The mental gymnastics that he has to jump through to say math is subjective is astounding. His whole world view is amazing amounts of work to avoid the most simple logical answer.
But it is ultimately, we invented it in our mind. It produces objective results but it’s completely subjective whether we decide to use it or some other system
@@Gumpmachine1 “Invented it in our mind” Is that absolutely “TRUE” or did you just “INVENT” it in your “MIND”? LOL!! Is that objectively “TRUE” or is it just an arbitrary subjective opinion? By the way, you just totally and utterly refuted yourself!! The statement “there is not one standard of objective morality” or the statement that “all morality and truth is just a subjective opinion” is ironically presented as one universal absolute standard of [OBJECTIVE MORALITY AND OBJECTIVE TRUTH). Thus it’s logical converse [OBJECTIVE MORALITY] and OBJECTIVE moral facts exist. Therefore an absolute, universal objective standard of morality and truth exists within a universal mind!! Equally, the fact is that no one has ever empirically observed “MATTER ” outside and independent of MIND/CONSCIOUSNESS for we are forever locked in the fundamental primitive, that is we are forever locked in MIND/CONSCIOUSNESS. That is we are forever locked is Soul/Self. All we can observe are the contents of perception, which are inherently mental. Even the output of measurement instruments is only accessible to us insofar as it is mentally and consciously perceived by the conscious agent!! Sorry but try again nihilist. 2+2=4 is not subjective buddy it’s an objectively true fact like the fact that raping and murdering a child is objectively evil and depraved not just an arbitrary subjective taste, not just an arbitrary subjective opinion, an arbitrary social construct, that is as arbitrary as the fact that we evolved five fingers instead of six!! Maths is discovered not made up and invented like some fictional object in our mind LOL and mind and consciousness is still irreducible to “physically” determined processes. Because mind and consciousness is clearly the fundamental ground of reality and is a reflection of the ground of all being. Hence the common term among experts on MIND AND CONSCIOUSNESS THE “HARD PROBLEM” OF CONSCIOUSNESS!!
@@Gumpmachine1 Mathematics would still exist even if human minds didn’t exist, the semantics we use to describe mathematics (such as the word “math” or “two”) wouldn’t. The subjective description references a real objective truth.
@@Gumpmachine1 We could use another mathematical base but you can covert between mathematical systems because they all describe fundamental truth regardless of the semantics we use to describe that truth.
“Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,” “Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction. “ The fool says in his heart, "There is no God" *The wise person says it out loud.* Ahhh yes, those old *misunderstood* chestnuts again, eh? Both Psalm 14:1 and Psalm 53:1 read, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God” Some mistakenly think these verses mean that Atheists are stupid, i.e., lacking intelligence. However, that is not the only meaning of the Hebrew word nabal- as translated; “fool". The meaning of the text is not “unintelligent people do not believe in God”, rather, the meaning of the text is “sinful people do not believe in God”. As many Atheists are highly perspicacious, it is not intelligence or a lack thereof that leads a person to reject belief in God, it is simply a well-reasoned conclusion. Mathew 5:22 “But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire”. p.s. *You really should take the time to deeply study and investigate your Bible verses just as thoroughly and honestly as the Atheists do before posting.*
I respect that Alex actually having these calm conversations. Most atheists that cross paths with me in the comments section start with insulting and name calling. 🙏🤗♥️✝️
I dont think that is unique to athiests...youtube comments are known to be cesspools of deranged angry keyboard warriors. I mean I'm an athiest and I dont run around yelling at christians in real life or online
I do my best but it is difficult sometimes and I don't believe it's always one party's fault. If one side provides a reason as to why something is unreasonable or even fully debunked and you just ignore it or come up with and arbitrary reason as to why this not important because it goes against what you want to believe, it can be frustrating. And when a christian finally does realise they are wrong they deny it so hard that they convince themselves it didn't happen and tell the perso they are arguing with that "Jesus loves them" and dips out without confronting the problem.
@@BeachsideHank Not going to get into a debate with someone that will never accept any kind of evidence I provide, it's a waste of my time. I'll say this tho, something pretty special had to occur for all of us to be here. That's one fact that can't be denied
@@BJtheMountaineerguy You wouldn't be providing evidence, you'd just be sharing your "feelings", there is a difference, but you know that already thus your disinclination to engage, it's like when you choose not to take the field- you lose that game to the opposition.
Kid knows he’s intelligent, but this awareness has cultivated a very ego driven thought process. He’s dancing AROUND the truth, looking at it, but refusing to accept it. Alls we can do is pray that the spirit of God will penetrate his hard heart.
Exactly!! Alex actually tried to say that evolution was not random? But this would mean it was somehow guided and he quickly realised there isn’t a middle option. He did this because he knows deep down that you can’t possibly trust a random process for imparting true knowledge. Equally, Alex then backtracked again when he realised the implications of admitting that our origins can’t possibly be random and produce TRUE beliefs. He was all over the place with his mental gymnastics and Turek went really easy on him to be honest!! In my experience atheists, that is fatalists and epistemological nihilists use this parlour trick and sleight of hand when they are backed into a corner and always backtrack and steal from our world view to make sense of anything. If a doctor actually told you that a vaccine he developed was created using a random unguided process you would question if they had gone to medical school and not give that doctor the time of day and definitely not give that “vaccine” to your children in a million years!!
It’s because they wanted to sound complex to feed their pride, reality it’s simple because God want us to understand it, we should let complex things to God and focus in what he reveled to us.
No; it is that even great intelligence is no guarantor of knowledge of the truth of reality, namely to know God, who is Christ, our Lord & Savior, that given even all of the sufficient evidence and the intellect to understand the evidence and arguments, it still requires the work of God, the Holy Spirit, to regenerate a heart, to enlighten a mind, however intelligent, as it was also necessary for God, the Son, to live on our behalf, no matter how good/godly any human being could be, they could not be good enough, as no man can also be intelligent enough or wise enough or religious enough or spiritual enough to work out salvific faith and trust in Christ, and so it is all by grace and mercy, all a gift, not of our works, but a work of God for us, and so none of us can boast even in our own understanding or comprehension of the truth.
@@alanambriz5320 i think it’s more so they have so much going on that they partial are working on. They have to many ideas floating but never really connect them. They try and solve each one individually they enjoy the knowledge so they get caught up in a game of cat mouse and don’t look at the overview enough.
Alex definitely loves to hear himself talk, I used to be this guy, who always thought he could never be wrong nor always spoke smarter or more eloquently than others, and if you ask him if he likes to hear himself talk he’d say “no of course not “ yet his words and actions show he subconsciously does like the sound of his voice and the pride of feeling he’s smarter than everyone else
As a Christian, I admire Alex’s search for truth and his willingness to change when he realizes his past incorrect ideas. I pray He will accept the truth and have hope we will.
