Is 6.1ft (what the hell is wrong with you people still using this atrocious system) considered tall? It's... it seems kind of average to me. Edit: 6.1ft = 186cm... I am 184 and I'm not considered tall nor am I considered short...
So refreshing that there needn’t be a moderator in this debate. No strawmanning, dodging questions, rabbit trailing, or ad hominems. Just two serious thinkers really listening to each other and talking through what they believe. I’m a Protestant Christian but I greatly respect both of these guys.
Even as a Catholic, Alex O'Conner is very respectful. Lots of atheists can learn from him in how to have a discussion. And yes, Trent is great. He's always super nice in debates/dialogues.
Alex has become my favorite and respectful atheist. He’s sincere and genuine and respectful. He’s definitely an example of someone who disagrees and yet he’s not mocking or insulting the other! Definitely an example for Christian’s as well to follow.
@@mattheartfollower4123 It often does aided with life experience and self-reflection. How many 18-22 yr olds have you met that are wise? Very small percent.
00:00 Discussion on philosophy of religion and why Trent Horn is a Christian 05:52 The existence of intrinsic human dignity and morality points towards a divine direction. 16:12 The problem of divine hiddenness and non-resistant non-belief raises questions about the existence of a loving God. 20:43 Religion and politics cannot be simply labeled as good or bad. 35:27 A world that journeys to perfection has more goods in it 44:48 Critiquing the problem of evil in Christianity 49:25 The morality of inflicting suffering for a greater good 58:44 Promoting welfare of mentally handicapped humans over non-human animals 1:03:37 Moral debates involve emotive states and differing moral claims. 1:12:53 The Bible's account of God's revelation is progressive in nature. 1:17:57 People will be judged based on their culpability, not just intellectual inquiry. 1:28:26 The problem of evil and falsifiability of Christianity 1:33:01 The problem of suffering is important and should be taken seriously. 1:42:32 Compensation for suffering may justify allowing evil. 1:47:14 Arguments can increase probability of Christianity being true 1:56:02 The existence of suffering and evil is not a reason to be an atheist.
I feel like there needs to be a time stamp to 10:22 but I'm not good at writing a quick little title for it. That's when Alex begins to explain why he is an atheist, starting with the problem of needless suffering.
It’s lovely that we’re starting to see Alex so much in all places. I’ve been here for a while and absolutely delighted by the recognition he has received.
@@joannware6228 What about Hawking? He was an atheist. Also a scientist. And not even close to being as smart on the subject of religion and atheism as the people I had mentioned.
Another atheist here. I am also a nonresistant nonbeliever. In fact I used to believe and realized my prior evidences and personal experiences for my beliefs had more natural reasons. I wish you all the best, Internet comrades. Lots of love.
Yup. Never thought I’d be in those shoes but here we are. Would have liked to hear Alex’s reply about evil in the Bible. That to me is probably my biggest hurdle to belief that Christianity is true. The follow up question was telling of what possibly could be in the Bible that would convince you a loving God didn’t write it.
Hey mate. Just want to challenge you on nonresistant nonbeliever. I'm not saying your not. In my experience though, lots of people say this and then on reflection realise they were resistant. They had just fooled themselves. Again, not saying you are. Just saying sometimes understanding our own motivations are hard
@@joshs2986 Hey mate, I'm replying though you didn't comment to me. Leaving Christianity was a struggle that took me around a decade. I was trying to share the good news and prove the truth of Christianity but I kept coming up against evidence against my claims and reasons to doubt. As someone who desperately wished for Christianity to be true, even after no longer believing it, I can tell you that there's many of us out here who truly desired to believe or continue believing, but became convinced otherwise. Sometimes the truth hurts because it's not what you truly desired with all your heart.
This is definitely one the best Christian and Atheist discussions I've ever watched after 30 years of listening/watching/reading hundreds of discussions and debates.
@@streetwisepioneers4470 You mean where Alex interviewed WLC? It wasn't a debate. It was cordial discussion and interview. Alex even admitted that a number of his criticisms a few years back when he was younger were bad objections. That he now recognizes it being older, wiser and more informed when it comes to philosophy and argumentation.
I think the calm and respectful tone is quite nice; but on substance I don’t really see this as being anything other than par for the course, bad arguments for Christianity.
do you think that with this defense and explanation presented to you, it might be a better idea to adopt a theological worldview for the sake of happiness and personal fulfillment?
@@AquinasBased no I’m quite happy and it would be a futile effort as you can’t choose to believe. Sure I can act like I believe but that won’t have the same effect and would result in me knowing I’m living in a way that I disagree with which probably wouldn’t make me happy
@@AquinasBased A better explanation than others have presented is not automatically convincing. You can recognise something is well presented and argued but still be more convinced by the other side of the argument.
Religious people are soaking so called fulfillment out of 2000 year old fairy tales for adults. Just that fact alone makes you religious losers hella ridiculous.
Wow! My respect for Cosmic Sceptic has skyrocketed (pardon the pun!). I am really impressed by his integrity and honest enquiry. I wish him well. Thank you CC for hosting and posting this event.
The atheist both thinks too highly of himself but also too lowly. He thinks too highly because his pride won't let him admit that he has faults and that he is wrong. He thinks too lowly because this causes him to accept a dismal existence.
Wow... I genuinely didn't think that either guest could bring me anymore "new" arguments to the table that I haven't come across before...boy was I wrong!
As an atheist, I very much enjoyed this discussion, including Trent’s points. Well-spoken and intelligent, though I do disagree and think his response to the racism and MLK question was a total dodge. Subbed for more chats like this.
The atheist both thinks too highly of himself but also too lowly. He thinks too highly because his pride won't let him admit that he has faults and that he is wrong. He thinks too lowly because this causes him to accept a dismal existence.
@@joannware6228 rofl what a terrible take, this is exactly why most Theists are laughed out of the room. Trent approaches this with empathy and you spew ridiculousness.
I’m an atheist but I do enjoy Trent Horn. I think he’s a very intelligent individual, speaks very eloquently, and can bring up points and responses that make you think. I will say, and I may be a weird case as an atheist, but I generally don’t like the problem of evil. As intuitively it may be for me to think that there’s no way a loving god could allow for all this seemingly gratuitous evil, it very well may be the case that if he were to exist then it would be justified in some sense.
I agree entirely, but the example of someone beating a kid on the side road made Trent fidget a bit - if you accept god has his reasons, you cant back away because "you understand parent - child dynamic". Either you can act on your own and counter god's decision to have a child ripped apart, or you have to accept any murder, rape, robbery and whatnot as part of gods plan - after all "if he were to exist then it would be justified in some sense". As with other arguments, Christians want to have it both ways, and that's just 🤮
Merely positing that an explanation may exist is not to provide an argument; it is merely to assert that one thinks such an explanation is possible. Until that fact is established the ‘argument from evil’ stands.
Agreed. Because I can't help but intuitively feel that these second order goods like compassion, forgiveness or bravery enrich the human experience in a way that even a loving, perhaps especially a loving God, would allow them. The idea that a loving God necessarily needs to provide us some luxurious paradise just doesn't sit right with me
"What atheists can really be" - well, anything that theists can be. We are all just people from obnoxious a**holes to champions of humanity. Whether person believes in God, gods or none doesn't affect it.
@@Staremperor in my experience, believing you're one of God's chosen people definitely lends itself towards obnoxious assholes. There are indeed a handful of very outspoken atheists... But the other side of the coin is Christian missionaries, of which there are exponentially more. And their main job is to travel the world and tell people they're filthy sinners who deserve hell except that some guy sacrificed himself so that if only you worship him, you can avoid eternal he'll fire.
@@williamdowling7718 Are you objecting to the message or the messengers? If I had to deliver you disturbing news, and you wouldn't like it, should I just not tell you anything? Maybe a hurricane is about to hit the beach, and I tell you go inland, would that make me an obnoxious person?
^Im an atheist, but I certainly think loud obnoxious atheists are far more common (hence the original comment and it's number of likes, since people agree that he's setting a better example than we have seen countless times). Sure, missionaries are spreading that message, but genuine ones are doing it out of the goodness of their hearts (well not exactly, but the point is that they aren't doing it due to ego). Atheists are constantly are just doing an ego battle of who's smarter/who was so dumb that they got brainwashed, and while theists arent immune from the ego battle of "you're so dumb god is right in front of you idiot you think we all came from nothing??? Hahaha idiot", they are still, at least seemingly, far less likely to engage in the battle of egos, assuming they're genuinely trying to live up to what their book has taught them. Since to them, it's very serious, literally about heaven and hell, and to us its just an argument to get into for the sake of arguing.
I expected a good conversation, but this exceeded expecations. There was certainly some repeats from earlier conersations but they injected some new content into this conversation and I was engaged throughout. Keep up the great work.
My physical suffering comes and goes. There is no remedy. It shrinks my world. Maybe your compassion does something for you but it does nothing for my suffering.
He does, but pride will always block the truth even if you are sincere. Truth seekers don’t always find God because there are other things required like repentance and dying to self
@@Nissenov well that’s not a good question unless you are involved in these debates comparing Americanized atheism to Americanized Christianity. But I’m not interested in such comparisons because there are other options like a Heiser type view on the ancient world. The question is of allegiances not “belief”
@@OrangeRaft Yeah, allegiances. So this little game of yours does devolve into tribalism. How dull, and predictably human. Let's not have an informed view of the world, no, let's pick a team, and build a worldview of excuses that always comes back to that team, even though we live in a world that allows us to be more than that.
The problem of suffering in life isn’t such a problem when you think about it in terms of existence and non-existence. In other words, I start from the premise that I exist. From there, I begin to think about the opposite of that, non-existence. Then, I begin to feel an overwhelming sense of gratitude for the fact that I exist. I then come come to the conclusion that no amount of suffering that I could experience in my existing that would make me choose, if I had the chance, to never have existed in the first place.
I was obsessed with apologetics and taught it to high schoolers in church for years. I now fall into the non-resistent non-believer category. I eventually couldn't help but realize that my determination was to support Christianity, instead of starting with 0 assumptions and aiming for the truth. I've had no spiritual experiences, even despite praying for an hour long drive every day for years. I was one of the "overcommitted" Christians, and now I just look back and cringe.
I'm not going for sucking on each other's members, but I guess you have nothing to cringe about - it is common case that people have neither time nor strength of will to start from 0 and look at the claims impartially, especially when they have been indoctrinated as kids and live in tight communities that are bound by religion, church etc. I wasn't in that position, but I guess I would go through the same process. At some point I would need to know what the hell are facts about Jesus, resurrection, Genesis etc. I don't see how someone with average intellectual ability can swallow all the half baked answers, once they start asking the questions. In any case, good luck!
@@tristanrenteria515 The question of honest seekers looking for proof of Christianity is bogus. God’s raising His Son from the dead is the only proof, and that proof is infinitely capable of settling the mind of anyone who is concerned and who is sincere. So the question is not what proof is there of Christianity, because we are not dealing with Christianity. We are dealing with Christ. We are dealing with a man who became flesh, walked among men, gave His life for man and, to complete it, rose on the third day from the dead. The question is not what you think of Christianity but what you think of Christ and what you are going to do about Him.
Empathy for deep depression and suffering is completely independent of religious belief. There are wonderful atheists and terrible atheists. They're wonderful Christians and terrible Christians. There's wonderful Jews and terrible Jews. Etc. Religious belief has nothing to do with it
The difference between atheists and Christians is being an atheist tells you nothing about that person other than they don't believe in a god. They don't have doctrines. Christianity on the other hand has a book full of terrible things that even the "good" ones subscribe to.
@@HarrDarr I think the utility existed in the past. If humans work together as a group, it makes them more powerful altogether compared to individuals. I think religion in the early days was used to get people to form groups where members of the group were even willing to die for the objective of the religious group leader(s). Such a group would have more power and out-compete other groups of humans. Also, humans are extremely afraid of death in terms of what death truly is: the unescapable, permanent end of one's existence, where they return to the state they were in before they were born. Religions all promise some form of afterlife, which is a coping mechanism to not accept with death really is. Anyways, these are simply guesses of mine as to the utility of religion. I can't prove that these are true or not. They're simply what I think.
I'm very excited for this one, probably gonna watch it this weekend. Greetings from the Netherlands! We're a dutch apologetics squad. Groetjes uit Nederland :)
Groetjes van een nederlandse atheist. Nog nooit een vervelend gesprek gehad met een gelovige hier. (greetings from a dutch atheist. Never had an annoying/bad conversation with a believer here)
@@theunrepentantatheist24 He would have to give up scriptural orthodoxy to be vegan. In Romans we read that "He who is weak in faith eats vegetables only". God instructs Peter to "Raise, kill, and eat". Jesus informes us personally that "all foods are clean for you to eat" so it's obvious to me that moral veganism is just a subjective individual elevating beasts up to the level of humanity. I don't have enough faith to look at farm animals as enslaved.😂
Sure there is. I'd take being intellectually honest and rigorous combined with logically consistent over "respectful" any day. But that might just be me, I suppose.
I subscribed to Trent because of the way he argued for his belief. Although I am an agnostic atheist, I like to challenge my existing beliefs. I only recently discovered Alex and his channel. In this discussion Alex was clear with his explanations and Trent did not seem to answer directly. In short, I will be consuming a lot of Alex's content this week. Great stuff!
Christians never answer directly, because they can't, there's no argument for them to make. Expecially his orrible answer about slavery really tells you everything you have to know about the intrinsic evilness of religion.
Yeah I noticed that too. Trent when his ideas are backed into a corner seems to divert from the subject. Alex brought that up several times in this discussion and Trent never adequately engaged with Alex's point. Trent did this in his debate with Destiny on abortion too. He is very civil and his points are very well crafted and informed though, they both did pretty well I think
I agree! I was so moved by the level of respect, engagement, knowledge that each of these men displayed. Their sincere interest in capturing the other person’s meaning and line of thought, just admirable. As a christian, I have to say I admire Alex’ approach, he is incredibly humble to always leave the door open ((however slim)) to the possibility of him abandoning atheism, I hold on to the hope God will reveal himself to him in a way he finds irrefutable. I say that out of love and respect for the beautiful soul he is.
@@johannaquinones7473 What would you say was irrefutable? John 14:12, would be one way. 2 Samuel 24 would be another - but boy, it would be messy. Or Numbers 13:13? It all depends what is being revealed, I guess, if God is so mutable, or changes His ways, or at least - changes what faces and traits, are shown. And Satan never got hidden from - even post high treason, his dubious suggestions about Job got given extraordinary weight and audience.
