifixion, for pain.
And just how many stones hit Achan in Joshua 7:24 - and more importantly, it seems, his children, too (of what age?)
And just what did occur in Jeremiah 2:30, and to whom.
Can I just say? I absolutely adore Bishop Barron.
But does he believe you should burn in hell, as he is supposed to? This is why I am always reticent to say "oh isnt he nice" because very often theres something rotten.
@@bertrandrussell894 God doesn't will , wish or cause people to "burn in hell". Hell is the rejection of perfect love for something smaller. My favorite analogue is the tragic figure of an old drug addict looking for his next fix in his chosen hell.
We have free wills and intellects and evil is the free choosing of something lesser while ignoring a higher good. Our intellects and free wills cannot be physical in nature just as the number 3 is not physical and there is no reason to believe this root of our personhood does not continue past physical death.
And if non physical, how do we die... hence eternity which is just the continuance of right now the only time that ever exists.
God gives everyone the grace to know and do better whatever their circumstances but a loving relationship presupposes the freedom not to love; to choose something lesser. Like hell. Burning like an addict. This is not the will of the Author of life who literally IS Love Himself.
@@tommore3263 except none of things you've said make sense if we reject the idea of free will, which makes much more sense in my opinion than having "free will" (both philosophically and scientifically) free will is something people often take for granted not really giving it much of thought, but even if we assume free will, how does commiting temporary, limited in time and space "crimes" against God's love, make it just to suffer an infinite "lack of that love" as you put it, which is very often presented as incredible pain and suffering, I wouldn't call such a God "just".
If God is a cause of everything, he's also a cause of that infinite and unbelievable suffering, so an argument "you chose the punishment willingly" doesn't take the responsibility off of God, he's also a cause for all the thoughts that reject his love (if we assume cosmological argument to be valid). So he's also, even if indirectly, still, responsible for it. And if someone doesn't believe in God, you can't say that he is "willingly choosing to go to hell" that just doesn't make sense, people not believing in hell, acknowledging that they can't know if it exists or not, cannot be said to be "willingly directed at it".
Our intellect is bound to our physical brain, whether you like it or not, there is every reason to think and believe based on reason and evidence that when brain dies, person and their intellect and so called "free will" dies as well, if arithmetics could "cease to exist", its perfectly reasonable to assume that number 3 would cease to exist, or at least stopped making sense (by cease to exist, I mean if it never have had existed) which would be analogous to our brain and mind.
"Non physical", doesn't entail eternal, how did you make sense out of that?
People can't know what's better for them to do whatever their circumstances, in order for that to be true, people would have to be able to perfectly predict the outcome of every decision they make, which is impossible, so no, we don't have a gift like that, we are limited in that regard by our circumstances.
@@bertrandrussell894 Hell is actually the awareness.. eternal .. that we have rejected the most infinitely lovable and chosen something incomparably lesser, just as we choose the low road at times in life and know it. God's will and life is all for you. To the point of even our rejecting Love Himself. Eternally.
Love requires the freedom not to love what is most lovable.
@@polmccharmly6293 You are wasting your time.
Some people are so desperate to live forever that they will believe any hokum no matter how poisonous.
Its sad they won't ever actually find out, but that while alive they have been insufferable and cruel and incoherent.
It's very nauseating... Imagine cuddling up to that kind of dictator and just how little self respect and love for others one has in order to do it. It's creepy.
This is epic! Don't forget to hit like, folks!
James dropping in!
reality How does all religion start? It starts with the children . Here is a short 4:00 min video that sets the stage. Look it up on TH-cam “Welcome to This World”. Sound familiar?
James !!!!
Haha I heard an internal version of James's voice when I read this comment.
James please take notes on how to lead a debate as well making guest address the debate question.
I've been waiting years to see Bishop Barron debate someone on these ideas. He is a master of this type of discourse. Alex O'Connor is intelligent and respectful, which made me happy to see. I wish him all the best.
Bravo to Unbelievable for putting this together! All the best to all who watch!
Bishop Barron is at best a theologist, and very far from the likes of great thinkers and philosophers. I mean no disrespect when I say this but I hope Alex gets on debates with more competent people to bring out the best in him
@@roneldsilva546 yeah because there are no theists in the history of philosophy right? oh wait, thats like 90% of them.
@@rabbitrun777 I never said there are no theists. I just said he’s more of a theologian and not a philosopher.
@@roneldsilva546 lol
@@rabbitrun777 if you look up famous philosophers on Google it displays first the famous pagan Greek philosophers, you then find Immanuel Kant a untraditional theist, Nietzsche who is an atheist then Karl Marx an atheist, Confucius who was another pagan who didn't believe in God, David Hume another atheist.
Bishop Barron used by the Holy Spirit is the reason I became Catholic.
He's my favourite of many great contemporary speakers on Christianity.
What an absolutely excellent, deep, respectful, and sharp discussion!
Absolutely love it!
I wish, more discussions and debates, particularly on this topic, would go about in such a manner.
Thank you so much to all the three of you. Much appreciated.
Thanks to Bishop Barron, I overcame agnosticism and started to dive deeper into my Catholic faith!
God bless you!
Xd
This is what I love to be a Catholic, open to any intellectual discussion. Proud of it!
What about the killing of heretics by previous popes??
@@gabrielthomas777 you act as if humans ought to be infallible.
@@CarapaceClavicle Question is whether they did it because they were catholic or because they were fallible. Maybe in the modern day they wouldn't do it, but you could argue that's because of the development of secular human rights; that otherwise many passages in the bible (stoning of witches) would have continued to support the burning of heretics. Its an interesting question.
Leviticus 24:16: Whoever blasphemes the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall stone him. The sojourner as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death.
@@radscorpion8 Blasphemy is the worst offense any human can commit. It's worse that murder because it's a direct attack on God's person/character. Blasphemers have the propensity for corrupting society on a massive scale. So it's reasonable in a theocratic government to eliminate such evil from the society either by imprisonment or execution, which ever works for the society.