Alex is suppressing the truth As Romans chapter 1 declares. He's just trying to sound like an intellectual but God has made foolish the wisdom of this world which makes Alex dumb as a brick
@@m4andi0cabecause according to atheism, there is no Truth, Certainty, or absolutes of any kind, yet everything we say depends on truth and certainty. Atheism is self refuting, you have to make an absolute statement just to say there are no absolutes. Alex knows this, as does everyone.
@@emoure77 i mean, atheism is just a lack of belief in a higher being. What u are saying is that there are no absolutely truths, yes, there are not, because everything is subjective, even the statement that everything is relative is in fact relative
What's truly sad is this ability, shown by both men, to reason & logically argue while remaining calm, respectful, & blunt used to be standardized teaching in US schools. NOW... People no longer argue (argument is meant to dispute suppositions with the solitary goal of arriving at the truth, like in court lawyers argue the case) instead they debate (defend "their truth" no matter how absurd their side is & ignore opposing logic, even truth, while they vilify their opponent. FYI - in debate you literally pick/assign a side & defend it no matter if you agree 100% or think it is incorrect, non-factual, or illogical.
I always thought debate meant an unbiased attempt of arriving at the truth, and argument meant "defending your position no matter what", or essentially a much more biased form of debating. No matter really, but it is important to know the difference between a good argument and a bad one.
@@419 You definitions are swapped. Another sign of the terrible "education" system. It's be design, so don't be offended - people with power want those able to gain power to be stupid, as this is the best way to retain all their power. Watch a debate of the coming primaries and ask yourself: "Are they trying to arrive at truth? Or they just trying to beat down the other candidate?" I'd suggest downloading Websters 1828. It's free and will elucidate.
Yes, to argue and seek the truth is worthwhile, and to practice with formal debates is also instructive in its own ways, but our ultimate goal should, indeed, be to know the truth/reality
According to Alex, if reasoning, logic and math is subjective, then he couldn't say 2+2=4 is correct, nor 2+2=5 is wrong. Because it is just a matter of persoanl subjective opinion. And in the world that there are no such thing as right or wrong, how can anything be possible?
Have you ever tried adding in base 3? 2 + 2 = 11 In binary 2 + 2 doesn't even exist. It does not mean 2 + 2 cant be 4 or that there is no right or wrong. It just means that you have to play with the same rules before you can make those determinations. In chess the rook only moves in a straight line. This is utterly ridiculous on the real world as you can move that piece anywhere you want. But if we play a game of chess this is correct. Morality works like this. We all opt in this moral playground by living in a certain country with major agreement on the more obvious topics and minor agreement on the minor topics. We enforce this shared consensus on other through government or social pressures.
I'm atheist who also watched that full debate and seeing this video makes me realize how much our personal bias plays into what ideas we perceive. I watched that entire debate and thought that Alex put up great arguments and actually caught Frank off on many points (and I still think that). Man how I wish our brains were less prone to cognitive biases so we could accurately assess good arguments. When it comes to discussions like these its so hard to assess who is making better points when our entire judgement of the events is swayed by our a prior judgements about the positions that people hold.
Couldn't agree more! The comments section including the guy who posted this with a title "atheist... schooled by..." shit , are all doing cringe stuff... Alex was consistent with his argument , while Frank jumps between descriptive morality and normative morality back and forth
It is obvious Frank was correct and Alex wrong. Obvious. The bias is on the atheist side. Alex has to come up withall kinds of hair brain ideas to create some objective steady point for him. Atheists need God not to exist. Desperately so!
lol I was thinking the same thing I thought the kid spoke well!! Ive always wanted someone to argue where gods morality was when humans were killing each other for sport/entertainment and sacrificing virgins!!
In watching the debate, it seemed that each time Frank made a point, the young gentleman would say "how I see it". He even did that with a basic definition, how I define it. Hard to debate when someone defines everything their way and not "objectively" :)
Perhaps its either one of those "I feel" statements or a way to avoid getting bogged in an argument about definitions. I haven't watched Alex enough to determine his habits or patterns.
and that's the point. they want to be their own god. 'you see that is YOUR TRUTH, and let me have MY TRUTH'. but there is only truth and false. logic and non-logic. pretending to not know there's God and ignoring Jesus Christ is not going to work on that day LOL but they r still God's children so we pray they return
@@Zanivox72depends on the word as some words describe an objective reality and others describe a subjective opinion. Alex seemed to get backed in a corner here and to attempt to be consistent made the claim that math would not exist without humans. So did humans invent math and so math is a subjective opinion (or invention). Or did humans discover math and it is an objective reality? Meaning it would still exist without us. So would the math (a language or tool used to measure and calculate) still be true for an object falling? Would it still fall a 32 feet per second? Since we use math to measure and calculate gravity, would gravity still be true? Or is 32 feet per second a subjective opinion (or invention) based on human existence or an objective fact regardless of our existence? Use your reasoning to answer these questions. Try to without bias.
@Gumpmachine1 No, Justin and Frank COMPLETELY understand the basic issues here. atheists put blind faith in the belief that a non-programmed, unguided accident can be "trusted" to give them "truth." I don't have enough blind faith to be an atheist. Do YOU?
@@Gumpmachine1 “Not really” “The host completely misunderstood” That’s just a claim buddy and claims aren’t evidence according to this atheistic, nihilistic mantra. Furthermore, the irony and the absurdity is that Alex is actually a “HARD DETERMINIST” right? Sorry but you can’t get anymore self refuting than the belief that the conscious agent/freewill and choice, that is rationality itself is “ILLUSORY” and so doesn’t really exist right? Alex put the final nail in the coffin for this strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism when he back tracked on veganism and even subscribed to “HARD DETERMINISM”. Apparently the host could never “MISUNDERSTAND” anything Alex said even if the host lived a million years because according to this strictly reductive, causally closed, atheistic nihilistic fan fiction he’s just determined right? I’m not even making this up because Alex actually believes that the conscious agent/freewill and choice, that is rationality itself is “ILLUSORY” because apparently everything is “physically” determined? Sorry but it’s clearly a self contradictory statement to claim that “everything is determined but I know it’s true that everything is determined”!! For example: Your position and your claim would also be determined right? So you couldn’t actually know if that was “TRUE” because you would have to have a way of knowing if it WASN’T TRUE as well, right? So under determinism there’s no way of knowing the TRUE from the FALSE as everything is just ultimately determined right? Ultimately it doesn’t matter whether something is “TRUE” or “FALSE” under determinism because you can’t choose the TRUE or the FALSE because you’re just determined right? So TRUE and FALSE becomes ultimately meaningless including the TRUTH or FALSITY of determinism itself. Which is a self own on multiple levels and is clearly an enormous defeater for determinism!! As I pointed out on here already everyone has a right to believe what they want and everyone including theists have a right to find it totally ridiculous, totally fatalistic, totally nihilistic and totally and utterly self refuting!! I rest my case!!