@@chrissonofpear1384 "Because the Bible says so" ought never be enough evidence, reason or argument to convince anyone of the truth of the bible. Of course its going to have "trust me bro this book is true and people who say it isn't are idiots" ("only the fool says in his heart...") sort of verses. All religions and cults have these self preservation/protection devices built in.
@@johannaquinones7473 If you're a Christian, how do you deal with the fact that your God has either favoured you in giving you the sort of brain that accepts the evidence for theism and not the evidence for atheism, or the sort of personal evidence that would convince anyone first hand, thus resigning you to an endless fate of pleasure and happiness. But he has given non-resistant non-belivers the sort of brains that are not convinced by the evidence for theism and are convinced by the evidence for atheism, or he denies them the undeniable first hand evidence that he gives to theists, thus resigning atheists to an endless fate of suffering and torment? How do you deal with that on a "all loving god" world view?
@@Joe_mammma Where is a person’s free will in all of this? I don’t see it like you do. Yes, everybody faces different circumstances, have different mental abilities, etc. and it is true God has very different ways of in which He makes Himself known to people, but I think it is up to each individual to ultimately make the choice for his/herself what to believe. For me it has been a journey, the more I learn about Christianity, the more I am convinced, and if I find myself doubting I put my questions to Him. I trust that He can help me either find answers or dissipate the feeling I need the answer to believe. I am not by any means saying to have faith without reason, but there is a point when you just decide that the evidence you have is good enough.
The immense pointless suffering of trillions of trillions of trillions of innocent animals on this planet alone should be enough to shake any believer's faith to its core.
@@NoInjusticeLastsForever what i begin to believe is that the pain, suffering and death in any form is part of our life on earth no matter how painful it is.. what matters the most is quality of our soul that matters the afterlife that i believe in. Jesus set a precedent for this process.
@@NoInjusticeLastsForever indeed I agree pointless suffering created by man who rejected God and now God has to clean up our mess except atheists still reject God while making him the excuse as to why pain and suffering exists lol trololol
Wow, I oftentimes find myself disagreeing with whichever Christian Alex debates with, but I'm finding that Trent is doing a great job with taking him on.
Love the patience of both speakers. That's probably why I was able to watch it until the end. They sounded like friends. Personally, I think a pragmatic justification for being a Christian is the hope for a renewed physical life without suffering and evil. If there is no everlasting and relatable hope after death, then one day everything will die and nothing will matter about my life. It may have mattered to me or others when we were alive, but in the end it will be the same. On the other hand, a new kind of relational and physical life in a world that has continuity from this life, yet suffering, evil, and death are not present....that's a uniquely hopeful possibility. This isn't to say there isn't any need for a epistemic justification of Christianity, but only that there is a pragmatic encroachment on the epistemic, as mentioned in the latest Reasonable Faith podcast. I find this to be a missing component of most explanations of why many of us become Christians. Another component can be found in what is often called reformed epistemology. I've already wrote enough though, but these would be three reasons why I am a Christian.
If one day everything will be gone, and nothing matters inherently, then you get to decide for yourself what matters to you. I don't believe I have an afterlife waiting for me, so I have to make sure I live and love to the fullest while I can! I appreciate your well thought out comment, my friend. All the best.
@@iSkulk Thanks for reading my long comment(s) and replying! I agree that if atheism is true, everything will one day be gone and nothing matters inherently so you might as well live your life in whatever way seems best to you. I'm glad to hear your way includes loving to the fullest! Sometimes love is hard and even costly, and I'm guessing we'd both agree that the most loving thing a person can do for another would be to unexpectedly voluntarily choose to take the painful death that someone should've had so that they could live. For example, when Yondu unexpectedly dies for Quill. In Christianity, it's Jesus who unexpectedly dies for even the ones who rejected and killed him, in order that they would live. Even if you think it's a fictional story, I hope you get a chance, if you already haven't, to read a couple of the four gospel accounts of Jesus. Or if you don't want to read them, try watching "The Chosen", which is a top notch TV series on the story (with some creative license). Obviously as a Christian, I believe the gospel accounts are more than fiction, but even if we never agree on that, I hope you'll be inspired by the amazing love modeled in Jesus. Also, thanks for calling me friend. I hope for you all the best as well!
I’ve listened to this a few times since it came out, and I genuinely appreciate the conversation. I think Alex does a fantastic job presenting his own positions as well as strong counters to Trent’s. I also appreciate how honest Trent seems when trying to understand Alex properly before offering rebuttals. I think these two are some of the best representatives of healthy conversation in this space. Now that it’s been a year I’d love to know Trent’s thoughts on a few things. (If anyone else knows feel free to weigh in!) 1. Did you ever get off the fence? Did you land on ethical veganism or an advocate of factory farming (I imagine neither, because nuance). 2. Around 1:22:00 when using Michael Shermer as an example he says: I think really smart people can come to unintuitive conclusions. This strikes me as the opposite point he wants to make. The world is full of unintuitive truths. Quantum mechanics isn’t intuitive. A globe earth isn’t intuitive. There are countless logic puzzles that demonstrate just how readily our intuitions can fail us. It seems to me that a smart the smarter a person is, the more willing they should be to accept unintuitive answers when related to life’s most complex questions. 3. I forget the rest. But just want to reiterate, I like Trent a lot. I think he’s be a very fun person to get a beer with and chat philosophy. Much love.
Number 2 I want to give my two cents about, since it's something I've had my own issues with. Intellect is mostly pattern recognition, the universe is very complex and apparently chaotic. It happens that smart people may notice new hidden patterns and expose them to the world, and (maybe irrationally to a degree) they must fight so that they are not relegated back to the chaotic background at least for as long as it takes to properly assess their worth. A very smart person could theoretically create a defense so good for their theory that others who undertake the duty of trying to prove it false, fail. Eventually someone, or the smart man himself, may prove it wrong, but the time between him finding a theory and someone proving it wrong (we are assuming it's wrong) is a lapse of time in which great intelligence made up and sustained a lie. Sorry English is not my first language and I may have messed up somewhere.
Hey Cameron. Someone mentioned having more Eastern Orthodox people on. Would you consider reaching out to Jonathan Pageau to come on? We could all learn some fascinating stuff from him!
I'm thankful for thoughtful and charitable interlocutors like Alex who can help us understand our beliefs and God better through these types of discussions. Perhaps that's one moral good that could come from some non-resistive unbelief 😉
Thanks Trent and Alex. I’m writing this only 45 minutes in, so my apologies if I’m writing prematurely - regarding the objective good God and an existence of evil. Alex wanted a Christian answer. Well Trent could have said we live in a broken world. From his Catholic belief… we did live in a perfect world. That’s was before the original sin.
You’ll find that when the debate goes tough for the Christians, they often drop the name Jesus or the name Bible from the conversation and solely rely on the broad religious position instead of specifics like the biblical stories. It’s harder to argue against a vague definition of god or several religions/denominations rather than just one.
I was really surprised to get to the end of this video and find that this is a Christian TH-cam channel. Props to you for posting a video that undermines the arguments for your religion, I guess.
Trent has such an amazing way of fully fleshing out what someone is asking or trying to say, that is definitely what makes him special at this debate stuff.
Interesting take. I find him quite different. Often, when he is fleshing something out, he he just changes what is being said. Example when the talk about the Problem of Evil. Trent changes it into "Why God let's bad stuff happen". If that were the problem of Evil, it wouldn't be considered a problem. The switch from discussing "How can Perfectly Good create an absence of itself and it still be Perfectly Good" into "Why does Perfectly Good allow bad things to happen" are fundamentally different questions. Trent's changed question assumes there is no Problem of Evil (creation of evil) and asks why God allows (already created) Evil to continue existing.
@FPT Bot They are fundamentally different in that one asks about actualization and the other asks about sustainment. Trent knows this but does it anyway.
@@King-uj1lh If asked one question and you decide to answer the other, it doesn't really matter that they both are found as chapters in the problem of evil book. They are entirely different arguements dealing with the Problem of Evil, with different premises and different conclusions.
People praise Trent for his intellectual honesty but he dodged (politely I'll give you that) almost all of Alex hard questions. What's his answer to the deer under a tree problem ? I have no idea.
@@MB-nx9tqAtheist here (or, nonresistant nonbeliever)-I wouldn't call that a non-sequitur. To have faith, you need that faith tested. Suffering is presented by the individual you're replying to as the test for faith, meaning without a reference point (the spectrum of suffering-happiness), you have no touchstone for faith. It's the same way having no power and being peaceful does not make you good, just harmless. One way to visualise a good man is to visualise a powerful man who exercises reason of his own volition to inhibit his use of his power.
I went from truly not understanding Christians but respecting their connection to faith to truly considering some of them brilliant people because of Trent. Now I still have a lot of issues with Christianity, pro life one of them, but Trent is really smart and I appreciate how he has changed my perspective. Still an atheist sorry to whoever
From the get go it seems that TH is actually saying that the universe owes us an explanation and if science at any point cannot help us get the explanations than all bets are of and anything that gives us an explanation is justified. This off course is epistemic bankruptcy. The most scientific position one can take in such cases is I don't know. Period! Else you're walking close to the line of I don't know therefore god.
As a polytheist, I find it fascinating to watch these types of discussions between atheists and monotheists, as I can often find myself agreeing with either side or neither side on some issues. I find the intellectually honest, civil discussions happening between atheists and monotheists recently to be a very big step of from the type of discourse we typically found on TH-cam a decade ago. I hope that things continue in this more civil direction in the future.
@@glebkamnev7006 Hellenismos, Greek Polytheism. I tend towards reconstructionism, but typically use the term "Revivalist". As for things I agree with on each side, Things I agree with Alex on: 1) I agree with Alex on the Problem of Divine Hiddenness, at least when it comes to religions like Christianity and Islam within which God demands worship. Within many religions, including my own, the Gods do not demand worship, nor do they necessarily desire it. Worship isn't for the sake of the Gods, it doesn't get us a better place in an afterlife, etc. Religions like this have no issue with Divine Hiddenness. I also would take things a step further than Alex and say that Divine Hiddenness is even WORSE for Christians, Muslims, etc. because of the fact that non-resistant non-believers can end up believers of many different religions (take me, for instance, that went from non-resistant non-belief to Polytheism). According to most standard theological ideas on the afterlife within Christianity and Islam, I am hell-bound merely because my non-resistant non-belief led me to the wrong religion, and that is problematic. 2) I do tend to side with Alex on the Problem of Evil in THIS discussion, but that is because they are both coming at it with the conception that a world without evil is a possible world and thus the existence of evil needs an explanation. I think that a world without evil would be a perfect world, but perfection only exists for the Gods and the Forms. Anything beyond that will have imperfections (take a sphere, for example, we can mathematically understand what a perfect sphere is but we also understand, due to our knowledge of physics, that such a thing cannot actually exist in the world). If you start with the idea that the world inevitably will have SOME evils, that is where I think various theodicies, like some used by Trent, work, but as it seems Trent maintains that a world without evil is possible, I tend to agree moreso with Alex's criticisms here. Things I agree with Trent on: 1) While it is moreso an agreement with Pruss and Koons, that infinite causal chains as an explanation cause more problems than they solve. I do think that the Grim Reaper Paradox, and variations of it, helps to suggest that our causal history must be finite. 2) I do agree with him that, in regards to historical miracles, that Jesus resurrection has better evidence going for it than many non-Christian ones. I think that is, however, in large part due to Christian dominance in the world almost dictating what texts got preserved, and I also do not think that that actually means that Christianity is true rather than Polytheism (Jesus' Resurrection is consistent with Polytheism, so non-Christian miracles not having as good of evidence as the Resurrection isn't an issue if the evidence is still substantial enough). I could go on, but that would require rewatching the video to see what they covered here.
I'm always confused by the "What do you expect a universe with/without god to look like?" line of questioning. Idk, I only have the one universe to look at, and even then in an absurdly limited capacity I can't compare this universe to a universe with a known creator, or to another with a known lack of creator. I have absolutely no idea how either of those should play out.
Divine hiddenness is one of my main issues as well. I’m going to need some serious evidence to believe in something extraordinary like the existence of god. However, if this god exists they are presumably perfectly situated to provide me with this evidence. Yet they either exist and will not convince me, or more plausibility, lack existence.
@timmy Smith I’m sorry but you don’t get it. The things you mentioned are not evidence, they are circumstances with very plausible natural explanations. You think I should disregard these in favor of supernatural ones? Why would I? I’d need some extraordinary evidence to do so. And we’ve come back to where we started.
@timmy Smith if your god exists it presumably knows the evidence that will convince me, is more than capable of providing it, and does not. In that case your un evidenced opinion is by comparison certainly “not good enough”. I hope you also have a good day.
Your mere existence, your conscious awareness, ability to choose, and your internal moral sense should serve as plenty of extraordinary evidence to start, and that's before you even start talking about the cosmological arguments. I used to be basically agnostic until I studied Aquinas and Augustine. I know you can be convinced too bro. Ardently seek the truth! God bless
Like some samples of God-scat or something? Or flashes across the sky? But wait, any "evidence" we could attribute to some natural explanation. I'd seriously go lookup "the logical rules of inference". Evidence simply is not needed to believe in all sorts of things. I can believe the disjunction "all of space, matter and time exists eternally, or it has a cause" (with an axiom being it cannot come from absolutely nothing) and zero evidence is required for that disjunction to be true.
@@godfreydebouillon8807 it’s easy for me to believe, for example, that my friends and family exist. I see them, I interact with them, I touch them etc. Things like that would be a good place to start. Then I’d like proofs of the existence of the supernatural and such. All this would be exceedingly easy for a god to achieve.
00:57:00 | Not sure if Trent was comparing the parent of a child to God and us, but I sure hope not, because Trent has basically said God can do what he wants to his creation...
I reckon that is what Trent was saying and that it was just because god would have good reason to punish us in hell even though we can figure out what that good reason would be - that is just more assertion to justify god sending people to hell - it doesn’t demonstrate god or reasonably justify that his can do whatever he wants. Trent also seemed to suggest that while spanking Alex’s arse wouldn’t be good that is permissible for a parent to do to their child - he’s implying ownership of the child to justify doing what you want within some reason in the way the god is justified in doing anything. It not convincing at all.
It feels a bit like Alex is getting tired of this debate, atheism vs. christianity. And I understand him. I really appreciate him moving on and discovering other discussions like he have done with veganism!
After I suffered from some traumas in life , I thought about how our ancestors, the hunter-gatherers , who encountered the Neanderthals, might have dealt with suffering loss of loved ones. I truly believe what arose was a belief in an afterlife and god(s)... to help provide hope and reduce the chance of suicidal ideations.