@@CarapaceClavicle Infallible, no. Think before speaking, every time, yes. Every time.
Intelligent, civil discourse like this, regarding this incredibly, even critically important idea is very much appreciated and unfortunately, far too rare!
It's not all that important, actually. We've only been led to believe it is because someone told us we have an eternal soul, and that it's in jeopardy. They invented a problem, and now our culture believes it's "critically important" to address it.
Imagine the infinite number of potentially critically important problems we've never worried about, because they've yet to be conceptualized and brought to the table.
@@-Zer0Dark- Who is this "someone" who "told us", and similarly, who are the "they" who "invented" the "problem"? For that matter, what is the "problem"? Additionally, if this idea is not important, even critically important, then what might be, not including, of course, the as yet, not "conceptualized"? Finally, if the ideas discussed in this conversation between Mr. O'Connor and Bishop Baron are not important, in your view, then why would you spend any time on it, let alone comment in regards to it?
I love Bishop Barron and also at times in this discussion, perhaps because he was speaking with a philosophy major, I felt he was speaking at a level where one would need to be one of the latter to follow some of his points. He's usually is a little more accessible
I've followed Bishop Barron for quite some time now. I have to say this young man spoke very well.
Bishop Barron does such a great job.
This was a very insightful conversation. This is how these very important topics should be discussed, not in a combative or hostile manner. God bless Bishop Barron and Alex. Great job with Justin's moderation too!
the problem for Catholicism really is how it is presented to the masses. When I was young, I have a lot of questions as well that I can't get answers from the people I was asking from. They can't provide philosopical answers that every believers at least should know. Thank God for the youtube videos today that I got the answers enough for me to explore and at have a relationship with Him. Having a somewhat high intellect is both a gift and curse in terms of asking what's the truth behind what is the standard set by the community.
This was riveting! I have been following Bishop Barron for about a year and find his knowledge and intellect of my faith without comparison. But along comes someone, half his age, able to talk on his level and counter his points with the finesse and ability of a seasoned scholar. I have never heard anything like this on You Tube.
Alex is absolutely amazing
you want to get out more, there a rre ton of people wiping the floor with theists who pretend they know everything.
Yeah, Alex is always impressive. Will be interesting to see where his career takes him.
Fabulous! Fairly deep conversation between an almost a passive advocate & searcher and a seasoned sage.
@@HarryNicNicholas your opinion is not to be taken seriously since you are obviously bias, im sure that for you every debate is an atheist winning debate, aint that right?
Holy smokes! That was great! They both were so gracious, respectful and put forth compelling arguments! I could have watched them go back and forth all day!
Brilliant. I love Bishop Barron and I love Alex, both amazing humans
Exactly, I'm an agnostic and respect both
Geeze what a great discussion. 10/10 on both sides. Would love to see a second one with them.
Wow very well explained Bishop Barron. What a revelation. Thank you so much to all of you. GBU all. Greetings from Indonesia
@Nath Krishna tf?
When my dad was dying years ago he said "it's hard to fight two battles." Thanks pop.
I enjoyed listening to both Alex and Bishop Barron.
One thing I did not hear either person state is that a suffering is part of being human & death is part of the cycle of life. That is my view, so rather than expecting life to be easy; without suffering & death, I choose to humbly accept suffering & death as an opportunity to learn. An opportunity to look at a situation I perceive to be difficult from another perspective. I choose to try to learn something and make the most of the experience rather than find someone to blame, because to me; “Life happens”. I can only control my choices & responses to my life and I don’t see God’s purpose to bubble wrap me and prevent me from suffering. In fact, that view robs me of my own power and ability to experience my life.
As a Christian and a parent, I find that sharing this perspective with my children helps them see the world not as a world that exists to please them, rather as a place where good and evil exist and how they respond to those things in their life, will affect the quality of their life.
What about animal suffering? It dwarves human suffering in quantity and has been going on for waaaaaaaay longer
@@felicien93 Animals don't suffer, they feel momentary pain, that's all.
@@Lerian_V Very interesting. However, I am not sure that I understand the difference between pain and suffering. Is what you said the case for all animals or do you think it is possible that some animals suffer?
Do you think it is possible that some humans don't suffer but only feel momentary pain?
And finally, if I experience something bad, how can I know of it is suffering or momentary pain?
My mind swinging like a pendulum from Alex to Bishop Barron and back again.. 🤯.. it’s just mind blowing. I’ve never thought of my existence this deep.
That young Alex is brilliant 👏. I say this as a catholic , to take on such a brain as bishop Barron.
I have learned quite a bit from both.
barron strikes me as a nincompoop, what does "supra-rational" mean ffs? does he make up shit ALL the time?
So you support child abusive organization who hides and protects the priests who like children in wrong way, ok got it.
And you still think god would be ok with organization like that, ok got it too. And you probably think that morals are objective and catholic morals are good?
I don't get it why anyone would call them catholic after what came out that had happen for decades and popes etc knew about it and did nothing to stop it.
Just shows me the morals of these religious people.
Oh boy, if you think the bishop is "big-brained" you've got another thing coming when you eventually find yourself on the secular side of the conversation. Good luck in your journey.
Sorry for my fellows. Some forget that in their effort to "see more". They forget to be watchful of their own rhetoric.
I miss the days of Real Atheism..
When we questioned because we wanted to actually know.
Now it's just a game of "bash the believers".
Once again, sorry for those who can't be decent about this.
@@KalousTheGuy Real atheism? What is that? If you don't believe in god like being, that's real atheism.
If you are bash the believers or asking question type person, is all up to you. I'm little bit both to be honest.
When I meet new religious person I ask them politely if we talk about religion and beliefs, if not then I don't bring it up.