Does making it an objective statement prove reason (as a whole) being subjective a wrong statement? Saying that something is subjective and having that be an objective statement changes nothing. Art is subjectively beautiful. Thats an objective fact. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and no two people see the same thing the same way.
I've been reading through Frank Turek and Norman Geisler’s "I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist," book recently. It is amazing. 400 pages. The best book for any non-believer who has challenging questions like these conversations that this channel often highlights. It's been a fascinating and educational read. 100/10 recommend for all non-believer and Christians alike.
@@Dan16673believing one way or the other requires a bit of faith because none of us know with 100% certainty either way. the evidence on both sides is not definitively conclusive regardless of our beliefs & biases.
@@Dan16673they have loads of faith. If they are right about the afterlife, no one will ever know. If they are wrong and believers are right, well everyone will know. That's a ton more faith I have.
At this point, these “atheists and skeptics” are arguing against their own flawed logic which doesn’t make them insightful, it makes them lost and confused…right where the devil wants all of us to be. The Truth of God is much simpler…I think people reject Him because He’s so big you’d assume He’d be more complicated than He really is but He’s revealed Himself and He’s never changed and never will 🙏🏾…
As atheists go, Alex sets the standard. Polite, VERY calm tone point of tranquility, and keeps it respectable. I dont agree with him but still enjoy listening to him
Free will is more misterious than morality to me… I actually saw a video of Alex getting AI to agree that there is a God using this same arguments of logic. The difference is that AI has no free will so it can’t reject the truth when presented to it, whereas humans can. I think that many people choose not to believe in God not because is illogical to do so, but simply because they don’t like him.
@@aidanya1336 So they claim, but when you listen to their arguments for their non belief it tells that is because they don’t like him, or at least the idea of him.
Yeah, like Richard Dawkins. Trust me, I'm English, there's many people here that sound smart because of their accent, but if you actually listen to their words you quickly realise that they're not
Smart huh? I know individuals with 130 IQ that flip burgers. Being smart often when said out loud is actually a defensive mechanism people like Alex use to cover gaps in their character flaws as well as gaps in their arguments or even their own logic.
@@SaltyGammon567 “You quickly realise their not smart” Exactly! same here! I’m actually British and the British people are not so easily impressed by privileged Oxford University accents telling us that they are not responsible or accountable for their actions because apparently freewill and choice doesn’t exist? The fact is that Alex is actually a Hard Determinist. Which means that he actually believes and promotes the idea on his channel to a lot of young people that the conscious agent/freewill and choice, that is rationality itself is “ILLUSORY”!! That’s a self own on multiple levels. Look up deterministic fallacy. Everyone has a right to believe what they want and everyone including theists have a right to find it totally ridiculous, totally fatalistic, totally nihilistic and totally and utterly self refuting!! Better for them to deny metaphysics, that is better for them to deny objective Truth, that is better for them to deny value claims, objective morality, absolutes, universals, (ought) claims, maths, the prescriptive laws of logic. That is better for them to deny freewill/the conscious agent, and with it rationality itself than admit the Soul/Self!! Once again, the relativist, that is the strictly reductive determinist, atheist or philosophical naturalist manifests the very [dogmatism] of which he accuses those who believe in agent causation and in rationalizing it is willing to contemplate absurdities of which no religious believer has ever dreamed!!
Alex is a smart guy, no doubt. He comes across as honest and charitable in all his discussions and debates. His beautiful accent just makes listening to him more pleasant.
This debate was done in 2017... Turek was 56 then and Alex... 18. I just can't see it as a win for Frank at all. Especially if we take into consideration that the host is also Christian so Alex was debating against two opponents.
This was a complete mismatch, unless this accurately depicts the modern level of atheism. Alex said nothing new nor anything old in a new way. A nonstop rehash of old, defeated arguments. He had to retreat from Frank after nearly every exchange. This was like watching an episode of a t.v. show you’ve already seen 10 times.
@@notsoanonymous2458 he didn’t need to offer anything new because Frank just trotted out the same old tired stuff he’s been saying for years. Frank seems to fail to recognise the cleverness of Alex argument
No, because he uses another meaning for the word random. Alex uses it in a sense that evolution is not a d100 dice where you get some unpredictable outcome. Theist use it in a sense that random means natural/not directed by somebody. So he is absolutly right saying "yeah, so?".
Your explanation does NOTHING to fix Alex bouncing around. Using random to not mean random is just equivocating terms. Theists use random to mean random. "adjective. proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern: the random selection of numbers. Statistics. of or characterizing a process of selection in which each item of a set has an equal probability of being chosen." If Alex means something else then he's just hiding the flaw in his position behind word games. That's either dishonest or inept, but it isn't good either way. @@DonXardas
@@Cre8tvMG what are you on about? Alex is actually using exactly this definition. Random as in "without pattern". It was the definition of the theist that was different. His definition of random was without guidance. So no, Alex was absolutly right. Evolution is not a random. Nature/biology does not roll a dice. There is environmental pressure and thus resulting patterns. What is so difficult to understand about this? This is basic biology.
@@DonXardas Are you suggesting that "without guidance" is qualitatively different to "without purpose'? That really doesn't help assuage the feeling that one is bogging down in semantics to avoid the gap in reasoning. The logical consequence of his position is that the basis for his morality (and our logic!) is random and therefore unreliable. Every appeal to morality or logic is an appeal to a random process. There can be no truth. Or if there is 'truth' it doesn't mean anything at all. People like Alex or Sam Harris proclaim this kind of nonsense with their mouth but do not ACT OUT such a belief. They act as though morality and truth is real. Do you understand why "dumb theists" therefore say they don't have enough faith to be atheists? We don't have your bold faith in a random process upon which we would have to build objective standards, around which we must organise our identities AND navigate our reality. Science and math rely on there being objective standards. The enlightenment would not have occurred if it weren't for "dumb theists" and our recognition that there is an objective reality that is reliably intelligible. It's not just subjective experience. You cannot even form a personal identity by that standard, let alone forming a community or a language!
Alex just proved Turek's point in the first paragraph. he said "good and evil don't exist if there are no minds or people". Good and evil only exist if there are minds with the ability to recognize and perceive it. Matter does not have the mechanism to "think ABOUT" evil. Matter has no awareness about its own existence, let alone the perceived injustices being perpetrated against OTHER matter. This proves humans are not mere matter in motion. The chemicals (chemicals are just matter) in our brains are not capable of thinking, let alone thinking ABOUT the evil that other matter is carrying out. So, if only matter and energy exist, according to Alex, evil does not. Subjective or otherwise, he has no justification to call anything "good" or "evil".