I was an atheist for a while. I also had quite severe depression for a number of years. I remember one day I was lying on my bathroom floor crying about the state of myself and the world. I had really no options left. I swallowed my foolish rationality and pride and I asked something, anything for help, for relief, or a sign that would help me through my suffering. God or Allah or the spirit oh Buddha, I just wanted to understand honestly. I pleaded. And what happened? Nothing happened. And that is a real thing that happened in our universe. And you can’t tell me that it didn’t happen. I’ve made sense of this experience. And I know intuitively that if religious believers accuse nonbelievers of “not trying hard enough to have faith” they will drive their own religion to extinction.
An existence of a god and the reality of our suffering doesn’t mean god is just going to come down and stop your suffering for you. He’s not a vending machine. No one on earth escapes suffering. You pleaded and cried out to nothing because allah Buddha and the god of the bible are all different things.
@@everykneeshallbowzaoHe cried out to all of them individually. And sure, a supposed god doesn’t HAVE to help anybody… but an all loving one might have done a little more.
In regard to the people that "don't care", I wonder if they'd care if they were in the path of bad ethics, or would they suddenly ask/beg for "morals" and "humanity", or if someone they care for/wanted to protect were in the path of bad ethics, etc.
There are people like me who grew up surrounded by agnosticism being accepted, so basically adults around me said "we don't know what happens when you die, we don't know what's going on, but we ask questions and consider these things fascinating". I thought this was super interesting, but I was ok with not knowing. As I grew up I encountered religion but I never felt convinced by what people were telling me and I couldn't understand why people felt they knew things we clearly don't. Now, if you want to think my lack of belief is active resistance that's fine, but I love asking questions and looking for answers, and so far I believe we, meaning all of us, still haven't got answers. I'm ok with that and look forward to hopefully getting more answers in my lifetime. If not, I'd love to freeze my mind and bring myself back every 10000 years or so, just to check where we're at, whether any Gods revealed themselves, whether we understand reality and the universe in a significantly different manner, or discovered advanced Alien civilizations or some other amazing phenomena! So no, recognising that at this moment in time I still have no answer to life mysteries is not being resistant.
@@tafazzi-on-discordI've wondered why Christians say God died for our sins when he was resurrected within 3 days? He didn't in fact die then, so why make it out to be the ultimate sacrifice?
@@tafazzi-on-discord Isn't God dying for our sins a fundamental expression of his love for us? If God, an Almighty entity, doesn't in fact sacrifice Himself at all, doesn't that cheapen His love? Jesus is now eternal and back to being God, so he did it for what? A token gesture without stakes? Why do Christians put so much reverence to God for his "sacrifice", when it was no sacrifice for Him at all? I'm deeply curious if this is ever discussed among Christians?
@@tafazzi-on-discord We can't come to that conclusion because that would lessen Jesus from God to man, when he is both only as so far as God embodied an avatar, but was always God in human skin, so he didn't experience true death. Jesus was resurrected sometime within 3 days, so the the loss for God was nil, and can only be described as a gesture, not a true sacrifice with consequences. Yet, Jesus is heralded as making the ultimate sacrifice, even going so far as ridding us from sin and to quell God's wrath. I just find the framing strange, when Jesus is alive, eternal, present and ominpotent, according to Christian belief. I think it's something to ponder, because there's a lot of assumed guilt that believers should feel for our sins leading to God, through Jesus, having to die, despite not actually staying dead. If I was omnipotent and created an avatar to kill myself and tell my disciples that my sacrifice is because of their sins, knowing that nothing of me would be lost and it was all a play without real consequences, I'd think about why God would create such a scenario and guilt-trip his believers? I think I can understand why questioning such a fundamental part of the Christian belief won't be easily accepted, but calling it that he died for our sins is an overstatement as an eternal omnipotent being. Otherwise, we have to seperate Jesus from God, but that would create even more problems, and make the sacrifice even less understandable. It's an interesting question to consider, because of all the implications we can derive from it.
@@Chapman1886 "Jesus as an avatar", "God in human skin", is a heresy known as Docetism, definitively rejected by the Christian Church in 325. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docetism The reason why "questioning such a fundamental part of the Christian belief won't be easily accepted" is simply that such questions have already been thoroughly discussed a very long time ago within Christianity. The problems involved in separating Jesus from God (the Father), and the precise way in which this should be done, form a whole sub-branch of theology dealing with the "hypostatic union", and are the reason why the doctrine of the Trinity has arguably been fought over more than any other in Christianity, and is so complicated and hard to understand (or nonsensical, depending on your point of view). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypostatic_union
Trent said he would need to be a vegan or defend factory farming. But that's a false dichotomy because a non-vegan can buy food and other products from local farms and farmers' markets. If I need to buy some products from a supermarket, I can buy only products that factory farms don't produce. When you have to buy groceries from a store selling factory-farmed foods, you have to see whether you cooperate directly or remotely with the factory farmers. Say I'll die if I don't buy a factory farm makes. Should I die because I'm against factory farming?
I see a lot of people praising Trent for his honest approach, addressing arguments etc... but I don't see it, all I hear is him weaselling around the question or point again and again, refusing to engage.
Agreed. It’s almost as if he feels his faith gives him access to a deeper level of knowledge that reason provides, such that he only feels the need to provide polite lip service to the arguments.
@@Enaccul There's zero modesty in his claims. He produces a lot of "debunking" videos, and presents his arguments as irrefutable. Alex O'Connor truly engagés with all the arguments, and leaves the door open for modification or correction. Stephen doesn't, and comes across extremely arrogant.
I would have loved it if after an Hour and 20 minutes of all this thought provoking talk one of the audience members had just asked something like "" soooo what's your favourite kind of Pizza Topping? ""
Trent's face when he questioned whether or not a fetus is a human being perfectly captures how I feel when reading the majority of pro-choice objections.
@@elawchessParaphrasing but something along the lines of: Human or NOT ppl do not have a right to other peoples organs. Under any OTHER circumstance would a child have a right to use their parents organs without their consent for 9 months, cause them immense amounts of pain and possibly death? I actually don't think it counts as a human but I don't STRONGLY disagree and I can understand the perspective of those that do. But I don't think you actually need that to matter for this particular argument to be compelling and valid. As a thought experiment picture your mother makes a very simple miscalculation (I dunno like mixes up your prescription or something), and the results of that miscalculation causes you mortal health complications (like failing kidneys or something). Medical science has advanced enough that doctors can keep you alive long enough to recover IF you borrow one of her organs (say you surgically receive a KIDNEY). My mother loves me enough to probably do that and yours probably does too. But DOES the state HAVE a right to harvest her organs by FORCE to prolong your life? OR do you think SHE gets to decide that for herself? Now what if you are the mother and its your child? What if it is essentially a stranger that you have no bond with (how some woman feel with a child they did not plan for)? What if your a father in this scenario? What if a stranger poisoned you and not your mothers fault? (I was trying to come up with an analogous scenario for rape). I find that almost every concept of morality I have encountered relies on Bodily Autonomy. I think therefore I am is pretty basic. If people do NOT have autonomy over their own bodies then most other alleged rights do not make much sense. Did my best to summarize, and I have certainly heard at least 3 or 4 other GOOD compelling arguments. But I find that one the strongest because it requires the least assumptions and personal value judgements to be valid.
@@elawchess That's a really good question, actually, to the point where it's hard to come up with an answer. I'd have to answer broadly. I think the best pro-choice argument is one that hinges on a worldview that either 1.) presupposes that human rights are not inherent or objective, but legal constructs to serve the normative majority population, even to the (possibly lethal) detriment of some classes of human beings or 2.) it's okay to kill human beings that have not yet developed the capacity for pain. Basically, 1.) is the "personhood" spectrum of ideas - that a majority block of voters or a ruling class can legally strip human beings of their humanity by denying them the concept of "personhood" in order to kill them (basically, "might makes right"). 2.) is more of an appeal to the idea that human beings don't have value and that everything should be construed with respect to pleasure and pain.
Given that God uses knowledge to confound the wise aka those who think they can outsmart God with words and intellect, why would God appeal to you when you reject him daily and deny the scriptures?
@@japexican007 That sounds like a very convenient means of moving the goalposts. And saying that I think I can 'outsmart god' is, to me, like saying 'You think you can outsmart Gandalf'. If I believed he existed, well, that might be a start.
@@danielosetromera2090 I’ll have to check out Fraser and get back to you but I doubt he’d be running scared… he has conversations and debates as honestly as possible. That’s the hope is that everyone is a critical and honest interlocutor as much as possible.
@@cameronroot Alex can be the most well spoken and honest person in the world, but if his arguments don't fly (as they don't, in my opinion), then it's not of much use.
There’s a great lineup of folks that I like: Forrest, Erica, Matt, Alex, Stephen, Aron, Paulogia, Viced Rhino I feel there a missing seat at the table for cosmology.
Let me tell you, that plant enjoyed the debate - especially the part where they brought forth the concerns of the creature's sufferings alongside human suffering. Praise God.
I KEEP HAVING EXISTENTIAL CRISES WHEN WATCHING DEEP DEBATE VIDEOS AND ALWAYS TELL MYSELF I NEED TO STOP BUT I AM SO DRAWN TO THEM THAT I CAN'T STOP WATCHING THEM. IT'S A CURSE.
@@hummingbird1375 no it's your brain trying to resolve an important issue. Existential crises only thrive in a backdrop of delusion. A disappointment with reality is just the mourning of a falsehood (disappointment in German is "Enttäuschung" which is literally "disabusement")
If that were true you wouldn't need an explanation point. Everyone would just know. And you don't think it's telling that it's called being an apologist lol.
@@talyahr3302 Apologist ultimately comes from Late Latin, meaning “a speech in defense of”, in this case Christianity. Also, you saying that Christ isn’t Lord doesn’t make him any less the Lord.
If you can spank/beat/assault your child because you gave them life and are morally responsible for them, you're just saying 'I can cause suffering because I am compensating them'
The avoidance of pain and effort is the main driver of wealth inequality, obesity and the drug epidemic. Pain might not be as damaging as the avoidance of pain at all costs.
@wadeodonoghue1887 or is it that the organizations providing the necessaries of life (employers providing pay, health care providing care, etc.) have realized that they can treat those below them worse based on the fact that they are providing a necessity? Sounds like they can knowingly cause suffering because they are compensating the sufferers.
@@miniwheatz93 As it is above so is it below. We make fancy hats and titles to make some of us feel superior and other inferior, but those hats and titles only have reality in the man made world, although we act like we made it all their is a "greater whom". You can be a rich king but get an illness and die, Nature still has us by the balls while we tread on each other's heads trying to overcome. Nature? To me it's like monkeys arguing who will go to space first, that's how the hierarchy fight of the modern world looks. A struggle for an empty prize. I'd rather be a Dolphin in the ocean than a man in his head... Boss, Money, Ownership these are man made concept that we may argue about, at the end of the day they are ideas, ideas also die in time.
A human is unqualified to hurt another human being just because one gave the other life and/or they are morally responsible for them. God's "compensating" comes from the idea of an eternal afterlife. A human cannot provide that.
According to Trent, God is like this on the issue of divine hiddenness. Me: God, I want to know you, can you reveal yourself God: Nope, you have to get to know me through others Me: But they all disagree on what you are all about and if I choose wrong, I will go to hell! God: I need my epistemic distance, please go seek elsewhere.
With all due respect to Alex, I don't think a debate about god is going to resolve any issues between believers and non-believers. In my own path from Catholicism to atheism, which ran through late high school and early college, I didn't reason my way out of faith. I can't disprove god, or even Catholic theology. I just no longer found religion necessary, which resulted in a lack of belief in god. I was also annoyed by long and pointless sermons in church that rarely made any sense. I stopped accepting what I was being told as true. Fair enough, argumentation is a way of focussing one's thinking, I'm not opposed to debating the issue, but I do not think that reason alone suffices to make anyone change their mind. There's also an emotional component to it. I just stopped needing religion. And no, if you ask, I wasn't molested as a child by clergy, though they kept the young and amusing ones well away from kids if unsupervised. If religion stops meeting your needs, you're going to stop being religious; if religion starts meeting some needs, then you'll become religious. Reason is merely part of the process, and not even the most important part.
This may be true for you, but I know plenty of people who did reason their way out of it, myself included. Religion wasn't just utilitarian to me the way it seems to have been with you.
@@SerenitySong6 Well, it's hard to put a lifetime's experience into a brief post. You certainly didn't explain how you managed to reason your way out of faith in yours. I didn't say I didn't use reason at all, just more than reason - I did reason that with so many different theologies, and no way of figuring out which, if any, was "true," one might as well conclude none were, but I didn't reason my way to thinking there was no prime mover, merely that it wasn't possible to know one or communicate with one, assuming one existed.
@@Leszek.Rzepecki Oh no, I wasn't implying that you didn't use reason lol. For myself, losing my religion started specifically because I was an extremely devout Christian who had questions. Leadership in the church didn't seem to take me or my questions seriously so I decided to try to find it out myself by first reading the bible cover to cover. That...really didn't go well lol. From there, I basically tried to reaffirm my faith my listening to a lot of apologists, I just couldn'tstop thinking about the contradictios and logical failures. My entire world revolved around being religious, it definitely wasn't the case of me not needing it anymore. Not being religious caused me a lot of problems. I have a lot of friends with similar stories, so just wanted to point out that pure reason, even when you are emotionally predisposed towards theism, really could start someone on a journey to a lack of faith.
@@SerenitySong6 Well, I can only describe my experience, and am not daft enough to assume everyone else's experience must be the same as mine. Catholics don't do the bible the same way some Protestant evangelicals do, we're not taught it's literally true. Catholics have no problem with science, including evolution and cosmology, and don't take the Old Testament literally - 6 days of creation and Noah's flood are just allegories to Catholics. Some don't even seem to take the New Testament entirely literally. So while one can reason one's way out of a literal belief in the bible, it's not really possible to just use reason to reject a metaphorical or allegorical interpretation. For Catholics, it's more a matter of ritual and tradition being important, being part of an unbroken history of the faith reaching back over 2 millennia now. So the path to apostacy for a Catholic, like me, is not necessarily going to be identical to an evangelical fundamentalist's. I lost faith in faith, I didn't reason my way out of that one. I still have faith in mathematics, though I'm pretty dull at it and do not understand it fully, but it does produce results. (I was a biochemist in real life.) Yes, using reason was part of the journey, but my understanding of religion is it also requires an emotional commitment, one that mere reason isn't always sufficient to overcome. I hope I've made myself more clear than in my original post.