I do bash some, if they tend to be smug and claim to know for sure, then it's time to bash that believer and show him the contradictions and closed mindness of his religion and how they are morally horrible person, tho I'm not as good at it as Hitchen's was. He was a master at bashing religions and believers while being civil and asking questions from them.
We don't usually bash the believer but the beliefs and faith, there is difference. Not all, but most don't claim to know that any god type being is impossible, we just know that religious type gods are impossible because all of them are walking contradictions.
Please have these two on again! Excellent program!
Bishop Barron is amazing.
*WHAT ABT BART EHRMAN*
@@alphaandomega567 what about him?
Barron helped bring me out of the presuppositional mess and delusion of materialism.
@@alphaandomega567 what about him?
@@NickOeffinger God bless him and his mission.
Bishop Barron is brilliant. Props to both of them for having such an intellectual discussion.
His conversation on Faith was completely garbage
Apart from the Holy Spirit of course, Bishop Barron is the reason why I came back to the Catholic faith, amazing conversation!
Do you pray to mary now ?
@@all2jesus what do you mean by pray?
@@hectorchavez1589 I don't know. Having any heavenly connection to Mary.
@@all2jesus Id say if by “pray” you mean some type of correlation with “worship” then no. Worship is to God alone. But, If by “pray” you mean the old English term/original meaning of “privy” or “to ask” then yes, all we’re doing as Catholics is asking Mary or any other Saint to pray for us, or guiding our prayers up to God, just as you’d ask your family or friends to pray for you during a hard time. We’re not asking any questions or conjuring up spirits. Hope that helps
@@hectorchavez1589 Is this from the Bible ?
Great video. Would it be possible to have a discussion between NT Wright & Bishop Barron - I’d love to hear the ideas bouncing off those two!
Agreed!
I was an militant atheist before. Scientific evidence, inductive logic caused by facts of material world, brought me a lot of doubts about my former belief. It’s very hard to be an atheist facing the details of space-time-matter, so perfectly balanced that’s easier to believe in a computer found buried in earth coming from random than believing that “chance” can explain our existence, consciousness, feelings, and order of things. As Bishop Barrows said, there are many paths. I’m walking on mine yet, but “Something” made me start searching the way, the truth and the life. God bless manking. I can’t explain Him, but I wish to know Him, in the end of my short trip inside this universe.
Evidence? Please show it so you can get your noble prize
So far I never liked theological arguments from any one untill this video.
I like Bishop Barron views and ideas 🤗
This discussion does put my mind to think , thank you Alex and Barron
A side note; why even moderator addresses Mr. O'Connor as "Alex" and Mr. Barron as "bishop"? I find that tendency to be disrespectful.
As a practicing Catholic, I found the discussion on suffering between the 2 guests here quite moving. Especially Alex's emphatic point made at 1:11:30 brought to mind the lyrics of the "Exultet" hymn which is sung in the darkness of the Church at the beginning of the Easter Sunday (Saturday night) liturgy, "...Oh truly necessary sin of Adam, destroyed completely by the Death of Christ. Oh happy fault which earned so great, so glorious a Redeemer." These are not easy words for any one of us to comprehend. Thank you for this video.
God bless you, Andres! Beautiful correspondence. Keep the faith
As a cradle Catholic what was so HAPPY with the SIN of Adam? When the world is FULL of Pain, Suffering, Death and Sickness etc?
@@AJ_Jingco This is the question of all questions! I'll try my hand at answering it. Adam's sin in the garden introduced death, suffering, and pain into the world - it is our Catholic belief that before the fall, mankind lived in "beatitude" with God. The lyrics "Oh happy fall of Adam..." from the Exultet prayer emphasize that although we experience death and suffering on earth now as a consequence of Adam's sin (and that this sin was not part of God's will for us), it moved God the Father to write our story of salvation that he achieved through the sacrifice of His Son Jesus Christ. This event happened in history, and flipped the religious world on its head. This mystery, as backwards as it may sound, suggests that a life without the need for salvation/redemption could be ultimately lacking, compared to a life of great suffering and intimacy with God the Son - Jesus.
Barron is an intellectual, no doubt about it. I don't always agree with him but man, I'm glad he exists.
This is one of the best channels on subjects of faith on TH-cam😊
1:08:30 What an absolutely _fantastic_ rebuttal on Alex's part to highlight the problem of the bishop's previous statement. Cheers! 🍻
It wasn’t correct, though. Permitting something doesn’t mean and admittance that it had to happen in order for some good to happen. It also doesn’t mean we can’t make judgements within the broader picture.
@@whatisiswhatable if it hadn't to happen, the why i happen? God can bring good different ways. And what "judgement" can you make? "It's bad, but it's God's work, so it's good actually, even if I don't know why."
What a brilliant mind both of them have. I can feel the love and compassion in Bishop Barron's heart.
Two brilliant minds, great arguments both but what passes through the screen is peace and humble joy that was unmovable on one side and sad disguised anger, and resentment to the point on despair on the other. Paradox: Young body, old spirit and viceversa?
As a non theist, I say props to Unbelievable, they produce great content!
Why are you a non theist?
I’m curious, why do you call yourself non theist? Is it different to you then atheist, if so how? Most people would probably say atheist/anti-theist so you got me wondering about your word choice.
@@Lanthardol I identify as a non-theistic Christian along the lines of Bishop Shelby Spong, if you are familiar with his work. I don’t believe the classic theistic God exists, but the Jesus tradition and Christian mysticism are very important to me. I don’t have a problem with ‘normal atheists’, but I don’t like identifying with just not believing in something. However, for the purposes of commenting on this channel, I thought non theist would be the easiest way to simply indicate that I don’t believe that the God bishop Barron believes in exists. If I said “as a humanist Christian”, most people would have no idea what I’m talking about lol
@@CB-fb5mi “humanist Christian” sounds like an oxymoron/contradiction to me. Do you believe in the resurrection or that Jesus was supernatural? Do you believe in all the teachings of the bible or just the bits that are compatible with humanism? What does Christianity add to humanism? Cultural identity?