@@vladtheemailer3223 You're absolutely right...unless you you care about being logically consistent and intellectually honest. All I'm saying is, live like you believe what you're saying. If your rights get violated...I don't want to hear a peep about injustice.
@@JoshDub78 If we are logically consistent and intellectually honest, we see the good and evil are subjective. They are literally opinions, even if we all share them. Why do you think opinions need justification?
@@vladtheemailer3223 Subjective?? Bruh... Was it just our "opinion", that gassing the Jews was evil? Or was that objectively wrong? I guess it was just the opinion of the King of England that kidnapping men from a far away land and forcing them to perform free labor in the American South for his benefit, was good thing...who we are to say otherwise...it's his opinion vs anyone else's. If your REALLY believe that, then you have no problem with what Hitler and Nazi Germany did. After all, it was their "opinion" that ridding the world of Jews was a good thing. And, you have no justification for calling slavery evil because it's their opinion vs. yours In fact, anyone who believes that morals are just opinions agreed upon by society, would have been IMMORAL for speaking out against the genocide of Jews in 1930's Germany. Similarly anyone in the South who was an abolitionist would be, by your definition, immoral for being anti-slavery.
@@vladtheemailer3223 My replies aren't showing on my end. I have no idea if you're getting them. I replied twice...apologize if you're getting two of the same. Not trying to spam you.
I like Alex, he's a good natured guy and intelligent. Just a shame that he is shooting himself in the foot, making pretzel arguments to hold on to his 'truth' that there is no objectivity or God.
@@somethinsomethin7216 which there probably isn’t How would someone even demonstrate an “objective morality”? It always ultimately just breaks back down to people’s preferences which is usually a function of evolutionary biology
@@Gumpmachine1 “No it’s still subjective” NOPE!! TRY AGAIN NIHILIST!! You are totally wrong!! Now just prove me “WRONG” without appealing to an absolute, universal, objective standard of measure? I’ll wait!!
@@Gumpmachine1Saying "No it's still subjective" is an objective statement. To say anything with certainty means that you are making an objective claim.
@@KingStr0ng that’s the little trick the religious like to play, I can simply say that’s your subjective assessment which is yes before you say it….my subjective assessment as far as I can tell subjectively
“Ya, but evolution isn’t a random process.” “Either something is directed by an outside source or it’s random. So evolution would have to be a random process.” “Ya…so.” Foundation of sticks, unfortunately. It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. It seems like this man is suffering from a wealth of knowledge with no foundation.
Evolution selects for mutations that will allow the beings who "receive" them to pass on their genes, I wouldn't call this a random process but I also wouldn't call it "guided" either, the argument you think is such a huge win is purely semantic.
Not as much as it sounds. Evolution does bring seemingly random mutations on the coming generations that are "tested" on the field with certain conditions. As several die out and some survive with those mutations, the species becomes increasingly good at doing something, as if the accumulated mutations build a path to survive the everchanging environment they're in, much like talling a rock into a more defined shape. Assuming God does to the living species the same as we breed certain kind of dogs of different races would be an accurate description of evolution as a process to shape creation.
Not sure what your point or objective is here. Only thing I can ask is, how do you know it’s imaginary? Curious as to the thought process that went into this.
7:01 False dichotomy. We don't have only two choices to pick from for evolution, "it's either guided or it is random". Reality is a real time physical pattern processor which can only give logical results even if the logic of the result is beyond human understanding. That consistent processing of combination and recombination is mistaken by many as a mind with a plan. Evolution what we call a specific aspect of that pattern processing which only gives logical results without having a goal or a plan. It's an entirely foreign concept to grasp because we're used to not understand nature and see it as random so people miss to thinking that way. Reality, or nature, is not random, anything that can happen happens. But and doesn't have a goal. Because this is counter intuitive or foreign to think about, people tend to add some human traits to the perception of this perception of the pattern processing of nature. They add intention (teleology) they add judgement (morality) they add empathy (salvation) and many many other human traits to this image about the divine. The point is that religions do not care about how reality is but rather about what people should think reality is.
He really said that "mathematics" is subjective because it wouldn't exist if it wasn't for humans but 2+2 would still equal 4 no matter if humans are around to count it or not.
Right, 2+2 still equals 4 if there were no humans on earth so mathematics would clearly exist. You would only need humans around to APPLY the laws of mathematics, but those laws still exist regardless.
@@alanambriz5320 that we still have to use logic and reasoning just to even conceive of a god. Even if we grant that presupposition and use a deity as a guarantor of our reasoning faculties and senses we’re still having to assume that this god gave us accurate ways to assess our reality and that this yehweh character isn’t trying to f**k with us.
@@Gumpmachine1 Is not a character is God, and I suggest you to respect him. And of course he give you reason because he create you as his image, and he revealed himself trough the scripture and oral teachings, that’s why is very important the church. When people only use their private reason, they fall in different interpretations, that’s why nowadays there are a lot of Protestant churches. I have never heard someone angry with God for giving him free will, I guess you will be happier with being just an animal.
@@Gumpmachine1 There’s anything to fix, but there’s something to need to be understand, without God you will never understand it. This debate is the proof.
Alex is soooo beating the bush and trying to remember what his favorite atheist authors have postulated on the matter. How he went from morality to choclate tastiness is an obvious change of subject tactic to try to come up with an answer...Brother Frank is too kind with this lad. If you are good at regurgitating what others with materialistic worldview have purported you are far from being wise...you've got good parrot skills...true wisdom only come from God!
@Gumpmachine1 you're reaching so I'll come with you... Alex removes all of humanity to say that "see, murder is subjective"...that's an asinine analogy...he doesn't remove the earth though to say that the earth going around the sun is also subjective...this lad and all atheists beat around to bush and play semantics or use wit or sarcasm to gain audience of unsuspecting masses to pay their bills while people who follow them, cement their rebellion and suppression of God's truth... That's the reason I ever even consider these 🤡s and charlatans...sadly most Christians are too nice...I don't care about being nice when people's lives are at stake...truth don't care about your feelings and sometimes using harsh words or sarcasm is the only way people will actually listen to the truth. The atheists' prove that nothing produced everything is the combination of chance [no logic, no reason, no purpose...] and billions of years. That's a Cosmic Cop-out by a cosmic skeptic. Alex is intellectually dishonest, and like most of us can put up a facade as if he's all about the truth... I say "get outta her boy"
Wow look how young Alex is there. How many years ago did you dog this clip up from? He's talking about objective and subjective morality. It was a thought experiment. Your click bait title is deliberately misleading.