@@Leszek.Rzepecki You did make yourself clear, thank you. Just wanted to make clear that I was not taught the bible was aleays literally true either - I didn't lose faith because I found out Noah's arc wasn't literally true, for example. I guess I was more responding to your initial claim that a debate about God would not resolve any issues between believers and non-believers. That's just patently untrue in my and a number of other cases I am personally aware of. I don't really have any issues with you qualifying that a bit.
As I said, on the roundtable debate from several days ago, if we lived in a world without suffering (deprivation), we wouldn't have a utility for understanding values of experience. Suffering (experience of separation) is necessary for desire. One could not desire a _better_ state if they were not in a state where they lacked something (deprivation causing desire). You could try to make an argument for excessive suffering instead, but that comes with its own problems. I am not a theist.
@@Nick-Nasti Notice how the thing you put in quotes was the word "suffering"? That's because I used the word suffering. Now see how you put the word horrific in front of the quoted word suffering? I never used the word horrific. That's an addition you are making which has nothing to do with what I said. So, you're creating a straw man and then trying to argue against your straw man. That has nothing to do with my point. I also explained suffering, so you can refer to that which doesn't imply "horrific."
@@cloudoftime “suffering” includes all forms of suffering and not just some mild example of a dentist visit to represent all suffering. It is plainly not a strawman.
When Alex states that a world without evils that produce goods such as forgiveness and compassion is better, he is basically expressing a desire for heaven. A place where there is no suffering. This is a Christian concept. We have to accept the reality that we live in a fallen world, and one day, there will be a world without all evil. The Christian has that to look forward to.
Forgiveness and compassion are useful only in our reality. If no one does anything wrong, ie heaven, no one needs forgiveness. If there's no pain of any kind, mental or physical, there's no need for compassion. Going through hardships to produce goods that are useless and irrelevant in heaven, to go to heaven, makes zero sense if you honestly consider the attributes of heaven.
One issue i have with these conversations is i have trouble guaging how much a person believes a thing because of their argument or because of the ramification the negative would have on their other positions. Sthanks for the video!
1:43:33 No, it depends on *if* something is evil. I wouldn't accept payment from someone for them to do something I considered evil as it would make me complicit in the commission of that evil. In the case of arson there's a question of whether it's any different from demolition in this context especially when the payment is promised beforehand and the person's already thinking about the house they can build in its place.
57:09, but the thing is, God is not simply smacking bottoms. He's giving 10 year olds leukaemia or doing other heinous things. Even parents with moral responsibility have certain boundaries
as an agnostic I would like to play devil's advocate. God isn't necessarily giving kids leukaemia but rather he's allowing it. it's the same as seeing someone get hit by a car and not stopping it rather than pushing them.
@@Ninkumpop I am also an agnostic, but I must object - if God set the world into motion (that includes the entire universe) then this child dying of leukemia, this person being hit by the car was certainly part of God’s plan if he did not stop it.
As a child in the 1950s, watching Oral Roberts "lay hands" on the "afflicted" every Sunday on our black & white TV terrified me In 70 years, I've never set foot in a "church". Swaggart, Hinn, Jim and Tammy Fae, etc, reinforced my resolve. Hallelujah
Alex lately categorized himself as a non-resistant atheist.. he genuinely seeking for the truth about Christ, but he just could not see it or at least not convincing enough for him.. but he is seeking at least.. in other words he is open to the idea of God..
Wow that was an amazing discussion one of the best I have seen on a Religious channel between an Atheist and a Christian. It made me think to myself why I am not a Christian and have more affinity to Eastern Religions. So thought I would share my perspective. I know the main audience of this channel is likely to be Christians so I wanted to say I am not here to criticize Christians but to critique the ideas of Christianity as I have encountered them. Humans have feelings ideas do not. Having listened to Alex's points helped me clarify the clash I en-counted when studying Christianity. I don't want to write a whole essay so I will summarise my points succinctly. I feel the main reason I never became a Christian is the character of God in the Bible seems to behave in contradictory ways. Trent said in his talk that God defines Morality which then makes Morality arbitrary as God has done things which seem Immoral if done by humans. If a scientist developed a device that flooded the whole earth and killed all Animals and Human life (Plus insects etc..) that would be a immense evil. But God floods the Earth killing all life bar a few and that is totally ok because God is morality by definition. A War-lord commands his men to kill a group of people (including women and children) and we call it a genocide and say its Evil. God commands the Slaughter of the Canaanite's and that is totally fine. Trying to use God as a measure of what is Moral seems to be like using a ruler that randomly changes length every time we try to measure something. It would be useless as we would have no idea how to measure anything reliably. Second point is God is unfair in the way he communicates with his creation. God through his Grace makes his existence known to some as recorded in the bible but not others. Alex as an example has sought God intently as have I in my past. But God has not made his existence 100% clear to me or him. But God in the Bible talks to various characters and makes himself known. To me that is like a teacher who sets a quiz (Salvation) but gives some hints to some pupils and not to others. A teacher who behaved that way would be disciplined or sacked as it is unfair. It was this constant whip lash between the character of God that made me doubt the ideas in Christianity. It seems that God is allowed to abuse his power because he is God. But if Humans behave that way we call them Tyrants and Dictators. Seems like a might is right kind of argument. Trent tried to defend this by saying God is the creator so can behave how he wants and also mentioned his being a Parent gives him authority over his children which is true. But if a parent tried to kill their children no Court is going to let them go free just because they say they brought the child into the world they have a right to take it out. That would not be a good reason. We take into consideration the rights of the child to life. In Eastern religions, Buddhism, Jainism the principle of Ahimsa is the Goal to make one's conduct as Non- Violent as best as you can. This principle seems more applicable to Humans as it is not as arbitrary as the Morality of God in the bible. If Gods Morality is so much beyond what we can understand then its like someone telling you they have the knowledge of ultimate Truth Morality and everything but it is too advanced for your mind. So its totally useless in the real world where humans have to navigate. Finally I wanted to comment on Trent's example in the Q&A about happy to accept 10 million pounds for his house being destroyed but not happy if it involved someone sleeping with his wife. I feel the analogy is flawed as God does not let us choose the suffering we experience in life so we are forced to endure suffering against our wishes. Even if the result is a great reward in Heaven it does not negate the suffering we experience here on Earth as we are powerless in general when it comes to suffering. If we could choose the suffering and be sure of the reward in Heaven that would make is analogy hold. That's my summary.
Thanks for sharing. These are often objections of the unbeliever who has spent time thinking through the God of the Bible. I figured I would share with how the Bible responds to your main points. The most obvious passage that covers most, if not all of your questions/comments is found in Romans 9:14-24. You likely will not like the answer you find there, but it is nonetheless the response of the Bible so figured I would share!
I think most of your post is flawed in the points your exist. For example God commanding the execution of the Cannanites. It is permissible because it is God passing judgement. In other words what he did was serve justice. Justice is about giving to someone what they deserve. Secondly I think you look at morality through the lens of the 21st century rather than in the infancy of civilization. Life was far harsher and those who got out of bounds with their tribe the consequences much more severe so the penalty one would accrue from justice being carried out back than we should expect to look vastly different than it would today. I became a believer from agnosticism not because I had some overwhelming experience in my heart that God exists. Reason is what brought me to God and what brought me to Christ was the Resurrection. There is nothing else comparable to it including what happened afterwards in my view. Perhaps you should really go and flesh out those points you listed and counter them with the best steel man arguments you can find on the pro Christian side and see if they hold up to scrutiny I’ve never found good reasons for the belief of atheism as being sufficient to explain why we are here, the universe, the mathematical probability we just exist by random chance Which the probability of that is what occurred makes even less sense. So I was never an atheist but I was agnostic for about 15 years.
I find it interesting that Trent would say Infinity is a really bad thing to bring into the world and then immediately describes the alternative as "eternal".
There is a difference between infinity on this planet and eternity in a dimension that feels you with nothing but love and peace. Hope this helps, if it doesn't then that's all I got tbh, that's how I see it.
The god argument has always been circular if not contradictory, even though they dont see it that way, if I want to be blunt. The worst way to convince a good thinker. Pure mental gymnastics to fool common folks. Because for many millennia, they acquired zero proof.
I appreciate the way the chairs match their shoes. Whoever made that happen, I see you.
Hey nice eye!
Best comment ever
Civilized comment.
Or...it's coincidence.
Good observation. 😁
Filming this in heaven was a nice touch
I know its been a year, but this is funny.
😂😂
@@3magikarpinamansuit281 after a year and two weeks, it's still funny. Let's come back periodically and see when it stops being funny, if ever.
That’s almost believable 😂 then you see cosmic sceptic is there
@@Pretty_Fly_White_GuyStrongest evidence against Christianity.
I’ve been watching cosmic skeptic for a long time and this conversation has really changed my perspective:
I too now see Alex as a tall person.
You're not talking intellectually speaking I take it.
@@zootsoot2006 it was a joke i think, but why not exactly?
Right?? Damn
I thought it was funny.
Is 6.1ft (what the hell is wrong with you people still using this atrocious system) considered tall? It's... it seems kind of average to me.
Edit: 6.1ft = 186cm... I am 184 and I'm not considered tall nor am I considered short...
My wife's water broke while listening to this. Just thought you all should know.
You fornicator you..
Congratulations!
Damn hopefully you'll be able to fix her water again...
I broke while listening to this
If you drink it you get superpowers
So refreshing that there needn’t be a moderator in this debate. No strawmanning, dodging questions, rabbit trailing, or ad hominems. Just two serious thinkers really listening to each other and talking through what they believe. I’m a Protestant Christian but I greatly respect both of these guys.
Even as a Catholic, Alex O'Conner is very respectful. Lots of atheists can learn from him in how to have a discussion. And yes, Trent is great. He's always super nice in debates/dialogues.
Yes, this is the climate we need instead of the inflammatory fundamendalist vs. Hitchens age
jaredlowry, what convinced you to select your particular religion out of the many which are available?
@@thedubwhisperer2157are you a seeker?
@@gorb_oron A what?
Alex has become my favorite and respectful atheist. He’s sincere and genuine and respectful. He’s definitely an example of someone who disagrees and yet he’s not mocking or insulting the other! Definitely an example for Christian’s as well to follow.
He carries himself well. But I can't take him that seriously as a thinker. He is too young for one. Articulate yes, but still young.
@@gideondavid30 It's not age that makes one wise.
@@mattheartfollower4123 It often does aided with life experience and self-reflection. How many 18-22 yr olds have you met that are wise? Very small percent.
@@gideondavid30 This. I think people give him too much credit where there shouldn't be any credit.
@@gideondavid30 one of the most silly comments I have seen in a while
00:00 Discussion on philosophy of religion and why Trent Horn is a Christian
05:52 The existence of intrinsic human dignity and morality points towards a divine direction.
16:12 The problem of divine hiddenness and non-resistant non-belief raises questions about the existence of a loving God.
20:43 Religion and politics cannot be simply labeled as good or bad.
35:27 A world that journeys to perfection has more goods in it
44:48 Critiquing the problem of evil in Christianity
49:25 The morality of inflicting suffering for a greater good
58:44 Promoting welfare of mentally handicapped humans over non-human animals
1:03:37 Moral debates involve emotive states and differing moral claims.
1:12:53 The Bible's account of God's revelation is progressive in nature.
1:17:57 People will be judged based on their culpability, not just intellectual inquiry.
1:28:26 The problem of evil and falsifiability of Christianity
1:33:01 The problem of suffering is important and should be taken seriously.
1:42:32 Compensation for suffering may justify allowing evil.
1:47:14 Arguments can increase probability of Christianity being true
1:56:02 The existence of suffering and evil is not a reason to be an atheist.
Thank you so much for these time stamps!
Can we get this comment pinned please?
I feel like there needs to be a time stamp to 10:22 but I'm not good at writing a quick little title for it. That's when Alex begins to explain why he is an atheist, starting with the problem of needless suffering.
@ContriteCatholic MVP of the comment section 😎
@@wolfegaming36yes i think you're right, maybe something like "Religion is a response to human suffering"
It’s lovely that we’re starting to see Alex so much in all places. I’ve been here for a while and absolutely delighted by the recognition he has received.
The smartest atheists don't remain atheists, but for Alex it's a career.
@@joannware6228 by that logic Dawkins, Hitchens, Sam Harris and so on arent smart atheists? Lol ok
@@Gill1923 You forgot Hawking. He was one of the smartest. The other three are smart but maybe not the smartest like C. S. Lewis and Edith Stein.
@@joannware6228 What about Hawking? He was an atheist. Also a scientist. And not even close to being as smart on the subject of religion and atheism as the people I had mentioned.
@@Gill1923 Okay I'll cross him off. Thanks.
Another atheist here. I am also a nonresistant nonbeliever. In fact I used to believe and realized my prior evidences and personal experiences for my beliefs had more natural reasons.
I wish you all the best, Internet comrades. Lots of love.
Well said! That matches me perfectly man.
Samesies.
Yup. Never thought I’d be in those shoes but here we are. Would have liked to hear Alex’s reply about evil in the Bible. That to me is probably my biggest hurdle to belief that Christianity is true. The follow up question was telling of what possibly could be in the Bible that would convince you a loving God didn’t write it.
Hey mate.
Just want to challenge you on nonresistant nonbeliever. I'm not saying your not. In my experience though, lots of people say this and then on reflection realise they were resistant. They had just fooled themselves.
Again, not saying you are. Just saying sometimes understanding our own motivations are hard
@@joshs2986 Hey mate, I'm replying though you didn't comment to me. Leaving Christianity was a struggle that took me around a decade. I was trying to share the good news and prove the truth of Christianity but I kept coming up against evidence against my claims and reasons to doubt. As someone who desperately wished for Christianity to be true, even after no longer believing it, I can tell you that there's many of us out here who truly desired to believe or continue believing, but became convinced otherwise. Sometimes the truth hurts because it's not what you truly desired with all your heart.
This is definitely one the best Christian and Atheist discussions I've ever watched after 30 years of listening/watching/reading hundreds of discussions and debates.
Have you seen his debate with William L Craig...if yes what did you make of it?
@@streetwisepioneers4470 You mean where Alex interviewed WLC? It wasn't a debate. It was cordial discussion and interview. Alex even admitted that a number of his criticisms a few years back when he was younger were bad objections. That he now recognizes it being older, wiser and more informed when it comes to philosophy and argumentation.
It’s because Trent is Catholic. Protestants have no idea what they’re talking about
I think the calm and respectful tone is quite nice; but on substance I don’t really see this as being anything other than par for the course, bad arguments for Christianity.
@KZSoze Truth is only "bad arguments" to the Spiritually blind.