@@shankz8854 You can think what you want about it I guess. For me, Christianity is a choice about how you live your life, it’s not a set of beliefs/propositions. I fully accept that Jesus of Nazareth was a normal human just like everyone else. I of course started my journey as a conservative Christian, as I would imagine every humanist Christian has. It’s a perspective that comes from hard won wrestling with conservative theology, I’m not just picking two worldviews at random and trying to do a mashup...
“If it is true, then it is the most important truth there is” Couldn’t agree more with Alex.
‘IF’ it is true. A bloody big ‘IF’!!
Issue is I can think of something more important (a super god for example). Should we study that? Obviously not because there is no proof; it is a baseless assertion.
So it is with Christianity. Other than the social impetus of it (which is a poor reason to study it in the context of a truth claim), there is nor reason to study it. There is no real proof Christianity is valid.
@@WaterCat5 There is also no real proof that atheism is valid. That's why you still use faith for both theism and atheism.
@sirbaldex7050 You're actually just parroting. Yes, there isn't sufficient evidence to disprove all god claims. That's why strong atheism isn't a tenable position either.
Point is, the Christian God has certain ascribed qualities and actions. But there is no evidence for these things, so we can reasonably determine the Christian God likely doesn't exist.
This is all whataboutism anyway. Even if my belief system were nonsense, that does nothing to prove Christianity
Both are real Gentlemen
This is epic moment make sure to hit like button 👌
Bishop Barron gone mess around and make me Catholic!
I love it!
Bishop Barron had a huge impact on me as well. Today I'm a Catholic and Barron, along with G.K. Chesterton, were both instrumental.
Bishop Barron was one of the main figures that lead me to the Holy Roman Church!
Same here
Amen, Deus Vult!!! Jesus bless you.
This was an epic collaboration of two minds working to sharpen the edge of our understanding of the world.
sadly the religious will continue to keep their fingers in their ears and carry on believing in sky daddies and heavens and enjoy punishing people and hell, cos they never actually LISTEN to what atheists and scientists are saying.
there is so much patronising bollocks on this page.
@@HarryNicNicholas Sadly you are pathetic.Dont you know there is no free will ..HAHAHAHAHA
Great conversation! Wonderful to have Bishop Barron eloquent contribution in the philosophical space. Keep going Alex - I came to faith through suffering, following an experience I had whilst studying Theology at Kings College.
I can attest to “I come to faith through suffering “
@@OneTrueScotsman Sir Isaac Newton once had faith that there must have been something or force pulling objects toward each other. Then he laid out the ground work for today modern world, such as car, airplane, space exploration. He didn’t have any particular reason to believe that “something” ever existed. Regardless, yes, I agree with you, there must be a reason or reasons. “Faith” doesn’t mean “not to ask question”. Blessing!
@@kuantumdot apparently god allows suffering cos it leads to a greater good, so i cause as much pain and suffering as humanly possible cos it's going to be sooooooooo great for someone some time in the future and i imagine i am guaranteed a place in heaven.
@@OneTrueScotsman odd you should say that cos isn't the reason god hides that you can't know for certain he exists, isn't "faith" the WHOLE POINT of the christian mythology? it's a bad day when an atheist has to explain how your religion works. if you're certain god exists you're doing something wrong mate.
@@kuantumdot Calling a theory "faith" is just wrong. You can observe things drop the ground. It happens all the time. Ergo, there is a pretty good chance there is a reason.
God does not show up similarly. I realize Christians will probably say otherwise, but if you can't convince a good-faith observer, then you are not convincing.
You can convince me things drop to the ground. You cannot convince me (at least I have yet to be convinced by Christians and their lack of evidence) Jesus rose from the dead or many other things Christianity asserts. If you feel you do have proof, feel free to show it.
The last section on evil was a really good conversation. Alex's challenges were good, and I think Barron's arguments were compelling, however, as is usually going to be the case, their worldviews shaped how they saw the end product (which is pretty much the case for all of us). But it was great to see them really hashing things out!
Question: Is it the problem of "evil" as much as the problem of "suffering". Breaking it down as simply and quickly as possible for time and space sake, allowing/granting free will allows for evil, but it is more the unnecessary suffering, whether from natural disasters, a baby born with cancer, that seems more problematic to many. Would just appreciate your thoughts. Best Regards.
@@Hazay19 Yh I think it's a good point. I'm no apologist but I know that the usual distinction is made between 'natural' evil vs 'human' evil. So Alex's emphasis on suffering seems to be on the 'natural' evil side and I think Alex actually has a good point here. It is certainly the case that seemingly unnecessary sufferings, as you listed, are a big problem because from a Christian perspective (as is Barron's point) we simply can't give an ultimate reason as to why they happen. In philosophical circles, the free will answer largely deals with human evil, so natural evil tends to be much more difficult to deal with because of its emotional/existential and non-controllable nature. But there are two observations of my own from this against both speakers:
1) ALEX - Alex states in the video that he is ok with not having all the answers to life; this is part of his atheist viewpoint. He says that it is a bit arrogant to suggest that one religion (such as Christianity) does have all the answers. But when Barron says that he doesn't have the ultimate answer to evil (aside from the work of Christ of course), Alex almost seems to not be satisfied with this. Alex tries to push Barron to give a full explanation when Barron has already stated that Christianity doesn't = all the answers being known.
2) BARRON - Barron missed an opportunity to talk about the fall of man in Genesis (of course this depends on how you view Adam and Eve). But Barron maybe could have emphasized that this suffering was not the way that the world was initially intended to be, and that there was a cause of this suffering on earth (at least human suffering) that goes back to Adam and Eve. (Joshua Swamidas has shown that a literal-recent Adam and Eve doesn't contradict origins science which is also helpful.)
teach the children How does all religion start? It starts with the children . Here is a short 4:00 min video that sets the stage. Look it up on TH-cam “Welcome to This World”. Sound familiar?