Wow, you managed to misrepresent what Alex was just saying. He talked about objective morality and you just ignore the objective part and put it as if Alex was talking about morslity in general. Quite a dishonest take.
@@ChairFoldersUnitedthat’s scorched earth tactics, but yes ultimately it’s his subjective opinion that objective morality doesn’t exist and it’s your subjective opinion it does exist. So I guess that would make it subjective
"Alex is saying that its objectively true that reason is subjective". Right, if all reason is subjective, why do you think your reasoning on this topic is objective?
@@somerandom3247 then all reason according to him would be subjective in that case. Like Frank said, how could they expect to have a productive dialog if both of their reasoning is valid? how could truth be known?
The reason your god needs apologetics and professional apologists, arguments, book sales, seminars and flawed logic is to sell a god that can't sell itself. Arguments aren't evidence for your god. If you can't show it, you don't know it.
But humans don't believe murder is, in fact wrong. Most people make all sorts of exceptions that make it ok. Like war, abortion, the death penalty, etc.
This clearly shows that atheism is an attitude and not based on any logic. It’s about self importance and being in love with thinking, which is based on fundamentally wrong premises and always falls flat upon scrutiny (and counters by evasion tactics or nonsensical philosophical excursions if probed). Turek stood his ground so well here
Dr. Turek mentioned a free will component when Alex tried to claim everything was subjective. To me the person denying God's existence so strongly gives the game away. They are like a man accused before a court, desperately looking for some point of law that let's them go free, even when they know their guilt.
@@somerandom3247 “Nonsensical” Oh the irony!! You do know that Alex is a “HARD DETERMINIST” right? That is Alex doesn’t actually believe that Frank Turek, or anyone else for that matter, even has freewill or choice? Sorry but you can’t get anymore “NONSENSICAL” and contradictory than coming to a debate to try and change someone’s WILL whilst subscribing to the self refuting belief that the conscious agent/freewill, that is rationality itself is “ILLUSORY” as everything is “DETERMINED” LOL!! By the way, you just totally refuted yourself!!
@@checko44 not really, we're like people tired of being told we're sinners by people who haven't grown up enough to realise the bible is as true as the quran or the any other mythology. we're sick of imaginary people trying to make laws that affect us, keep your voodoo crap to yourself.
The original video was 7 years old, and this excerpt was chopped as well. I would invite you to watch one of his more recent videos on the subject (does evil prove god's existence).
@@hankhooper1637 because even if we use a god as some kind guarantor of our logic, reasoning and senses you’d still have to make the assumption that these faculties that it gave us are functioning correctly to even have that thought God as a solution just kicks the problem down the road and potentially makes its worse
But.... how do you demonstrate premise 2 of the argument? Frank was asked to do that and completely ducked the question, and you don't go into it beyond just stating that everyone already thinks they exist. Without appealing to how people feel, how can you show that objective morality exists?
Notice how frank immediately pivots from the question of why he thinks moral are objective to talk about why Alex views/acts against things he views as wrong? This is a dishonest tactic as he is trying to play against intuition rather than actually substantiate his view. This isn’t schooling skeptics, it’s avoiding the question and trying to play off intuition which is so often wrong.
Question, if morality is objective why does the bible contain verses basically legislating slavery? Surely that's objectively wrong? Don't answer with its written in a different time or for people with different standards back then. However i have a counterpoint. If god is all good why wouldn't he immediately condemn slavery in his book? He does explicitly forbid eating shrimp or casting curses which isn't even possible in the first place so why couldn't he have said i understand your culture but you should move away from slavery. Maybe because it was written by immoral men of the time
can we agree that some people are “atheists” because they don’t want there to be a god to answer to for their life choices and not due to actual intellectual reasons
@@matswessling6600??? You don’t think that at least SOME people are atheists to escape accountability??? Cmon now… there’s at least 2 people out there…
@@Jbb7272 no, i dont. I cannot see that anyone would reaon like that. It doesnt make sense. it would be like: "i want to drive any where... i think I will stop believing in roads..."
Great video. I am facilitating an apologetic small group over the next 10 weeks. I planned on utilizing multiple Turek, William Lane Craig and CS Lewis content. I stumbled on your station. I really appreciate your ability to find solid Turek videos and add your comments to drive home important points. Well Done. Tonight we will watch your video where the college student addresses Turek at a college q n a regarding morality. Keep up the good work. I am advising that the 22 people in my group like and subscribe to your station!
Wow! That's awesome 👍🏾! I appreciate your words and I am glad my content can be a resource for you! Thanks for sharing and I pray that your small group is richly blessed!
The taste of eating tar is relative. Apparently Alex has not seen 'My Strange Addition' where people eat things like drywall, because they enjoy the taste.
@@MrHPT3 that why he made the tar vs chocolate comparison because in general we will agree that one tastes better than the other. But there will be some people that for some bizarre reason really hate chocolate and would rather eat tar and we can’t say they are wrong because it’s their taste preference. Now insert morality into this example instead and creates a interesting thought experiment that Frank kinda misses
No. You're missing my point. Some people like chocolate, but some people do not. In the same way that most people do not like the taste of tar, but there may be someone who does. @@Gumpmachine1
3:32 Don’t be mad, but you’re mistaken here. There’s a misunderstanding of objective morality. Objective morality is a philosophical notion that posits that moral principles exist independently of human belief or opinion and that there is some external, universal, objective standard by which we judge things and actions. A consequence of objective morality, as correctly pointed out, would be universally held moral beliefs that can objectively be determined to be wrong or right. But this is where your misunderstanding lies. Even if all moral beliefs were universally held, this wouldn’t necessarily imply an objective, universal, external standard by which to judge things. Universally held moral beliefs would hint at the possibility of objective morality being true, but it could also be an indication of shared subjectivity - a consensus of personal opinion. Asserting that universally held moral beliefs would be definitively imply an objective, external, universal standard by which we judge things would be a logical fallacy called affirming the consequent. If you’re not convinced by this, suppose that all current moral beliefs are universally held, and then a new moral question is posed. What standard would we use to judge this and how would this standard materialise from the fact that all previous moral beliefs were universally held.
”A wise man’s heart is at his right hand, But a fool’s heart at his left. Even when a fool walks along the way, He lacks wisdom, And he shows everyone that he is a fool.“ Ecclesiastes 10:2-3 NKJV
I know, i wouldn't be able to put up with franks bs that long. Id be calling him out on his baseless claims, and stopping him from changing the subject when he doesnt have an answer.
@@somerandom3247 “I know, i wouldn't be able to put up with franks bs that long. Id be calling him out on his baseless claims, and stopping him from changing the subject when he doesnt have an answer.” CRINGE atheism in full effect!! It speaks volumes that you are so easily triggered by Franks valid points about objective morality. Also look up appeal to ridicule fallacy!!