Been watching Alex for years, he always been a smart well spoken lad.
big ups
Walked for 2 hours while listening to this, and I was thoroughly engaged the whole time. Thanks for this.
I am cooking and have done the same. ⚘
@@rosiegirl2485 You walk while you cook? :p
same, but i got hit by car while crossing the street
Doing relatively mundane tasks while listening to a video/podcast is always a nice experience!
@@Solbashio F
I am an atheist but find this explanation and defense of theology quite well developed and honest (even though I disagree)
do you think that with this defense and explanation presented to you, it might be a better idea to adopt a theological worldview for the sake of happiness and personal fulfillment?
@@AquinasBased no I’m quite happy and it would be a futile effort as you can’t choose to believe. Sure I can act like I believe but that won’t have the same effect and would result in me knowing I’m living in a way that I disagree with which probably wouldn’t make me happy
@@AquinasBased A better explanation than others have presented is not automatically convincing.
You can recognise something is well presented and argued but still be more convinced by the other side of the argument.
Religious people are soaking so called fulfillment out of 2000 year old fairy tales for adults. Just that fact alone makes you religious losers hella ridiculous.
It's well developed compared to other Christian arguments, but still laughably flawed.
Wow! My respect for Cosmic Sceptic has skyrocketed (pardon the pun!). I am really impressed by his integrity and honest enquiry. I wish him well. Thank you CC for hosting and posting this event.
Mine went down, he keeps using the same excuse as to why he rejects God and it’s gotten so played out it’s not even worth responding anymore
@C L I think we may yet still be surprised by his journey! I certainly can related to his way of thinking before coming to Christ.
@@japexican007 it’s god’s turn to respond.
My respect for him has skyrocketed as well.
The atheist both thinks too highly of himself but also too lowly. He thinks too highly because his pride won't let him admit that he has faults and that he is wrong. He thinks too lowly because this causes him to accept a dismal existence.
Wow... I genuinely didn't think that either guest could bring me anymore "new" arguments to the table that I haven't come across before...boy was I wrong!
you must be new to this.
Hi @Aadam, what new gems did you discover :) ?
@@archangelarielle262 this comment is gold
As an atheist, I very much enjoyed this discussion, including Trent’s points. Well-spoken and intelligent, though I do disagree and think his response to the racism and MLK question was a total dodge.
Subbed for more chats like this.
The atheist both thinks too highly of himself but also too lowly. He thinks too highly because his pride won't let him admit that he has faults and that he is wrong. He thinks too lowly because this causes him to accept a dismal existence.
@@joannware6228 oh dear god…
@@joannware6228 rofl what a terrible take, this is exactly why most Theists are laughed out of the room. Trent approaches this with empathy and you spew ridiculousness.
@@joannware6228 haha hot take there, Jo Ann Ware. Good thing nobody agrees.
@@joannware6228 You've only pasted this comment a handful of times. MOAR.
I’m an atheist but I do enjoy Trent Horn. I think he’s a very intelligent individual, speaks very eloquently, and can bring up points and responses that make you think. I will say, and I may be a weird case as an atheist, but I generally don’t like the problem of evil. As intuitively it may be for me to think that there’s no way a loving god could allow for all this seemingly gratuitous evil, it very well may be the case that if he were to exist then it would be justified in some sense.
I agree entirely, but the example of someone beating a kid on the side road made Trent fidget a bit - if you accept god has his reasons, you cant back away because "you understand parent - child dynamic". Either you can act on your own and counter god's decision to have a child ripped apart, or you have to accept any murder, rape, robbery and whatnot as part of gods plan - after all "if he were to exist then it would be justified in some sense". As with other arguments, Christians want to have it both ways, and that's just 🤮
@@tomyossarian7681 I agree for sure.
Merely positing that an explanation may exist is not to provide an argument; it is merely to assert that one thinks such an explanation is possible. Until that fact is established the ‘argument from evil’ stands.
I was also interested in what arguments he would bring forth. Sadly the first argument was the argument citing Anthony flee ... Hm.
Agreed. Because I can't help but intuitively feel that these second order goods like compassion, forgiveness or bravery enrich the human experience in a way that even a loving, perhaps especially a loving God, would allow them. The idea that a loving God necessarily needs to provide us some luxurious paradise just doesn't sit right with me
Alex is so suave, calm and collected, a very impressive showing good sir. Keep up demonstrating what atheists can really be 👍🏽
"What atheists can really be" - well, anything that theists can be. We are all just people from obnoxious a**holes to champions of humanity. Whether person believes in God, gods or none doesn't affect it.
@@Staremperor in my experience, believing you're one of God's chosen people definitely lends itself towards obnoxious assholes.
There are indeed a handful of very outspoken atheists... But the other side of the coin is Christian missionaries, of which there are exponentially more. And their main job is to travel the world and tell people they're filthy sinners who deserve hell except that some guy sacrificed himself so that if only you worship him, you can avoid eternal he'll fire.
@@williamdowling7718
Are you objecting to the message or the messengers? If I had to deliver you disturbing news, and you wouldn't like it, should I just not tell you anything? Maybe a hurricane is about to hit the beach, and I tell you go inland, would that make me an obnoxious person?
@@gideondavid30 From "The good news bible" then yes!
^Im an atheist, but I certainly think loud obnoxious atheists are far more common (hence the original comment and it's number of likes, since people agree that he's setting a better example than we have seen countless times).
Sure, missionaries are spreading that message, but genuine ones are doing it out of the goodness of their hearts (well not exactly, but the point is that they aren't doing it due to ego).
Atheists are constantly are just doing an ego battle of who's smarter/who was so dumb that they got brainwashed, and while theists arent immune from the ego battle of "you're so dumb god is right in front of you idiot you think we all came from nothing??? Hahaha idiot", they are still, at least seemingly, far less likely to engage in the battle of egos, assuming they're genuinely trying to live up to what their book has taught them.
Since to them, it's very serious, literally about heaven and hell, and to us its just an argument to get into for the sake of arguing.
I expected a good conversation, but this exceeded expecations. There was certainly some repeats from earlier conersations but they injected some new content into this conversation and I was engaged throughout. Keep up the great work.
My physical suffering comes and goes. There is no remedy. It shrinks my world. Maybe your compassion does something for you but it does nothing for my suffering.
Alex seems to be a sincere truth seeker, and I love that!
He does, but pride will always block the truth even if you are sincere. Truth seekers don’t always find God because there are other things required like repentance and dying to self
@@OrangeRaft Which God do you believe in?
@@Nissenov well that’s not a good question unless you are involved in these debates comparing Americanized atheism to Americanized Christianity. But I’m not interested in such comparisons because there are other options like a Heiser type view on the ancient world. The question is of allegiances not “belief”
@@OrangeRaft Fine.
Which God do you swear allegiance to?
@@OrangeRaft Yeah, allegiances. So this little game of yours does devolve into tribalism. How dull, and predictably human. Let's not have an informed view of the world, no, let's pick a team, and build a worldview of excuses that always comes back to that team, even though we live in a world that allows us to be more than that.
Such an awesome conversation! Could listen to these two talk all day
The problem of suffering in life isn’t such a problem when you think about it in terms of existence and non-existence. In other words, I start from the premise that I exist. From there, I begin to think about the opposite of that, non-existence. Then, I begin to feel an overwhelming sense of gratitude for the fact that I exist. I then come come to the conclusion that no amount of suffering that I could experience in my existing that would make me choose, if I had the chance, to never have existed in the first place.
what a deep and meaningful discussion between two opposing teams.... props to both.
I was obsessed with apologetics and taught it to high schoolers in church for years. I now fall into the non-resistent non-believer category.
I eventually couldn't help but realize that my determination was to support Christianity, instead of starting with 0 assumptions and aiming for the truth. I've had no spiritual experiences, even despite praying for an hour long drive every day for years. I was one of the "overcommitted" Christians, and now I just look back and cringe.
I'm not going for sucking on each other's members, but I guess you have nothing to cringe about - it is common case that people have neither time nor strength of will to start from 0 and look at the claims impartially, especially when they have been indoctrinated as kids and live in tight communities that are bound by religion, church etc.
I wasn't in that position, but I guess I would go through the same process. At some point I would need to know what the hell are facts about Jesus, resurrection, Genesis etc. I don't see how someone with average intellectual ability can swallow all the half baked answers, once they start asking the questions.
In any case, good luck!
Well that sucks lol
What evidence made you leave a relationship with Jesus?
@@JG-pw1wp I think it’s more of the lack of evidence of the god in the Bible.
@@tristanrenteria515 The question of honest seekers looking for proof of Christianity is bogus. God’s raising His Son from the dead is the only proof, and that proof is infinitely capable of settling the mind of anyone who is concerned and who is sincere. So the question is not what proof is there of Christianity, because we are not dealing with Christianity. We are dealing with Christ. We are dealing with a man who became flesh, walked among men, gave His life for man and, to complete it, rose on the third day from the dead. The question is not what you think of Christianity but what you think of Christ and what you are going to do about Him.
Alex is a very charming atheist in my eyes. He has real empathy for deep depression and suffering.
Empathy for deep depression and suffering is completely independent of religious belief. There are wonderful atheists and terrible atheists. They're wonderful Christians and terrible Christians. There's wonderful Jews and terrible Jews. Etc. Religious belief has nothing to do with it
The difference between atheists and Christians is being an atheist tells you nothing about that person other than they don't believe in a god. They don't have doctrines. Christianity on the other hand has a book full of terrible things that even the "good" ones subscribe to.
@@amizan8653 if religion doesn't make you a better person what is the utility for it
@@HarrDarr I think the utility existed in the past. If humans work together as a group, it makes them more powerful altogether compared to individuals. I think religion in the early days was used to get people to form groups where members of the group were even willing to die for the objective of the religious group leader(s). Such a group would have more power and out-compete other groups of humans.
Also, humans are extremely afraid of death in terms of what death truly is: the unescapable, permanent end of one's existence, where they return to the state they were in before they were born. Religions all promise some form of afterlife, which is a coping mechanism to not accept with death really is.
Anyways, these are simply guesses of mine as to the utility of religion. I can't prove that these are true or not. They're simply what I think.
As everyone should
I'm very excited for this one, probably gonna watch it this weekend. Greetings from the Netherlands! We're a dutch apologetics squad. Groetjes uit Nederland :)
I love the Netherlands! (I'll hou Nederland...?)
@@CJ-sw8lc Amazing! You're getting there, it's: Ik hou van Nederland.
Groetjes van een nederlandse atheist. Nog nooit een vervelend gesprek gehad met een gelovige hier.
(greetings from a dutch atheist. Never had an annoying/bad conversation with a believer here)
@@ChristenDOM010 Ahh! I need to practice more 🧐
@@aidanya1336 Groetjes terug :)Hoelang ben je al overtuigd van het atheïsme?
Cosmic skeptic has been a huge influence in my life. Love him :-)
He is brilliant ✨
Same
me too... mf made me go vegan xD
@@Macluny
Now he is no longer vegan. So sad and disappointing, isn’t it? 😭
@@marishasveganworld2240 yes. I'd love to hear the detailed reason.
I’m looking forward to Trent’s journey towards veganism.
I think he is more likely to give up Jesus
@@theunrepentantatheist24 I doubt it.
I wish
Lol
@@theunrepentantatheist24 He would have to give up scriptural orthodoxy to be vegan. In Romans we read that "He who is weak in faith eats vegetables only". God instructs Peter to "Raise, kill, and eat". Jesus informes us personally that "all foods are clean for you to eat" so it's obvious to me that moral veganism is just a subjective individual elevating beasts up to the level of humanity. I don't have enough faith to look at farm animals as enslaved.😂
Love this! Nothing better than respectful, reasoned discussions.
Sure there is.
I'd take being intellectually honest and rigorous combined with logically consistent over "respectful" any day.
But that might just be me, I suppose.
I subscribed to Trent because of the way he argued for his belief. Although I am an agnostic atheist, I like to challenge my existing beliefs.
I only recently discovered Alex and his channel. In this discussion Alex was clear with his explanations and Trent did not seem to answer directly.
In short, I will be consuming a lot of Alex's content this week.
Great stuff!
Christians never answer directly, because they can't, there's no argument for them to make. Expecially his orrible answer about slavery really tells you everything you have to know about the intrinsic evilness of religion.
Yeah I noticed that too. Trent when his ideas are backed into a corner seems to divert from the subject. Alex brought that up several times in this discussion and Trent never adequately engaged with Alex's point. Trent did this in his debate with Destiny on abortion too. He is very civil and his points are very well crafted and informed though, they both did pretty well I think
@@Stuugie.did Trent subvert from the subject in the abortion discussion with destiny?
Good points on both sides. Thanks for stirring some thoughts. 🙂
Why's it so bright, was this shot in heaven?! That's one way to win an argument, well played...
This is one of my most favorite Christian/Atheist dialogues of all time. Keep up the awesome work Cameron!
I agree! I was so moved by the level of respect, engagement, knowledge that each of these men displayed. Their sincere interest in capturing the other person’s meaning and line of thought, just admirable. As a christian, I have to say I admire Alex’ approach, he is incredibly humble to always leave the door open ((however slim)) to the possibility of him abandoning atheism, I hold on to the hope God will reveal himself to him in a way he finds irrefutable. I say that out of love and respect for the beautiful soul he is.
@@johannaquinones7473 What would you say was irrefutable? John 14:12, would be one way.
2 Samuel 24 would be another - but boy, it would be messy.
Or Numbers 13:13? It all depends what is being revealed, I guess, if God is so mutable, or changes His ways, or at least - changes what faces and traits, are shown.
And Satan never got hidden from - even post high treason, his dubious suggestions about Job got given extraordinary weight and audience.
@@chrissonofpear1384 "Because the Bible says so" ought never be enough evidence, reason or argument to convince anyone of the truth of the bible. Of course its going to have "trust me bro this book is true and people who say it isn't are idiots" ("only the fool says in his heart...") sort of verses. All religions and cults have these self preservation/protection devices built in.
@@johannaquinones7473 If you're a Christian, how do you deal with the fact that your God has either favoured you in giving you the sort of brain that accepts the evidence for theism and not the evidence for atheism, or the sort of personal evidence that would convince anyone first hand, thus resigning you to an endless fate of pleasure and happiness.
But he has given non-resistant non-belivers the sort of brains that are not convinced by the evidence for theism and are convinced by the evidence for atheism, or he denies them the undeniable first hand evidence that he gives to theists, thus resigning atheists to an endless fate of suffering and torment?
How do you deal with that on a "all loving god" world view?