@@nathanbossoh Swamidas' argument is pretty weak for a variety of reasons. A miniscule "possibility" of a "real" Adam and Eve does not equal a "probability." Science overwhelming points in one direction, and it's more than just the field of anthropology producing the evidence against a real, physical first "pair" of humans.
We all have a worldview brother, presuppositions are unavoidable
This is a fascinating discussion to watch, thank you. This respectful manner of debate where people essentially give their side and are open to the other is what I wish all of them were.
I want to thank both sides for a very civil and insightful conversation. I was once a Christian who had many thoughts like Bishop Barron and now am an atheist with many of the same questions as Alex and am finding myself feeling strangely reconciled with both times of my life. I still know nothing but find meaning in trying to figure it all out anyways.
Barron is such a brilliant man
And yet he chooses it to follow down the dead end of religion
@@stevenp2309 actually atheism represents the dead end
@@repearsonjr Atheists are searching for answers to unanswered questions. Barron and the religious claim to know the answer.....God. That is a dead end
@@stevenp2309 yeah by definition it requires metaphysical claims which are stopping points for truth.
@@stevenp2309 Christ represents the eternal, life without end.
This is amazing!!! So educating and exciting on both behalfs
The discussion on the "celebration" of suffering reminded me of the interview between stephen colbert and anderson cooper, where colbert ultimately said he was grateful for the tragedy of his dad and brothers dying. It kind of rides this knife's edge of being odd and perverse, but also demonstrating a deep appreciation for the complexity of life, and the suffering we go through being a part of that
It's honestly the only explanation for the existence of suffering. The other end is just logically nihilism and it explains why SO MANY people nowadays commit suicide. It's a tragedy and a horror that so many have been deprived of the understanding of suffering in our broken world.
@@TacosnZorro well, I personally wouldn't say it "explains" suffering, but I'm kind of an existentialist. I also don't think we need to assume that suffering is justified or has some greater purpose, at least not initially. The argument I start with is that we can either choose to view life as a good thing, or view it as cruel and not worthwhile. I'd rather choose the former. And, suffering is an intrinsic part of life, so what do you do with that? The story of Job is gut-wrenching and apparently cruel, but I think it says something that it's the oldest part of the Bible. I think it appears cruel because our idea of God now is very personal, but if you view God in this story as "nature" or "reality", I think it makes more sense. I don't expect nature to care about me, but I am trying to survive in it- and I need to respect it and be grateful for it. Even though it might try to kill me at times haha, it has also given me the chance to live at all.
Oh, and I forgot to mention how job's wife embodies the second choice: "curse God and die." Give up, because life is awful. He chooses to have faith in God/reality, and the moral of the story is that is the correct choice. Which I think is wise
@mike mcmike right. I think a lot of people fall on the wrong side of the knife's edge so to speak, and they talk about suffering like it's a "good" thing. I try to have grace for that, because I think they are close to being correct. It's just being expressed clumsily
@mike mcmike I definitely see what you mean, although at this point it gets a little murky, trying to imagine exactly what "God" is. Like I said, I think imagining a personal omnipotent God makes less sense here. Imo, the old testament talks about God more like he is nature itself, with his rigid rules and consequences.
I often like to start in the realm of utility- what attitude would be useful for me to have about suffering. That conversation is easier to have. Then maybe later, after establishing a lot of common ground with someone, discuss metaphysics and more traditional views of God.
Oh Boy! These two could have gone on for another 2 hour if given a chance. Loved this.
I wish they would have!
Justin, excellent job again! Thank you for being an amazing host to an awesome show. I came here once again to watch Alex debate, but I love how professionally and kindly you run these. Long time listener from Japan
Word
You are not japanese and live in Japan?
Alex I am grateful that you are exploring your own understanding about God and faith. I was once young and doing the same thing, and converted to the Catholic faith when I was in college. That was 45 years ago. The journey of my faith is continuous and always evolving--and I am so very grateful. More than anything, I want people to know and understand how very much God loves them. It literally saved my life. I am praying for you daily and I know you will find your way. God bless you always.
"I want people to know and understand how very much God loves them. It literally saved my life. I am praying for you daily and I know you will find your way." What an awful condescending thing to say wrapped in a loving comment. Wich God exactly? The one from the bible? I doubt that because that´s not a loving God at all.
@@peteraschaffenburg1 I did not intend for the post to sound at all condescending and I am sorry if it sounded that way to you and others. Thank you for your feedback.
The Christian God requires that we not question his motives, that we love and worship him even though he is fully permitted to destroy even his most devout followers' lives (and has done so, if you believe the story of Gob) on a whim, or to settle a bet with the devil. No one asked Jesus to die for our sins, but now the Church is holding that act over our heads as though we owe God something for doing us a favor we didn't ask him to perform, and otherwisewe will burn and scream and choke and cry in hell forever. But God loves you! That doesn't sound like love, it doesn't sound like a blessing, it sounds like emotional manipulation and blackmail
@@Dumbstuffwatcher You sound very angry. My life experience is very different from what you describe, and we can disagree. Thank you for your honest feedback.
@@Dumbstuffwatcher As a cradle Catholic even I STRUGGLE with the REALITY of Hell.
This was incredible. Thanks to both guests, and the host
That natural progression of growing a friendship and building trust that Bishop Barren described: it's too bad we can't have that with a deity that doesn't make themself plain to us. If you need faith or trust to believe they exist you've turned the whole model upside down.
Faith- “ my response to the self- revealing God”- I can never forget that. For an Atheist, Alex has more “Christian” thinking than most Christians I have come across. Great conversation. Thank you.
Out of interest, what sort of thinking are you referring too that's 'Christian'.
It is probably because Alex grew up Roman Catholic
@@iliya2098 His ethics is what comes to my mind.