@@somerandom3247 “What valid points? He just dropped a baseless assertion then changed the topic as quickly as he can so it can't be examined.” NOPE!! TRY AGAIN NIHILIST!! As I pointed out already, remember the good old days when thoughtful atheists, that is when “thoughtful” fatalists and “thoughtful” epistemological nihilists used to give intelligent and powerful arguments [for] “MORAL” subjectivism and “powerful” and “intelligent” arguments [for] a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism??? NEITHER DO I!! Or even better!! Remember the good old days when thoughtful atheists, that is when thoughtful fatalists and thoughtful epistemological nihilists used to give intelligent and powerful arguments [against] OBJECTIVE MORALITY, that is “powerful” and “intelligent” arguments [against] the fundamental nature of [MIND/FREEWILL/CONSCIOUSNESS/THE ACTUAL/THE ONE/MONOTHEISM]??? NEITHER DO I!! Interesting fact, “NEW ATHEISM” that is fatalism and epistemological nihilism is exactly like the old atheism if the old atheism was bitten by two infected bats called Darth Dawkins and DARTH PROFOUNDLY POINTLESS and got a over Zealous strain of RABIES!!
I have never seen Alex jump through so many hoops to hold onto his subjective presuppositions . It’s almost as if his reason and logic (which are very sharp ) are grounded by an EMOTIONAL BIAS 😉
I’ve never seen Christian’s jump through so many hoops to hold onto their subjective presuppositions. It’s almost as if their reason and logic are grounded by an EMOTIONAL BIAS 😉
@@dbossmotiv dboss finally an atheist to expose and debunk . Goody goody goody 🎉 Let’s start the boss off with an easy question cause we know his superior high iq atheist brite brain can handle it easily ;) Dboss the Bible says we have a soul and an afterlife right ;) Tell us all dboss where does science lean towards when it comes to the existence of the soul and the afterlife . Shhhhhhh guys in luring the big bad atheist into my catch 22 question but please don’t tell Him cause if he finds out his superior atheist brain will easily debunk my arguments So shhhhhhhhhh everyone 👍
Faced with suffering, evil, death constantly, it would seem there's only so many worthwhile matters to live for. If God's not real, then.... why live knowing we'll die and everything else will die? From nothing to... something, and then have nothing left, what was the purpose of being alive at all? If God is real, then it's best to measure in the context of something outside and stronger in power than death. God says, "there are 2 places here in the afterlife designed to last forever. Heaven where I dwell, and hell where the people who never wanted me don't have me." This puts our lives in simple, but the most impactful of ways. Those end up being: We suffer here and suffer hell; we don't suffer here, suffer hell; we suffer here and don't in heaven; or what each of us would reasonably want, suffer neither here and not in heaven. Faced with those 4 options, I choose the 4th and last one if possible. Thus the Christian journey begins.@@dbossmotiv
@@ggpt9641 when you watch a movie at the theater and the movie ends, do you say , “well what was the point in the movie? They filmed all of it and it just ends? What’s the point of the movie then if it’s going to end? “ Do you say that? Of course not. Because it’s nonsense. 😂
I see where he went wrong. With the quadratic equation examlple, he said that choosing how you get there is subjective, but choosing between two objective paths to get to the same destination is not subjectivism.
Wouldn’t which equation you choose be choice/preference. It wouldn’t be subjective because they’re both objective ways to get to a objective truth. It not a opinion one or the other works. They both work objectively.
Yep! Alex is very slippery. They teach students these bait and switch tactics in the debating clubs at Oxford University which is how a lot of these Oxford graduates are groomed to run our country as politicians. We’re used to it in Britain!!
Stopped watching the second I saw deceptive editing in place... which was 2:03 - in... The statement 'the presence of evil does not disprove god' - is not an admission that God exists.
Naturalism has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. Also, your misunderstanding of what "random" means lies in the fact that evolution lacks a narrative, which the bible provides. This is how critical thought is thrown out using religion.
@@mr.dennis5503 how do you get something from nothing?How do you get life from non-life? How do you get intelligence from non- intelligence( how can you get laws of Logic)?How do you get morality from non- morality? You claim to be wise,but you have a worldview full of contradictions. Think about it!
Videos like these are great. They illustrate the fallacies some theists use to justify their beliefs. 1: Frank states that morality is objective but instead of explaining why he believes this, he turns the question to Alex about why he thinks that morality is subjective. Not a fallacy but avoiding the question. 2: BTBM uses the argument: -If God doesn't exists then there is no objective morality -Objective morality exists -Therefore God exists. He asserts that objective morality exists because universally humans think murder is wrong. But this is not an objective fact. War, capital punishment, religious sacrifice, religious text etc... all prove that murder is subjective. Murder is ok if it's the enemy, for the greater good or because your God commands it. It is subjective. 3:BTBM then shows the fallacy of a circular argument. God exists and gave us objective morality and since morality is objective that proves a God exists. This isn't a rational argument. 4: Alex explains how morality is objective and breaks it down to a simple analogy Is chocolate tasty. What you answer is subjective, but there are only two base answers. Yes and No. Is murder wrong? is a question with the same base answers. Although the question has more weight to it, how you arrive to the answer is subjective depending on your religion, upbringing, feelings of the person whos going to get murdered, etc... 5:BTBM asserts that evolution is either random or guided by a god. Your using a black and white fallacy. There are other explanations, ones we might not even know. But to the best of our collective knowledge we think that evolution is not random but guided. It's guided by natural factors like environment, food scarcity, sexual selection etc. Those factors can be random, like a drought happening causing less water making prey more scarce which would make large carnivores having to supplement their diets with bugs or some other food source. The ones that couldn't adapt would not reproduce leading to the eventual change in the species over time. The evolution was guided by (sometimes random) natural factors. If you read this far thanks! leave a comment or rebuttal. Lets challenge our beliefs in a civil manner.
Murder is wrong most people agree with that. The reason why there is stuff like abortion is because people defile Gods command against murder unless its self defense
Your "logical" "intellectual" buddy got absolutely dismantled and now believes that math is subjective. You should probably sit this one out and take the L
@@stevenselleck5460 Alex O'connor in this video is 18 and was studying for a degree in philosophy and theology from Oxford. So he understands philosophy and theology very well and is coming from a true philosophical point of view. Frank Turek had an apologetics focused education, he's learned philosophy from a Christian based view, to affirm and defend his ideology. But they are talking across each other. Alex is talking about the root of everything and Frank is talking about the practicality of everything. Alex understands the practicality of subjectivity and objectivity and that we act as if something is objective, like morality, but when broken down to it's root, it's subjective. It's like how murdering a fetus is wrong but murdering a terrorist is ok. "Murder is bad" is a subjective moral argument. Frank needs objective morality to exist for his ideology to exist. Without it, his assertion that there's a God, falls apart. I also don't think you understand his position. He's saying the symbols we use for math are subjective. 2 + 4 = 6 but so does 5 + 1. They cut him off before he gets into it more. Try watching the whole video unedited. Maybe read into metaphysics as well to understand where Alex is coming from.