@@Joe_mammma Where is a person’s free will in all of this? I don’t see it like you do. Yes, everybody faces different circumstances, have different mental abilities, etc. and it is true God has very different ways of in which He makes Himself known to people, but I think it is up to each individual to ultimately make the choice for his/herself what to believe. For me it has been a journey, the more I learn about Christianity, the more I am convinced, and if I find myself doubting I put my questions to Him. I trust that He can help me either find answers or dissipate the feeling I need the answer to believe. I am not by any means saying to have faith without reason, but there is a point when you just decide that the evidence you have is good enough.
I am highly sympathetic towards Alex O'Connor concern over why there is suffering and pain with us.
.
The immense pointless suffering of trillions of trillions of trillions of innocent animals on this planet alone should be enough to shake any believer's faith to its core.
@@NoInjusticeLastsForever
what i begin to believe is that the pain, suffering and death in any form is part of our life on earth no matter how painful it is.. what matters the most is quality of our soul that matters the afterlife that i believe in. Jesus set a precedent for this process.
@@lesmen4 In English, please.
@@lesmen4 do you have any actual reason to hold that belief, or is it just what you’d like to be true?
@@NoInjusticeLastsForever indeed I agree pointless suffering created by man who rejected God and now God has to clean up our mess except atheists still reject God while making him the excuse as to why pain and suffering exists lol trololol
Wow, I oftentimes find myself disagreeing with whichever Christian Alex debates with, but I'm finding that Trent is doing a great job with taking him on.
Lmao until you find out he worships the largest pedo-ring on the planet labeled as a "church"
Man, thank you CC Team for hosting cool stuff like these.
The smartest atheists don't remain atheists, but for Alex it's a career.
@@joannware6228 Very wrong there, Jo Ann. Atheist see the truth. We can do without an imaginary skydaddy.
@@JazzyArtKL you can not even stablish morality values ahaha
@@luisbarbosa8136 Of course we can. Check out Prof Sapolsky's talk on this where he clearly explains that morality is engrained in human nature.
Love the patience of both speakers. That's probably why I was able to watch it until the end. They sounded like friends. Personally, I think a pragmatic justification for being a Christian is the hope for a renewed physical life without suffering and evil. If there is no everlasting and relatable hope after death, then one day everything will die and nothing will matter about my life. It may have mattered to me or others when we were alive, but in the end it will be the same. On the other hand, a new kind of relational and physical life in a world that has continuity from this life, yet suffering, evil, and death are not present....that's a uniquely hopeful possibility. This isn't to say there isn't any need for a epistemic justification of Christianity, but only that there is a pragmatic encroachment on the epistemic, as mentioned in the latest Reasonable Faith podcast. I find this to be a missing component of most explanations of why many of us become Christians. Another component can be found in what is often called reformed epistemology. I've already wrote enough though, but these would be three reasons why I am a Christian.
Unfortunately the cost of living as a Christian isnt nothing! So we have to use some reason to determine if it's a good bet :)
If one day everything will be gone, and nothing matters inherently, then you get to decide for yourself what matters to you. I don't believe I have an afterlife waiting for me, so I have to make sure I live and love to the fullest while I can! I appreciate your well thought out comment, my friend. All the best.
Let him believe this who can! I’d like to believe that every woman is attracted to me, but the evidence is against it.
@@iSkulk Thanks for reading my long comment(s) and replying! I agree that if atheism is true, everything will one day be gone and nothing matters inherently so you might as well live your life in whatever way seems best to you. I'm glad to hear your way includes loving to the fullest! Sometimes love is hard and even costly, and I'm guessing we'd both agree that the most loving thing a person can do for another would be to unexpectedly voluntarily choose to take the painful death that someone should've had so that they could live. For example, when Yondu unexpectedly dies for Quill. In Christianity, it's Jesus who unexpectedly dies for even the ones who rejected and killed him, in order that they would live. Even if you think it's a fictional story, I hope you get a chance, if you already haven't, to read a couple of the four gospel accounts of Jesus. Or if you don't want to read them, try watching "The Chosen", which is a top notch TV series on the story (with some creative license). Obviously as a Christian, I believe the gospel accounts are more than fiction, but even if we never agree on that, I hope you'll be inspired by the amazing love modeled in Jesus. Also, thanks for calling me friend. I hope for you all the best as well!
@@Her_Viscera For sure. There is definitely a cost. Epistemic justification is critical as well!
I’ve listened to this a few times since it came out, and I genuinely appreciate the conversation. I think Alex does a fantastic job presenting his own positions as well as strong counters to Trent’s. I also appreciate how honest Trent seems when trying to understand Alex properly before offering rebuttals.
I think these two are some of the best representatives of healthy conversation in this space.
Now that it’s been a year I’d love to know Trent’s thoughts on a few things. (If anyone else knows feel free to weigh in!)
1. Did you ever get off the fence? Did you land on ethical veganism or an advocate of factory farming (I imagine neither, because nuance).
2. Around 1:22:00 when using Michael Shermer as an example he says: I think really smart people can come to unintuitive conclusions.
This strikes me as the opposite point he wants to make. The world is full of unintuitive truths. Quantum mechanics isn’t intuitive. A globe earth isn’t intuitive. There are countless logic puzzles that demonstrate just how readily our intuitions can fail us. It seems to me that a smart the smarter a person is, the more willing they should be to accept unintuitive answers when related to life’s most complex questions.
3. I forget the rest. But just want to reiterate, I like Trent a lot. I think he’s be a very fun person to get a beer with and chat philosophy. Much love.
Number 2 I want to give my two cents about, since it's something I've had my own issues with.
Intellect is mostly pattern recognition, the universe is very complex and apparently chaotic. It happens that smart people may notice new hidden patterns and expose them to the world, and (maybe irrationally to a degree) they must fight so that they are not relegated back to the chaotic background at least for as long as it takes to properly assess their worth. A very smart person could theoretically create a defense so good for their theory that others who undertake the duty of trying to prove it false, fail.
Eventually someone, or the smart man himself, may prove it wrong, but the time between him finding a theory and someone proving it wrong (we are assuming it's wrong) is a lapse of time in which great intelligence made up and sustained a lie.
Sorry English is not my first language and I may have messed up somewhere.
We apparently have two different understandings for what the word "honest" entails.
I’m Catholic and love these debates. Alex is incredibly respectful and knowledge. God bless💪🙏
Science Bless ❤
Hey Cameron. Someone mentioned having more Eastern Orthodox people on. Would you consider reaching out to Jonathan Pageau to come on? We could all learn some fascinating stuff from him!
THE TRUE CHURCH IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
@@CristianaCatólica The true church is the universal church. That's catholic, with a little "c".
@@brando3342 or "orthodox" with a little "o"
@@Thedisciplemike Touche 🤣🤣
@@brando3342 Universal as in Church of the First-born Hebrews 12:23 so it's not limited to c or o traditions.
This was a very good discussion. They work together to create a shared improved understanding, as opposed to fight against each other.
I'm thankful for thoughtful and charitable interlocutors like Alex who can help us understand our beliefs and God better through these types of discussions. Perhaps that's one moral good that could come from some non-resistive unbelief 😉
As Alex would say, lucky you to benefit from Alex's non-consensually being withheld sufficient evidence/experience/whatever to believe.
What is Alex’s “threshold” and how is it objectively wrong?
Thanks Trent and Alex.
I’m writing this only 45 minutes in, so my apologies if I’m writing prematurely - regarding the objective good God and an existence of evil. Alex wanted a Christian answer. Well Trent could have said we live in a broken world. From his Catholic belief… we did live in a perfect world. That’s was before the original sin.
You’ll find that when the debate goes tough for the Christians, they often drop the name Jesus or the name Bible from the conversation and solely rely on the broad religious position instead of specifics like the biblical stories. It’s harder to argue against a vague definition of god or several religions/denominations rather than just one.
Great conversation.
Im an Athiest and I liked Trents approach and deminer.
Demeaner
Damn it!!!
Its demeanour
This was fantastic. Love Alex’s heart so much.
how articulate alex is never fails to blow my mind
It's scary.
He has watched all of Hitchens videos and read his books
He's made himself sound smarter by changing the way he speaks
Or he's actually that smart and has only gotten smarter...@@bryn3652
@viancavarma3455 But Alex is still wrong. Charm, sophistication and intelligence don't equate to wisdom and spiritual insight.
I was really surprised to get to the end of this video and find that this is a Christian TH-cam channel. Props to you for posting a video that undermines the arguments for your religion, I guess.
Trent has such an amazing way of fully fleshing out what someone is asking or trying to say, that is definitely what makes him special at this debate stuff.
Interesting take. I find him quite different.
Often, when he is fleshing something out, he he just changes what is being said.
Example when the talk about the Problem of Evil. Trent changes it into "Why God let's bad stuff happen". If that were the problem of Evil, it wouldn't be considered a problem.
The switch from discussing "How can Perfectly Good create an absence of itself and it still be Perfectly Good" into "Why does Perfectly Good allow bad things to happen" are fundamentally different questions.
Trent's changed question assumes there is no Problem of Evil (creation of evil) and asks why God allows (already created) Evil to continue existing.
@FPT Bot They are fundamentally different in that one asks about actualization and the other asks about sustainment.
Trent knows this but does it anyway.
Trent has a great way of confidently not understanding the question
@@cheftr1 both questions are part of the problem of evil, though.
@@King-uj1lh If asked one question and you decide to answer the other, it doesn't really matter that they both are found as chapters in the problem of evil book.
They are entirely different arguements dealing with the Problem of Evil, with different premises and different conclusions.
People praise Trent for his intellectual honesty but he dodged (politely I'll give you that) almost all of Alex hard questions. What's his answer to the deer under a tree problem ? I have no idea.
Without suffering faith is void, and without faith it is impossible to please God. So there's your answer.
@@lawrence1318those are non séquitors.
@@lawrence1318
th-cam.com/video/6xqCkx6WQBE/w-d-xo.htmlsi=mAF52CNHkNgnz0yU&t=18m24s
@@MB-nx9tqAtheist here (or, nonresistant nonbeliever)-I wouldn't call that a non-sequitur.
To have faith, you need that faith tested. Suffering is presented by the individual you're replying to as the test for faith, meaning without a reference point (the spectrum of suffering-happiness), you have no touchstone for faith.
It's the same way having no power and being peaceful does not make you good, just harmless. One way to visualise a good man is to visualise a powerful man who exercises reason of his own volition to inhibit his use of his power.
Complete dodger
So much respect for Alex. Well done Trent, always impressed with your answers.
I went from truly not understanding Christians but respecting their connection to faith to truly considering some of them brilliant people because of Trent. Now I still have a lot of issues with Christianity, pro life one of them, but Trent is really smart and I appreciate how he has changed my perspective. Still an atheist sorry to whoever
From the get go it seems that TH is actually saying that the universe owes us an explanation and if science at any point cannot help us get the explanations than all bets are of and anything that gives us an explanation is justified. This off course is epistemic bankruptcy. The most scientific position one can take in such cases is I don't know. Period! Else you're walking close to the line of I don't know therefore god.
As a polytheist, I find it fascinating to watch these types of discussions between atheists and monotheists, as I can often find myself agreeing with either side or neither side on some issues. I find the intellectually honest, civil discussions happening between atheists and monotheists recently to be a very big step of from the type of discourse we typically found on TH-cam a decade ago. I hope that things continue in this more civil direction in the future.
❤
Out of curiosity, whats your Religion?
And what points do you disagree with on both sides? :)
@@glebkamnev7006
Hellenismos, Greek Polytheism. I tend towards reconstructionism, but typically use the term "Revivalist".
As for things I agree with on each side,
Things I agree with Alex on:
1) I agree with Alex on the Problem of Divine Hiddenness, at least when it comes to religions like Christianity and Islam within which God demands worship. Within many religions, including my own, the Gods do not demand worship, nor do they necessarily desire it. Worship isn't for the sake of the Gods, it doesn't get us a better place in an afterlife, etc. Religions like this have no issue with Divine Hiddenness. I also would take things a step further than Alex and say that Divine Hiddenness is even WORSE for Christians, Muslims, etc. because of the fact that non-resistant non-believers can end up believers of many different religions (take me, for instance, that went from non-resistant non-belief to Polytheism). According to most standard theological ideas on the afterlife within Christianity and Islam, I am hell-bound merely because my non-resistant non-belief led me to the wrong religion, and that is problematic.
2) I do tend to side with Alex on the Problem of Evil in THIS discussion, but that is because they are both coming at it with the conception that a world without evil is a possible world and thus the existence of evil needs an explanation. I think that a world without evil would be a perfect world, but perfection only exists for the Gods and the Forms. Anything beyond that will have imperfections (take a sphere, for example, we can mathematically understand what a perfect sphere is but we also understand, due to our knowledge of physics, that such a thing cannot actually exist in the world). If you start with the idea that the world inevitably will have SOME evils, that is where I think various theodicies, like some used by Trent, work, but as it seems Trent maintains that a world without evil is possible, I tend to agree moreso with Alex's criticisms here.
Things I agree with Trent on:
1) While it is moreso an agreement with Pruss and Koons, that infinite causal chains as an explanation cause more problems than they solve. I do think that the Grim Reaper Paradox, and variations of it, helps to suggest that our causal history must be finite.
2) I do agree with him that, in regards to historical miracles, that Jesus resurrection has better evidence going for it than many non-Christian ones. I think that is, however, in large part due to Christian dominance in the world almost dictating what texts got preserved, and I also do not think that that actually means that Christianity is true rather than Polytheism (Jesus' Resurrection is consistent with Polytheism, so non-Christian miracles not having as good of evidence as the Resurrection isn't an issue if the evidence is still substantial enough).
I could go on, but that would require rewatching the video to see what they covered here.
Polytheism is a much more coherent idea.
This is very good. Thanks for sharing 👏🏽
I'm always confused by the "What do you expect a universe with/without god to look like?" line of questioning.
Idk, I only have the one universe to look at, and even then in an absurdly limited capacity
I can't compare this universe to a universe with a known creator, or to another with a known lack of creator. I have absolutely no idea how either of those should play out.
Divine hiddenness is one of my main issues as well. I’m going to need some serious evidence to believe in something extraordinary like the existence of god. However, if this god exists they are presumably perfectly situated to provide me with this evidence. Yet they either exist and will not convince me, or more plausibility, lack existence.
@timmy Smith I’m sorry but you don’t get it. The things you mentioned are not evidence, they are circumstances with very plausible natural explanations. You think I should disregard these in favor of supernatural ones? Why would I? I’d need some extraordinary evidence to do so. And we’ve come back to where we started.
@timmy Smith if your god exists it presumably knows the evidence that will convince me, is more than capable of providing it, and does not. In that case your un evidenced opinion is by comparison certainly “not good enough”. I hope you also have a good day.