@@artofthepossible7329
What in particular?
Faith : Pretending to know things you don't.
I came into this video with the biases of a non-believer. Even so I enjoyed it and found it very pleasant compared to most debates on the subject.
I did not have my mind changed but I will say the first 40 minutes or so was some of the best apologetics I have seen in a very long time. Alex started to hit the nail on the head and drive it home in the later half, but until that point a younger me might have came away with a different mindset
Alex misses that the "good" is necessarily logically prior to what is not good. It all starts from the goodness of things. He's a young man and deeply moved by the reality of suffering here and now. Bishop Barron's point is solid. And even God can't create something perfect and infinite... for that is God. He can however share his being, his goodness. And incidentally , of course God is personal and not an "it" although transcending our knowledge. But we can still know a great deal as Bishop Barron and Aquinas show us.
What Alex misses is that suffering can only exist if you believe in good. Suffering cannot exist to an atheist. That explains the cognitive dissonance and Alex's grasping for an answer. He has not yet learned in life to accept suffering. As humans, we experience suffering, but we can also know that there is a deeper meaning of ultimate good. They are not mutually exclusive. Alex seems to only be able to entertain one viewpoint at a time. It's like when you are working towards a goal - say running a marathon - there will be suffering, you will experience pain, but you also know that there is a bigger picture to the pain. That is the tragic human condition. We are aware of our suffering.
@@tommore3263 is that not a paradox of God himself
@@tommore3263If a perfect and infinite ‘being’ cannot create a perfect thing, that being is not perfect.
@@aisthpaoithtTaking Genesis literally, we could have been allowed to stay in suffering-less Eden forever if God hadn’t put a serpent in the garden. Suffering, then, is a choice God made.
I showed this episode to my bishop recently, and he and my clerical brothers agreed - wow, we kind of need these guys, don't we? These "learned atheists" are serving a wonderful "check and balance" purpose. Now that is mindboggling if you ask me:)
gosh, that was patronising.
apparently god allows suffering cos it leads to a greater good, so i cause as much pain and suffering as humanly possible cos it's going to be sooooooooo great for someone some time in the future and i imagine i am guaranteed a place in heaven.
@Caroline Rose Ah, but they can in theory, still keep their POSITION, and harm many people, in wars, pogroms, an Inquisition, etc, and get less open chastisement, than one man collecting sticks on Sabbath got, or people using the wrong incense, in a ceremony? (Numbers 15 and 16)
Or can pour fuel on later fires by translating the word 'typoi' in 1 Corinthians 10, making it lean more towards racialistic and hereditary blame of Jews - or something...
@Caroline Rose Then can we permit as much pain and suffering as possible to get into heaven? What's good for the goose...
@@HarryNicNicholas God doesn't create evil, but allows us to freely decide between good and evil, for what merit would be there into doing good things without an effort, but by force of nature? Moral responsability and moral desert is predicated on being able to make such choices.
The actions that are worthy of most praise, those that are most noble, are precisely those done by agents that had every reason to give up, to do otherwise, but kept going, in spite of all difficulties. Not being able to take the easy way out, would rob these actions of their nobility and splendour, in the eyes of God.
Because God wants noble beings to exist and to shine his light on creation, and because God values merit and being able to do the hard things that are good despite easy alternatives, therefore he wants beings to exist that have the capacity for evil.
Does a good father teach his children by forcing them to do the right thing? No, for they would continue to be children. Maturation requires that they have options, requires having temptation stare you in the face and choosing not to yield to it. A good father teaches his children to be strong in the most dire situations.
@Caroline Rose
Except the argument makes no sense either way. If God creates a universe in which there will be equal or more suffering than not, then it would have been immoral to create a universe that contains beings that can suffer in the first place, especially if you are going to include an eternal state of suffering for specific individuals.
What makes it so disturbing on the side of theists, such as the Bishop, is that they are basing their view that God is good and all this suffering is worth it on faith.
The problem of evil has very little to do with why I don't believe that God exists though, but it is still something I have thought about a lot. That argument is only an argument against the Abrahamic God anyway.
I think it's always hard to combat the "god and his works is unknowable" position as it is unfalsifiable. Alex was as usual coherent and thoughtful. This conversation highlights both the huge divide between atheism and belief in an all knowing all powerful god but also the ability for two people with such opposing views to have a thoughtful and respectful conversation.
"hard to combat the 'god and his works is unknowable' position as it is unfalsifiable"----
One must not confuse permission with intention. God never requires nor intends evil. Evil, as a non-thing, is by definition irrational, pointless, and un-knowable.
Peace be with you.
@@andrewferg8737 True, one cannot define the nature of Evil without using the negation of the concept of Good, hence, the metaphysical starting point of the whole question cannot be focused on the use of Evil a thing itself. I think it has to do with our own intrinsic way of perceiving life and existence themselves, Good is almost something you physiologically feel, for example when you're relaxed, when you eat food and drink, even when you breath your deep consciousness already elaborates that as something "Good" for you, and when you lack air in your lungs for just some seconds your mind is just going nuts and feeling terrible, bad, "evil"... It reminds me of the first verses of Genesis when God is creating everything and after every creative period he repeats: "this is Good". There must be surely something transcendent, something outside the limits of reason and individual consciousness about the nature of Good, and as christians (I'm a Roman Catholic like Bishop Barron) we know that very well
@@didacus199 I find that the popular atheistic formulation for the "problem of evil" does not represent a valid question. It demands an explanation for what is by definition irrational--- that is "evil". The atheist (and some theists unfortunately) confuse permission with intention. There can be many rational reasonings for God's permissive will. There are, however, no rational explanations for evil. Evil is never required, nor does God ever intend evil.
Then you don't critique it on rational grounds, but moral or pragmatic grounds at that point. There may well be an invisible, undetectable teapot near Jupiter, but if it makes no difference in my life practically speaking, or even causes demonstrable harm to believe such a thing, then we have reason to dismiss such a notion altogether.