@@Anthony-zo8jc 18 should be old enough to know that math isn't subjective. Also if he was overmatched he shouldn't have agreed to debate. Lots of "reason" here from this extremely reasonable atheist
3:06 and on... Your logic is erroneous and misleading. You acknowledged that Alex's reasoning at the best might point to hypothetical possibilities of transcendent mind's existence. And in the very next sentence you turned this hypothesis into factual evidence. Alex argues that objective morality does not exist. To exist it would require God to exist - this part need it own proof which you on have! It's fallacious to treat speculations or assumptions as facts. Hence, your syllogism fails at point #2 and makes it a circular: "If God exists therefore, God exists". Moral values don't have to be objective. It's enough that they are agreeable. For ex. there is no objective colour green. Everybody perceive colours slightly differently. And yet we can agree, regardless of the language, culture, location, religion... that grass is green. Evolution is not random. It is guided.... by natural selection. No need for any intelligence 15:00 What are you talking about? Alex did not "fall flat on the face". He clearly explained his reasoning why there is no objective morality. And despite the fact that this debate happened in 2017 when Alex was 18, he stood his ground against pro-debater, Frank who was 56 yo at the time.
It is arrogant to even make claims that there is no objectivity. In order to get to the same answer using different formulas is not subjective - it is objective. For example, 4+4 equals 8 but so does 6+2 or 3+5 or 7+1. These are all the ways you get to this same answer, but the objective answer is still 8 - that is an objective fact even when we state that there are different formulae to get to that answer. This is not a subjective idea, it is an objective fact.
@@somerandom3247 “Just that morality isn’t objective” Is that objectively true? Sorry but the statement “there is not one standard of objective morality” or the statement that “all morality and truth is just a subjective opinion” is ironically presented as one universal absolute standard of [OBJECTIVE MORALITY AND OBJECTIVE TRUTH). Thus it’s logical converse [OBJECTIVE MORALITY] and OBJECTIVE moral facts exist. Therefore an absolute, universal objective standard of morality and truth exists within a universal mind!! All morality, that is all OBJECTIVELY TRUE MORAL FACTS clearly comes from a higher source than humans. So whether 1000 people out of 1000 believe that raping and torturing and murdering a innocent child for fun is good, ITS STILL ALWAYS ALWAYS OBJECTIVELY EVIL AND DEPRAVED, not just an arbitrary subjective taste, not just an arbitrary subjective preference. Even if a million out of a million people say it’s ok to rape and murder a child for fun the principle of credulity and Occam’s razor tells me that raping and murdering a child is objectively evil and depraved, not just an arbitrary subjective opinion, not just an arbitrary social construct, not just arbitrary cultural relativism and societal WILL TO POWER and general consensus!!. Society nor the subject, nor Stalin, nor Hitler, nor Pol Pot, nor the majority determine objective morality. ITS WRITTEN IN STONE AND IS UNIVERSAL AND CAN NOT BE REMOVED. It's not that complicated or hard to grasp and understand unless you really just don’t want to see it because you are being intellectually dishonest. In fact the moral argument is so compelling that it has actually played an enormous part in many former atheists totally rejecting their atheism, that is totally rejecting a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism for the fundamental nature of [MIND/CONSCIOUSNESS/THE ACTUAL/THE ONE/MONOTHEISM]!!
@@somerandom3247 The fact is that [Objectivity] is not dependent on peoples preferences, tastes, opinions or on whether the majority of society agrees on it or not!! That's the defining characteristic of objectivity. Gravity objectively exists and if you ignore this objective fact you could end up dead if you decided to jump a 500 hundred foot bridge. Equally, if you had a society that sincerely believed that raping, torturing and murdering innocent children for fun is good it’s still objectively evil and depraved not just an arbitrary subjective taste, not just an arbitrary subjective preference. That's objectivity, it’s written in stone so it’s not subjective!! If we based morality on moral subjectivism and societal consensus rather than an objective concept of compassion, goodness and the duty to preserve and protect the right to life and uphold justice for all of humanity, then obviously we’d have to apologize to the Nazis for condemning them to death at the Nuremberg trials as they were allegedly just following orders? That is just following their subjective cultural norms!! Equally, we’d have to apologise to the Communists for condemning them for systematically starving and murdering tens of millions of their own people, because they were just following orders like the Nazis and just following the Communist societal consensus that had agreed that the horrific things they had done were morally right and essential for the destruction of religion and capitalism. So what may be right for you was good to the Nazis and Communists. If you are intellectually honest and follow moral relativism consistently, you would HAVE to accept that the Communists and the Nazis were, in their own subjective world viewpoint and “values”, correct and morally good. Because you believe there’s no objective standard outside of their subjective taste and [Moral Relativity's] basic principle is to not pass moral judgement on people with a uniquely different set of moral principles and social influences. Your rules!! Furthermore recognising genocide as universally evil and depraved is taking an objective moral stance. It’s not a subjective human stance, because if humanity universally recognized genocide as good, it would still be objectively evil and depraved. It’s not that complicated to understand unless you just don’t want to understand it for ideological reasons….. One cannot impose the subjective "humanity" stance of morality, while also simultaneously using it as the means of criticising another culture’s actions. This is why Moral Relativism doesn't work!! It’s self refuting!!
@@georgedoyle2487 Right off the bat you made the mistake of conflating moral truths with other truths. Just because morality is subjective, doesn't mean that other things aren't objective. Do you have evidence of objective morality? Perhaps an example of an objective moral, and a basis for it being objective?