Your mere existence, your conscious awareness, ability to choose, and your internal moral sense should serve as plenty of extraordinary evidence to start, and that's before you even start talking about the cosmological arguments.
I used to be basically agnostic until I studied Aquinas and Augustine. I know you can be convinced too bro. Ardently seek the truth! God bless
Like some samples of God-scat or something? Or flashes across the sky? But wait, any "evidence" we could attribute to some natural explanation.
I'd seriously go lookup "the logical rules of inference". Evidence simply is not needed to believe in all sorts of things. I can believe the disjunction "all of space, matter and time exists eternally, or it has a cause" (with an axiom being it cannot come from absolutely nothing) and zero evidence is required for that disjunction to be true.
@@godfreydebouillon8807 it’s easy for me to believe, for example, that my friends and family exist. I see them, I interact with them, I touch them etc. Things like that would be a good place to start. Then I’d like proofs of the existence of the supernatural and such. All this would be exceedingly easy for a god to achieve.
00:57:00 | Not sure if Trent was comparing the parent of a child to God and us, but I sure hope not, because Trent has basically said God can do what he wants to his creation...
I reckon that is what Trent was saying and that it was just because god would have good reason to punish us in hell even though we can figure out what that good reason would be - that is just more assertion to justify god sending people to hell - it doesn’t demonstrate god or reasonably justify that his can do whatever he wants.
Trent also seemed to suggest that while spanking Alex’s arse wouldn’t be good that is permissible for a parent to do to their child - he’s implying ownership of the child to justify doing what you want within some reason in the way the god is justified in doing anything.
It not convincing at all.
It feels a bit like Alex is getting tired of this debate, atheism vs. christianity. And I understand him. I really appreciate him moving on and discovering other discussions like he have done with veganism!
Lol, he's the one accepting the invitations. He can easily say no to them if he's tired of it.
@@chrisvalenzuela7911 he's probably tired because he had to spend half the video explaining the christian position to the christian
I mean you can only prove their arguments wrong so many times. Theism never changes, so you just prove the same things wrong over and over.
After I suffered from some traumas in life , I thought about how our ancestors, the hunter-gatherers , who encountered the Neanderthals, might have dealt with suffering loss of loved ones.
I truly believe what arose was a belief in an afterlife and god(s)... to help provide hope and reduce the chance of suicidal ideations.
Bingo
I think it's the opposite and much bigger than we realize
@@paulhayes5684care to elaborate ?
Alex is so precise on his arguments that the dude was like: Yeah thats god's work here.
😂😂
I was an atheist for a while. I also had quite severe depression for a number of years.
I remember one day I was lying on my bathroom floor crying about the state of myself and the world. I had really no options left. I swallowed my foolish rationality and pride and I asked something, anything for help, for relief, or a sign that would help me through my suffering. God or Allah or the spirit oh Buddha, I just wanted to understand honestly. I pleaded.
And what happened? Nothing happened. And that is a real thing that happened in our universe. And you can’t tell me that it didn’t happen.
I’ve made sense of this experience. And I know intuitively that if religious believers accuse nonbelievers of “not trying hard enough to have faith” they will drive their own religion to extinction.
An existence of a god and the reality of our suffering doesn’t mean god is just going to come down and stop your suffering for you. He’s not a vending machine. No one on earth escapes suffering. You pleaded and cried out to nothing because allah Buddha and the god of the bible are all different things.
@@everykneeshallbowzaoHe cried out to all of them individually. And sure, a supposed god doesn’t HAVE to help anybody… but an all loving one might have done a little more.
In regard to the people that "don't care", I wonder if they'd care if they were in the path of bad ethics, or would they suddenly ask/beg for "morals" and "humanity", or if someone they care for/wanted to protect were in the path of bad ethics, etc.
I sincerely enjoyed this conversation
There are people like me who grew up surrounded by agnosticism being accepted, so basically adults around me said "we don't know what happens when you die, we don't know what's going on, but we ask questions and consider these things fascinating". I thought this was super interesting, but I was ok with not knowing. As I grew up I encountered religion but I never felt convinced by what people were telling me and I couldn't understand why people felt they knew things we clearly don't. Now, if you want to think my lack of belief is active resistance that's fine, but I love asking questions and looking for answers, and so far I believe we, meaning all of us, still haven't got answers. I'm ok with that and look forward to hopefully getting more answers in my lifetime. If not, I'd love to freeze my mind and bring myself back every 10000 years or so, just to check where we're at, whether any Gods revealed themselves, whether we understand reality and the universe in a significantly different manner, or discovered advanced Alien civilizations or some other amazing phenomena! So no, recognising that at this moment in time I still have no answer to life mysteries is not being resistant.
@@tafazzi-on-discordI've wondered why Christians say God died for our sins when he was resurrected within 3 days? He didn't in fact die then, so why make it out to be the ultimate sacrifice?
@@tafazzi-on-discord Isn't God dying for our sins a fundamental expression of his love for us? If God, an Almighty entity, doesn't in fact sacrifice Himself at all, doesn't that cheapen His love? Jesus is now eternal and back to being God, so he did it for what? A token gesture without stakes? Why do Christians put so much reverence to God for his "sacrifice", when it was no sacrifice for Him at all? I'm deeply curious if this is ever discussed among Christians?
@@tafazzi-on-discord We can't come to that conclusion because that would lessen Jesus from God to man, when he is both only as so far as God embodied an avatar, but was always God in human skin, so he didn't experience true death. Jesus was resurrected sometime within 3 days, so the the loss for God was nil, and can only be described as a gesture, not a true sacrifice with consequences. Yet, Jesus is heralded as making the ultimate sacrifice, even going so far as ridding us from sin and to quell God's wrath. I just find the framing strange, when Jesus is alive, eternal, present and ominpotent, according to Christian belief.
I think it's something to ponder, because there's a lot of assumed guilt that believers should feel for our sins leading to God, through Jesus, having to die, despite not actually staying dead.
If I was omnipotent and created an avatar to kill myself and tell my disciples that my sacrifice is because of their sins, knowing that nothing of me would be lost and it was all a play without real consequences, I'd think about why God would create such a scenario and guilt-trip his believers?
I think I can understand why questioning such a fundamental part of the Christian belief won't be easily accepted, but calling it that he died for our sins is an overstatement as an eternal omnipotent being. Otherwise, we have to seperate Jesus from God, but that would create even more problems, and make the sacrifice even less understandable.
It's an interesting question to consider, because of all the implications we can derive from it.
@@Chapman1886 "Jesus as an avatar", "God in human skin", is a heresy known as Docetism, definitively rejected by the Christian Church in 325.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docetism
The reason why "questioning such a fundamental part of the Christian belief won't be easily accepted" is simply that such questions have already been thoroughly discussed a very long time ago within Christianity. The problems involved in separating Jesus from God (the Father), and the precise way in which this should be done, form a whole sub-branch of theology dealing with the "hypostatic union", and are the reason why the doctrine of the Trinity has arguably been fought over more than any other in Christianity, and is so complicated and hard to understand (or nonsensical, depending on your point of view).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypostatic_union
Trent said he would need to be a vegan or defend factory farming. But that's a false dichotomy because a non-vegan can buy food and other products from local farms and farmers' markets. If I need to buy some products from a supermarket, I can buy only products that factory farms don't produce. When you have to buy groceries from a store selling factory-farmed foods, you have to see whether you cooperate directly or remotely with the factory farmers. Say I'll die if I don't buy a factory farm makes. Should I die because I'm against factory farming?
That ”its funny that” with a subtle little smirk, on 56:37 was a check mate that went over the opponents head
When it comes to why we permit animals to suffer, I think the term should be "excuses" rather than "explanations"
Im Christian but Alex kinda won this one though both did a good job
You're not a Christian for sure
I see a lot of people praising Trent for his honest approach, addressing arguments etc... but I don't see it, all I hear is him weaselling around the question or point again and again, refusing to engage.
I know, right?! I've been time-stamping where he does as I watch.
Agreed. It’s almost as if he feels his faith gives him access to a deeper level of knowledge that reason provides, such that he only feels the need to provide polite lip service to the arguments.
Yeah completely agree, sophistry done well eh
Cause you overly focused
@@albertwongwong9806 explain please?
Fantastic discussion. Top class. There's an obvious reason why Alex O'Conner is sitting there rather than Stephen Woodford.
What don't you like about Stephen Woodford?
@@Enaccul arrogant dbag who purposefully misrepresents his opposition to make them look stupid
@flock of doves Oh dang really? When does he do that? That's shitty if he does
Stephen could just as easily sit in that seat and do just as well.
@@Enaccul There's zero modesty in his claims. He produces a lot of "debunking" videos, and presents his arguments as irrefutable. Alex O'Connor truly engagés with all the arguments, and leaves the door open for modification or correction. Stephen doesn't, and comes across extremely arrogant.
I would have loved it if after an Hour and 20 minutes of all this thought provoking talk one of the audience members had just asked something like
"" soooo what's your favourite kind of Pizza Topping? ""
I think I’m ready to be a stoic agnostic who’s with me! 😉
Trent's face when he questioned whether or not a fetus is a human being perfectly captures how I feel when reading the majority of pro-choice objections.
It's not about whether fetus is human, or if it's in there "curing cancer and writing poetry".
So what's the best pro-choice objection you've heard about?
@@elawchessParaphrasing but something along the lines of:
Human or NOT ppl do not have a right to other peoples organs. Under any OTHER circumstance would a child have a right to use their parents organs without their consent for 9 months, cause them immense amounts of pain and possibly death?
I actually don't think it counts as a human but I don't STRONGLY disagree and I can understand the perspective of those that do. But I don't think you actually need that to matter for this particular argument to be compelling and valid.
As a thought experiment picture your mother makes a very simple miscalculation (I dunno like mixes up your prescription or something), and the results of that miscalculation causes you mortal health complications (like failing kidneys or something). Medical science has advanced enough that doctors can keep you alive long enough to recover IF you borrow one of her organs (say you surgically receive a KIDNEY).
My mother loves me enough to probably do that and yours probably does too. But DOES the state HAVE a right to harvest her organs by FORCE to prolong your life? OR do you think SHE gets to decide that for herself?
Now what if you are the mother and its your child? What if it is essentially a stranger that you have no bond with (how some woman feel with a child they did not plan for)? What if your a father in this scenario? What if a stranger poisoned you and not your mothers fault? (I was trying to come up with an analogous scenario for rape).
I find that almost every concept of morality I have encountered relies on Bodily Autonomy. I think therefore I am is pretty basic. If people do NOT have autonomy over their own bodies then most other alleged rights do not make much sense.
Did my best to summarize, and I have certainly heard at least 3 or 4 other GOOD compelling arguments. But I find that one the strongest because it requires the least assumptions and personal value judgements to be valid.
@@elawchess Bodily autonomy - look up "violinist analogy" if you want.
@@elawchess That's a really good question, actually, to the point where it's hard to come up with an answer. I'd have to answer broadly. I think the best pro-choice argument is one that hinges on a worldview that either 1.) presupposes that human rights are not inherent or objective, but legal constructs to serve the normative majority population, even to the (possibly lethal) detriment of some classes of human beings or 2.) it's okay to kill human beings that have not yet developed the capacity for pain. Basically, 1.) is the "personhood" spectrum of ideas - that a majority block of voters or a ruling class can legally strip human beings of their humanity by denying them the concept of "personhood" in order to kill them (basically, "might makes right"). 2.) is more of an appeal to the idea that human beings don't have value and that everything should be construed with respect to pleasure and pain.
A good conversation, but we ultimately still do not get away from the burden of extraordinary proof which Christianity assumes.
Given that God uses knowledge to confound the wise aka those who think they can outsmart God with words and intellect, why would God appeal to you when you reject him daily and deny the scriptures?
Atheism carries a much higher intellectual price tag than Christianity.
@C L Wow there, that's a whole load of assumption, buddy.
@@japexican007 That sounds like a very convenient means of moving the goalposts. And saying that I think I can 'outsmart god' is, to me, like saying 'You think you can outsmart Gandalf'. If I believed he existed, well, that might be a start.
@C L what is the evidence you think you have?
The number of things that exist that I and everyone never expected. Why not this world?
You put Alex and Forrest Valkai together.. you can say goodbye to a lot of religious people real quick if they should come across their work.
Trent Horn is really overrated by a lot of people, in my view. Put Edward Feser in that, and see Alex running scared.
@@danielosetromera2090 I’ll have to check out Fraser and get back to you but I doubt he’d be running scared… he has conversations and debates as honestly as possible. That’s the hope is that everyone is a critical and honest interlocutor as much as possible.
@@cameronroot Alex can be the most well spoken and honest person in the world, but if his arguments don't fly (as they don't, in my opinion), then it's not of much use.
@@danielosetromera2090 that’s a true statement for any particular person no doubt there!
There’s a great lineup of folks that I like: Forrest, Erica, Matt, Alex, Stephen, Aron, Paulogia, Viced Rhino
I feel there a missing seat at the table for cosmology.
Let me tell you, that plant enjoyed the debate - especially the part where they brought forth the concerns of the creature's sufferings alongside human suffering. Praise God.
I JUST STARTED HAVING AN EXISTENTIAL CRISIS 14 MINUTES INTO THE VIDEO AND IM TYPING THIS TO BREAK THE TRANCE THANK YOU
Hey bro Hope ur doing well
Almost all former Christians eventually enjoy the freedom from religious delusions and appreciate reality.
@@peterp-a-n4743 Listen to Sunset Limited
I KEEP HAVING EXISTENTIAL CRISES WHEN WATCHING DEEP DEBATE VIDEOS AND ALWAYS TELL MYSELF I NEED TO STOP BUT I AM SO DRAWN TO THEM THAT I CAN'T STOP WATCHING THEM. IT'S A CURSE.
@@hummingbird1375 no it's your brain trying to resolve an important issue. Existential crises only thrive in a backdrop of delusion. A disappointment with reality is just the mourning of a falsehood (disappointment in German is "Enttäuschung" which is literally "disabusement")
The idea that compensation for suffering makes everything ok is not obvious.
Christ is Lord! I love when debates like this can happen and people can talk about this. Horn is a good apologist for the Faith.
If that were true you wouldn't need an explanation point. Everyone would just know. And you don't think it's telling that it's called being an apologist lol.
@@talyahr3302 Apologist ultimately comes from Late Latin, meaning “a speech in defense of”, in this case Christianity. Also, you saying that Christ isn’t Lord doesn’t make him any less the Lord.
@@micahcollins6412You Christ is Lord doesn’t change the fact that it’s actually the eternal Oompa Loompa that is Lord.