@@Magnulus76 Existence is neither invisible nor undetectable in its effects and is profoundly informative of all that is. It would unreasonable to posit the non-existence of existence.
Justin, this is a great conversation! Been waiting for Bishop Barron to make an appearance!
You've had some great sohws Justine....this one is the best of the best!
hear is another great show How does all religion start? It starts with the children . Here is a short 4:00 min video that sets the stage. Look it up on TH-cam “Welcome to This World”. Sound familiar?
@@dan69052
Norton: Mind if I smoke Ralphie Boy?
Ralph: I don't care if you burn.
Was an excellent discussion. It is all about one's belief. God is infinite and all loving. I believe Bishop Barron said it well, "one should never start with the pain and suffering, as you'll be on shaky ground".
I appreciated Justin pulling conversation towards the pragmatic and experiential, because that is where it hits home for so many of us. Tragedy can strike at an early age, but as the years pass we become more contemplative. I experienced acute suffering and death of my spouse, and was afforded the opportunity to sense God’s presence and peace through the process. I didn’t expect that, and to be clear I didn’t, and still don’t, want it, but it changed me. In a visceral way, not through reason or intellect, my faith was affirmed.
How do you know that was God, and not just your brain giving you a hallucinatory experience? And how do you know it's a specific God?
A light in the midst of darkness.
@@Dumbstuffwatcher I think it was based on his personal life experience, knowing himself, his beliefs, how his mind works, how his emotions work, how his senses work and then experiencing something that was not from himself or from "beyond" himself that he knew from intuition, that it was divine. As to being able to "prove" it was God, that is not possible, because God is always greater (as Bishop Barron reminds us) than our rational mind's ability to comprehend. Finally, I would say that is where "faith" comes in, which is the ability beyond reason for us to "know" God exists and he is trustworthy.
Love the dialouge...very informative and fruitful. I would love to see Father Spitzer, Father Gregory Pine, Roy Abraham Varghese, or Peter Kreeft...Bishop Barron did a great job!!! I like how Alex is very respectful and seems to be open minded.
teach the children How does all religion start? It starts with the children . Here is a short 4:00 min video that sets the stage. Look it up on TH-cam “Welcome to This World”. Sound familiar?
As a carrot, listening to two non-vegetables was surprisingly surprising.
Hahaha
Best comment on here :)
Best comment
The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.
(Such as Religious Books full of immoral thougth, hypocrite argument and Sophistry)
An evil soul producing holy witness
Is like a villain with a smiling cheek,
A goodly apple rotten at the heart.
O, what a goodly outside falsehood hath!
William Shakespeare, The Merchant
Till 325 AD, not a single historian or writer wrote about Jesus Christ or any of his disciples .
BEFORE THE FIRST COUNCIL OF NICEA IN 325 AD, NOBODY ON THIS PLANET EVER HEARD OF THE NAMES JESUS CHRIST OR CHRISTIANITY.
JESUS/ BIBLE / CHRISTIANTY WAS COOKED UP IN 325 AD, BY JEWESS HELENA , WHO SAT ON THE POPE'S CHAIR..
"Vatican is Evil terrorist satanic organisation."
If Satan does exist, then he thrives inside the Roman Catholic Church.
The dead sea scrolls covering the period from Birth of Jesus to 68 AD , does NOT say one word about Jesus or his 12 Apostles. In the entire first Christian century Jesus is not mentioned by a single Greek or Roman historian, religion scholar, politician, philosopher or poet. His name never occurs in a single inscription, and it is never found in a single piece of private correspondence. Zero! Zip references.
Till 325 AD, not a single historian or writer wrote about Jesus Christ or any of his disciples .
BEFORE THE FIRST COUNCIL OF NICEA IN 325 AD, NOBODY ON THIS PLANET EVER HEARD OF THE NAMES JESUS CHRIST OR CHRISTIANITY.
JESUS/ BIBLE / CHRISTIANTY WAS COOKED UP IN 325 AD, BY JEWESS HELENA , WHO SAT ON THE POPE'S CHAIR..
"Vatican is Evil terrorist satanic organisation."
If Satan does exist, then he thrives inside the Roman Catholic Church.
The dead sea scrolls covering the period from Birth of Jesus to 68 AD , does NOT say one word about Jesus or his 12 Apostles.
।
Hellenistic philosopher Philo Judaeus of Alexandria (20 BCE-50 AD/CE)-alive at the purported time of Jesus, and one of the wealthiest and best connected citizens of the Empire- makes no mention of Christ, Christians or Christianity in his voluminous writings. Nor do any of the hundreds of other historians and writers who flourished during the first THREE centuries of the common era.
The DEAD SEA SCROLLS were all written by Pagan Essenes . None of them have been edited by later Christians, as is the case with some other Jewish literature.
All the scrolls (except a treasure map known as the Copper Scroll) can be dated prior to A.D. 68 or 69, when the Qumran settlement was believed to have been destroyed by the Romans in the Jewish revolt.
The oldest of the scrolls probably goes back to the middle of the third century B.C. The people of Qumran belonged to a Pagan religious group known as the Essenes.
Pliny the Elder, who died during the volcanic destruction of Pompeii in the year 79 A.D., described a community of pagan Essenes living on the western shore of the Dead Sea, close to where Khirbet Qumran is situated.
John the Baptist was an ascetic Essene . He was a vegan and was uncircumcised . Various literary sources like Josephus and Philo tell clearly that Essenes were ascetics.
We also know, from literary testimony, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the archaeological remains of Qumran, that the Essenes practiced many water baptisms for ritual purification-similar to a dip in the Ganges or the river Pampa or at Thiirunelli. At Qumran, however, all members of the community were baptized with water for ritual purification.