Prove to me it isn’t.
If you can spank/beat/assault your child because you gave them life and are morally responsible for them, you're just saying 'I can cause suffering because I am compensating them'
The avoidance of pain and effort is the main driver of wealth inequality, obesity and the drug epidemic. Pain might not be as damaging as the avoidance of pain at all costs.
@wadeodonoghue1887 or is it that the organizations providing the necessaries of life (employers providing pay, health care providing care, etc.) have realized that they can treat those below them worse based on the fact that they are providing a necessity?
Sounds like they can knowingly cause suffering because they are compensating the sufferers.
@@miniwheatz93 As it is above so is it below. We make fancy hats and titles to make some of us feel superior and other inferior, but those hats and titles only have reality in the man made world, although we act like we made it all their is a "greater whom".
You can be a rich king but get an illness and die, Nature still has us by the balls while we tread on each other's heads trying to overcome. Nature?
To me it's like monkeys arguing who will go to space first, that's how the hierarchy fight of the modern world looks.
A struggle for an empty prize.
I'd rather be a Dolphin in the ocean than a man in his head...
Boss, Money, Ownership these are man made concept that we may argue about, at the end of the day they are ideas, ideas also die in time.
A human is unqualified to hurt another human being just because one gave the other life and/or they are morally responsible for them.
God's "compensating" comes from the idea of an eternal afterlife. A human cannot provide that.
According to Trent, God is like this on the issue of divine hiddenness.
Me: God, I want to know you, can you reveal yourself
God: Nope, you have to get to know me through others
Me: But they all disagree on what you are all about and if I choose wrong, I will go to hell!
God: I need my epistemic distance, please go seek elsewhere.
Oh my gosh this audience has such a great sense of humor. So witty.😂👍
With all due respect to Alex, I don't think a debate about god is going to resolve any issues between believers and non-believers. In my own path from Catholicism to atheism, which ran through late high school and early college, I didn't reason my way out of faith. I can't disprove god, or even Catholic theology. I just no longer found religion necessary, which resulted in a lack of belief in god. I was also annoyed by long and pointless sermons in church that rarely made any sense. I stopped accepting what I was being told as true.
Fair enough, argumentation is a way of focussing one's thinking, I'm not opposed to debating the issue, but I do not think that reason alone suffices to make anyone change their mind. There's also an emotional component to it. I just stopped needing religion. And no, if you ask, I wasn't molested as a child by clergy, though they kept the young and amusing ones well away from kids if unsupervised. If religion stops meeting your needs, you're going to stop being religious; if religion starts meeting some needs, then you'll become religious. Reason is merely part of the process, and not even the most important part.
This may be true for you, but I know plenty of people who did reason their way out of it, myself included. Religion wasn't just utilitarian to me the way it seems to have been with you.
@@SerenitySong6 Well, it's hard to put a lifetime's experience into a brief post. You certainly didn't explain how you managed to reason your way out of faith in yours. I didn't say I didn't use reason at all, just more than reason - I did reason that with so many different theologies, and no way of figuring out which, if any, was "true," one might as well conclude none were, but I didn't reason my way to thinking there was no prime mover, merely that it wasn't possible to know one or communicate with one, assuming one existed.
@@Leszek.Rzepecki Oh no, I wasn't implying that you didn't use reason lol. For myself, losing my religion started specifically because I was an extremely devout Christian who had questions. Leadership in the church didn't seem to take me or my questions seriously so I decided to try to find it out myself by first reading the bible cover to cover. That...really didn't go well lol.
From there, I basically tried to reaffirm my faith my listening to a lot of apologists, I just couldn'tstop thinking about the contradictios and logical failures. My entire world revolved around being religious, it definitely wasn't the case of me not needing it anymore. Not being religious caused me a lot of problems.
I have a lot of friends with similar stories, so just wanted to point out that pure reason, even when you are emotionally predisposed towards theism, really could start someone on a journey to a lack of faith.
@@SerenitySong6 Well, I can only describe my experience, and am not daft enough to assume everyone else's experience must be the same as mine. Catholics don't do the bible the same way some Protestant evangelicals do, we're not taught it's literally true. Catholics have no problem with science, including evolution and cosmology, and don't take the Old Testament literally - 6 days of creation and Noah's flood are just allegories to Catholics. Some don't even seem to take the New Testament entirely literally.
So while one can reason one's way out of a literal belief in the bible, it's not really possible to just use reason to reject a metaphorical or allegorical interpretation. For Catholics, it's more a matter of ritual and tradition being important, being part of an unbroken history of the faith reaching back over 2 millennia now. So the path to apostacy for a Catholic, like me, is not necessarily going to be identical to an evangelical fundamentalist's. I lost faith in faith, I didn't reason my way out of that one. I still have faith in mathematics, though I'm pretty dull at it and do not understand it fully, but it does produce results. (I was a biochemist in real life.) Yes, using reason was part of the journey, but my understanding of religion is it also requires an emotional commitment, one that mere reason isn't always sufficient to overcome.
I hope I've made myself more clear than in my original post.
@@Leszek.Rzepecki You did make yourself clear, thank you. Just wanted to make clear that I was not taught the bible was aleays literally true either - I didn't lose faith because I found out Noah's arc wasn't literally true, for example.
I guess I was more responding to your initial claim that a debate about God would not resolve any issues between believers and non-believers. That's just patently untrue in my and a number of other cases I am personally aware of. I don't really have any issues with you qualifying that a bit.
As I said, on the roundtable debate from several days ago, if we lived in a world without suffering (deprivation), we wouldn't have a utility for understanding values of experience. Suffering (experience of separation) is necessary for desire. One could not desire a _better_ state if they were not in a state where they lacked something (deprivation causing desire).
You could try to make an argument for excessive suffering instead, but that comes with its own problems.
I am not a theist.
Why should we have a "utility for understanding values of experience?"
@@alexanderrivas2762 It's not a matter of "should."
I disagree. One could struggle without horrific “suffering”. Could a child learn the same lessons without dying of cancer?
@@Nick-Nasti Notice how the thing you put in quotes was the word "suffering"? That's because I used the word suffering. Now see how you put the word horrific in front of the quoted word suffering? I never used the word horrific. That's an addition you are making which has nothing to do with what I said. So, you're creating a straw man and then trying to argue against your straw man. That has nothing to do with my point. I also explained suffering, so you can refer to that which doesn't imply "horrific."
@@cloudoftime “suffering” includes all forms of suffering and not just some mild example of a dentist visit to represent all suffering. It is plainly not a strawman.
When Alex states that a world without evils that produce goods such as forgiveness and compassion is better, he is basically expressing a desire for heaven. A place where there is no suffering. This is a Christian concept. We have to accept the reality that we live in a fallen world, and one day, there will be a world without all evil. The Christian has that to look forward to.
I'm glad God decided to subject us to all this evil b4 heaven
The idea of a utopian world can be found in many ideas, be it islamic, buddhist, even communist
Christians need to stop stealing ideas (ie. a world without suffering) and passing them off as if they came up with them.
Forgiveness and compassion are useful only in our reality. If no one does anything wrong, ie heaven, no one needs forgiveness. If there's no pain of any kind, mental or physical, there's no need for compassion.
Going through hardships to produce goods that are useless and irrelevant in heaven, to go to heaven, makes zero sense if you honestly consider the attributes of heaven.
But then why create anything besides heaven
One issue i have with these conversations is i have trouble guaging how much a person believes a thing because of their argument or because of the ramification the negative would have on their other positions. Sthanks for the video!
Hahahhaa I just got to the part where buddy thought he dunked. 😂
Where’s that at?
Rewatching... totally forget.@@joshuanewsted2560
Seeing Trent bend over backwards for how God treated Job was hard to watch. Alex certainly gave the right interpretation and asked the right question
02:43 ah, that's the exact same reason why I'm a die-hard fan of The Lord of The Rings!
Cameron, PLEASE keep making videos! I hope your channel continues forever
1:43:33 No, it depends on *if* something is evil. I wouldn't accept payment from someone for them to do something I considered evil as it would make me complicit in the commission of that evil. In the case of arson there's a question of whether it's any different from demolition in this context especially when the payment is promised beforehand and the person's already thinking about the house they can build in its place.
Fantastic dialog. Super respectful and in depth.
57:09, but the thing is, God is not simply smacking bottoms. He's giving 10 year olds leukaemia or doing other heinous things. Even parents with moral responsibility have certain boundaries
as an agnostic I would like to play devil's advocate. God isn't necessarily giving kids leukaemia but rather he's allowing it. it's the same as seeing someone get hit by a car and not stopping it rather than pushing them.
@@Ninkumpop I am also an agnostic, but I must object - if God set the world into motion (that includes the entire universe) then this child dying of leukemia, this person being hit by the car was certainly part of God’s plan if he did not stop it.
@@erectilereptile7383 I'm admittedly not an agnostic lol, but I must respond. The fact that something happened is not evidence that God willed it.
As a child in the 1950s, watching Oral Roberts "lay hands" on the "afflicted" every Sunday on our black & white TV terrified me
In 70 years, I've never set foot in a "church". Swaggart, Hinn, Jim and Tammy Fae, etc, reinforced my resolve. Hallelujah
My dad graduated from ORU in Tulsa and he was a straight psycho so I guess that makes sense.
Alex lately categorized himself as a non-resistant atheist.. he genuinely seeking for the truth about Christ, but he just could not see it or at least not convincing enough for him.. but he is seeking at least.. in other words he is open to the idea of God..
Wow that was an amazing discussion one of the best I have seen on a Religious channel between an Atheist and a Christian. It made me think to myself why I am not a Christian and have more affinity to Eastern Religions. So thought I would share my perspective. I know the main audience of this channel is likely to be Christians so I wanted to say I am not here to criticize Christians but to critique the ideas of Christianity as I have encountered them. Humans have feelings ideas do not. Having listened to Alex's points helped me clarify the clash I en-counted when studying Christianity. I don't want to write a whole essay so I will summarise my points succinctly. I feel the main reason I never became a Christian is the character of God in the Bible seems to behave in contradictory ways. Trent said in his talk that God defines Morality which then makes Morality arbitrary as God has done things which seem Immoral if done by humans. If a scientist developed a device that flooded the whole earth and killed all Animals and Human life (Plus insects etc..) that would be a immense evil. But God floods the Earth killing all life bar a few and that is totally ok because God is morality by definition. A War-lord commands his men to kill a group of people (including women and children) and we call it a genocide and say its Evil. God commands the Slaughter of the Canaanite's and that is totally fine. Trying to use God as a measure of what is Moral seems to be like using a ruler that randomly changes length every time we try to measure something. It would be useless as we would have no idea how to measure anything reliably.
Second point is God is unfair in the way he communicates with his creation.
God through his Grace makes his existence known to some as recorded in the bible but not others. Alex as an example has sought God intently as have I in my past. But God has not made his existence 100% clear to me or him. But God in the Bible talks to various characters and makes himself known. To me that is like a teacher who sets a quiz (Salvation) but gives some hints to some pupils and not to others. A teacher who behaved that way would be disciplined or sacked as it is unfair.
It was this constant whip lash between the character of God that made me doubt the ideas in Christianity. It seems that God is allowed to abuse his power because he is God. But if Humans behave that way we call them Tyrants and Dictators. Seems like a might is right kind of argument. Trent tried to defend this by saying God is the creator so can behave how he wants and also mentioned his being a Parent gives him authority over his children which is true. But if a parent tried to kill their children no Court is going to let them go free just because they say they brought the child into the world they have a right to take it out. That would not be a good reason. We take into consideration the rights of the child to life. In Eastern religions, Buddhism, Jainism the principle of Ahimsa is the Goal to make one's conduct as Non- Violent as best as you can. This principle seems more applicable to Humans as it is not as arbitrary as the Morality of God in the bible. If Gods Morality is so much beyond what we can understand then its like someone telling you they have the knowledge of ultimate Truth Morality and everything but it is too advanced for your mind. So its totally useless in the real world where humans have to navigate.
Finally I wanted to comment on Trent's example in the Q&A about happy to accept 10 million pounds for his house being destroyed but not happy if it involved someone sleeping with his wife. I feel the analogy is flawed as God does not let us choose the suffering we experience in life so we are forced to endure suffering against our wishes. Even if the result is a great reward in Heaven it does not negate the suffering we experience here on Earth as we are powerless in general when it comes to suffering. If we could choose the suffering and be sure of the reward in Heaven that would make is analogy hold. That's my summary.
Up
Thanks for sharing. These are often objections of the unbeliever who has spent time thinking through the God of the Bible. I figured I would share with how the Bible responds to your main points. The most obvious passage that covers most, if not all of your questions/comments is found in Romans 9:14-24. You likely will not like the answer you find there, but it is nonetheless the response of the Bible so figured I would share!
@@chrisflowrhymes89 Thanks for the reply I will have a read and see what it says.
I think most of your post is flawed in the points your exist. For example God commanding the execution of the Cannanites. It is permissible because it is God passing judgement. In other words what he did was serve justice. Justice is about giving to someone what they deserve. Secondly I think you look at morality through the lens of the 21st century rather than in the infancy of civilization. Life was far harsher and those who got out of bounds with their tribe the consequences much more severe so the penalty one would accrue from justice being carried out back than we should expect to look vastly different than it would today.
I became a believer from agnosticism not because I had some overwhelming experience in my heart that God exists. Reason is what brought me to God and what brought me to Christ was the Resurrection. There is nothing else comparable to it including what happened afterwards in my view.
Perhaps you should really go and flesh out those points you listed and counter them with the best steel man arguments you can find on the pro Christian side and see if they hold up to scrutiny
I’ve never found good reasons for the belief of atheism as being sufficient to explain why we are here, the universe, the mathematical probability we just exist by random chance Which the probability of that is what occurred makes even less sense. So I was never an atheist but I was agnostic for about 15 years.
Well said.
I find it interesting that Trent would say Infinity is a really bad thing to bring into the world and then immediately describes the alternative as "eternal".
There is a difference between infinity on this planet and eternity in a dimension that feels you with nothing but love and peace. Hope this helps, if it doesn't then that's all I got tbh, that's how I see it.
The god argument has always been circular if not contradictory, even though they dont see it that way, if I want to be blunt.
The worst way to convince a good thinker. Pure mental gymnastics to fool common folks. Because for many millennia, they acquired zero proof.
@@paulhayes5684 The Christian Kingdom of God is supposed to be set in this planet
Infinity before is different from infinity after. Only one is possible
The exchange at 55:58 is so insanely funny to me because of the way that Trent just dismantles his own point by comparing the hypothetical to slavery.