Josephus writes, "And as for their piety towards God, it is very extraordinary; for before sunrising they speak not a word about profane matters, but put up certain prayers which they have received from their forefathers, as if they made a supplication for its rising" (Wars, 2.8.5). This testimony accords well with what we know from the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Prayer and humility was one thing that the Essenes . When they cooked up stories about Jesus they wrote that Jesus Christ ate the Last Supper in the Essene part of town.
Jesus is not historical character, The Dead Sea Scrolls have produced increasing evidence to cement the fact that Jesus Christ never existed and the whole story was cooked up at the First Council of Nicea in 325 AD.
The FAKE gospels were written after 325 AD after Jesus was cooked up at the first Council of Nicea..
Twelve apostles of Jesus never existed.
Jesus Christ names 12 apostles to spread his gospel, and the early Christian church owes its rapid rise to their missionary zeal. Yet, for most of the Twelve, there's scant evidence of their existence outside of the New Testament.
The sign this was a great debate: I'm something like an agnostic, and every time one of them spoke I went from theist to atheist to theist to atheist...
I wish you the best: never give up your search for truth and meaningfulness
Yeah they were great, i would recommend going into Jordan Peterson talks and works as well.
@@pop3stealth97 I think his religious views are kind of... well, let's say strange. He just defines "truth" as something totally different than its usual definition. I do think he has quite a few interesting views though.
Hahaha, that's not agnostic that's confused. Lol. Just joking, but I understand what you mean.
I'd like to make you a suggestion: try talking to God instead of only thinking about it. Say the Lord's prayer twice a day, and talk honestly to God about your doubts and ask God for the truth. You have nothing to lose. Worst case scenario, you tried.
I love this so much more than than the adversarial, audience charged format of debates during the past decade.
Great discussion. Very respectful without anger and sarcasm but just respect. I wish I had a modicum of Bishop's vocabulary
Well, you know "modicum"
SO Great!! Loved the debate!! Class acts both of these gentlemen...!!! Looking forward to more!
41:20 - 45:26
Bishop Barron’s explanation of faith through that analogy was beautiful
Maybe, but he was contradicting himself. Faith was supposed to be rational in his argument, and yet it is based on emotional appeal. On feelings of trust, not data and arguments.
@@ontariolacus When you trust a person, it's not devoid of reason and evidence. It's not irrational to trust a person. It just also involves more than that. I think that's what his point is: faith isn't less than reason, because it involves reason to the fullest extent it can go. It just includes more than that as well.
@@repentantrevenant4451 and this is how you end up flying airplanes into buildings...
@@repentantrevenant4451 the argument is does it consist of sufficient reason, either it does and is therefore indistinguishable from reason, or it doesn't and therefore is not reasonable.
@@repentantrevenant4451 when you trust a person based on evidence, then it is rational. But you mean emotional trust, so it is not rational. That's it.
I enjoyed the Conversarion. Kudos to Bishop Barron, Moderator and Alex for the disçussion ❤
Nice job, Alex, Bishop Barron and Justin! It is refreshing to have an engaging, respectful exchange of ideas, I too would have liked the discussion to have continued as the topic of suffering was taking center stage. As a life-long Catholic, I too have had to confront challenges to faith - presented by evil and suffering in the world and by the limits imposed by rational/reasoned thought itself. I volunteered in Calcutta at Mother Teresa’s Home for the Dying (Nirmal Hriday), an extraordinary experience that I would recommend to anyone. In his book on the suffering of Christ: I thirst - Fr. Joseph Langford writes that an Indian mullah [who had gone to Nirmal Hriday]. “After once silently observing incarnate love in action [the love that the Missionaries of Charity sisters, Mother Teresa and volunteers showed to the destitute and dying] said to Mother Teresa: ‘All my life I have known that Jesus was a prophet. But today I know that He is God, for only a God could give that kind of joy in serving one’s fellow man’”. I believe this is where the key is to understanding suffering. First, that we will never fully understand it, but rather that it is only a God who could ever have the possibility of doing so. Secondly, as with the Mullah, it is only our own love, expressed even to the point of loving and caring as to be done joyfully that provides a visible truth of a loving God who inspires this in all of us.
How did that mullah know it HAD to be a God that gave us the capacity for joy and love and kindness? And if that were the case, how cannwe be sure it's the Christian God specifically, and not the God or gods of any of the other thousands of religions?
Both were excellent and really engaging. It was a pleasure listening to both of them. Let round 2 commence!
This was one of the best argument and the best thing I've experienced in a long time. 👍 Great.Also huge fan of Alex.
I left the Church almost 30 years ago. Bishop Barron did nothing to make me regret leaving. It actually reinforced my reasons for giving up believing Christian theodicy. Alex did a wonderful job of countering the Bishop’s word play.
Why do you guys always have to insult? I don’t wanna hang out with internet atheists you guys are jerks.
@@ProfessorShnacktime In what way was I insulting?
Why did you leave Jesus?
This could have been three times as long and it would have been too short. It ended just as it was getting good.
the joy of children How does all religion start? It starts with the children . Here is a short 4:00 min video that sets the stage. Look it up on TH-cam “Welcome to This World”. Sound familiar?
It should have been much shorter and got to the big issues quicker. Barron just wanted to use the cosmological argument and I agree that it got interesting around 1hrour mark, becasue Barron was floundering on the issue of suffering. Alex was very dignified, I would have pointed to examples of suffering caused by the direct actions of the catholic church clergy on children.
@@Emmalittlepengelly1690 I am sure Alex focused on natural suffering to avoid the free will response for intentional evil perpetrated by rational beings.
@@HauxYZ250 Why? The "free-will defense" is indefensible. It is false according to Christian doctrine and the Bible.
If evil is a necessary consequence of free-will, then Heaven is either full of automatons without free-will or there is evil in Heaven (in which case, it would not be Heaven by definition).
@@MrFungus420 It’s not a necessary consequence of free will. It is logically possible that all rational creatures could freely choose to not commit evil.