@@somerandom3247 “Right off the bat you made the mistake of conflating moral truths with other truths. Just because morality is subjective, doesn't mean that other things aren't objective.” “Do you have evidence of objective morality? Perhaps an example of an objective moral, and a basis for it being objective?” Sorry but evil has always used ambiguity to justify murder and genocide using fatalism and epistemological nihilism and moral subjectivism as it is clearly ambiguous and riddled with holes. The nuances of OBJECTIVE MORALITY will always be most hotly debated by those who want to justify evil and depravity!! All morality, that is all OBJECTIVELY TRUE MORAL FACTS clearly comes from a higher source than humans. Even if there was only 1000 people left on planet Earth after a nuclear apocalypse. Whether 1000 people out 1000 people believe that raping, torturing and murdering a innocent child for fun is good, ITS STILL ALWAYS ALWAYS OBJECTIVELY EVIL AND DEPRAVED not just an arbitrary subjective taste, not just an arbitrary subjective preference. So it logically comes from a higher OBJECTIVE source than humans. Are you for real? This is so obvious!! The rape and murder of a innocent child is clearly objectively evil and depraved not just an arbitrary subjective taste, not just an arbitrary subjective preference!! Society nor the subject, nor majority, nor consensus determine objective morality. ITS WRITTEN IN STONE AND IS UNIVERSAL AND CANNOT BE REMOVED. If morality was actually subjective then those 1000 people left on planet Earth who believed it was ok to rape and murder children for fun couldn’t be wrong right??? GOTCHA!!! Objective morality is really easy to grasp and understand unless you really just don’t want to see it because you are being intellectually dishonest and have a philosophical bias because of what objective morality points to. There’s an enormous difference between moral epistemology and a metaphysical ontological justification. Equally, morality is a metaphysical presupposition and a transcendental category buddy. Are you sure that you are batting for the right team? You are now in the domain of metaphysics buddy!! And that’s our domain. So you clearly have an enormous explanatory gap and an enormous burden of proof. Especially if you subscribe to this strictly reductive, causally closed, atheistic, nihilistic fan fiction that is a complete denial of metaphysics right?
I had an argument with someone over whether or not evil exists. They claimed evil is just a description of behavior and really just a behavior. Then proceeded to tell me that i cannot prove evil exists. I gave him examples and told him to look it up. Instead he spend 48 hours telling me im wrong even though he wont actually look the stuff up. He scoffed at one of my examples and just brushed it off like What are you talking about. They dont want to debate. They want to troll and humiliate.
Using examples like murder, or abusing children is low-hanging fruit. When you look at more complex or nuanced questions that don't have an obvious moral answer, it becomes more clear that morality is subjective not objective.
@@Gumpmachine1 “Not really” NOPE!! Yes really!! Sorry but under this strictly reductive. causally closed, atheistic, nihilistic fan fiction thats just the delusions of an overgrown amoeba with illusions of grandeur talking. That is nothing more substantive than the delusions of an ULTIMATELY MEANINGLESS, HOLLOW AND SOULLESS APE talking. Nothing more substantive than the ultimately meaningless, accidental arrangement of POND SLIME evolved to an allegedly “HIGHER” order right? Your world view, your absurdity, your existential crisis and your epistemological crisis not the theists!! YES REALLY!!
@@Gumpmachine1 [“and yet there's no way around it so we proceed forward anyway.”] Smokescreen!! Look up argument from ignorance and special pleading fallacy. There’s only “NO WAY AROUND IT” if you presuppose a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism that clearly excludes metaphysical realities right? Sorry but classical materialism is dead and logical positivism and verificationism is self refuting isn’t it? Are you for real? [“Highlighting the discomfort with this situation doesn't make it magically go away.”] [“it’s still subjective”] Your subjective “discomfort” and your subjective “situation” not the theists. The universe doesn’t have to conform to your subjective preference. The universe doesn’t have to conform to your arbitrary subjective taste and neither does anyone else!! Sorry but “SUBJECTIVE” according to who? or what absolute, universal, objective standard of measure exactly? “SUBJECTIVE” according to the standard of an overgrown amoeba with illusions of grandeur? Or “STILL SUBJECTIVE” according to nothing more substantive than the delusions of an ULTIMATELY MEANINGLESS, HOLLOW AND SOULLESS APE who shares half their DNA with bananas? Your world view, your absurdity, your ULTIMATELY MEANINGLESS, HOLLOW AND SOULLESS APE, your existential crisis and your epistemological crisis not the theists!! [“I never suggested there wasn't a objective morality or reality, just don't see anyway to access it, so if we apparently can't get to these things then in practical terms they don't exist to us”] Is that objectively TRUE or was it nothing more substantive than the delusions of a determined machine, that is nothing more substantive than the delusions of a chemical and biological robot? The blind, mindless, ultimately meaningless accidental arrangement of POND SLIME evolved to an allegedly “HIGHER” order right? Your world view, your absurdity, your ULTIMATELY MEANINGLESS, HOLLOW AND SOULLESS APE, your existential crisis and your epistemological crisis not the theists!! Look up pretended NEUTRALITY fallacy!! By the way, you just totally and utterly refuted yourself!!
This guy Alex is all over the place. He said that the rules of mathematics will not happen if there are no humans. He must be kidding. Humans or no humans, the rules of mathematics are there. The humans just discovered them and used it to their advantage. He said that evolution is not random. If it's not random, then someone is guiding evolution as Frank Turek clearly pointed out. He unconsciously actually agreed to this statement. 😂 He sounds like a guy who is already caught with his hand in the cookie jar but he still won't admit it.
“Caught with his hand in the cookie jar” Exactly!! Alex actually initially built up a large following by pretending to be a committee vegan and thousands joined his channel and subscribed to his patron. But now he’s dropped vegans like a lead balloon as he does not need them anymore. He’s even started making appearances on national television in Britain debating the legalisation of drugs. What a surprise!!
Yeah, it seems he was caught on. About the rules of mathematics, no. Math as it's currently known was actually an invented system made in efforts to measure phenomena and get a better understanding of this world. With no humans, such phenomena would indeed still happen but there'd be no one to measure nor describe it.
@@1erickf50 " About the rules of mathematics, no." You disagreed with me about the rules of mathematics being always there but in the end, you basically agreed with me. Make up your mind. "With no humans, such phenomena would indeed still happen ..."
@@wavemaker2077 On the contrary. Phenomena are not rules, "rules" are our composed attempts to understand and explain phenomena. One preceded the other. That's still a consistent difference.
@@1erickf50 We are digressing. Let's go back to the rules of mathematics. Are you still saying that the rules of mathematics only happened because there are humans who made that rule? I will give you an example of a rule in mathematics so that you understand what we are arguing here. Commutative Property: Addition: a+b = b+a Are you telling me that a+b will not be equal to b+a if humans didn't make the rule on commutative property?
Funny part is , Alex is VERY outspoken against the British monarchy and also an “ethical vegan” yet there is no objective truth. If you don’t believe in truth how are you against anything
// "If you don't believe in truth how are you against anything" // If my moral measurement system ceased to exist the consequences of our actions and decisions with respect to the wellbeing of ourselves and others ( *objective factual reality* ) would still exist, irrespective of our inability to recognise and evaluate said consequences and thus differentiate between decisions and actions that are appropriate from the inappropriate with respect to the desired outcome of wellbeing. But the "measuring" of it is what defines "MORALITY" and that tool / common reference standard was arbitrarily and subjectively conceptualised. Our actions have real consequences ( *objective* ) But without the pre - agreed desired goal ( *subjective* ) we can NOT make a determination of what we *"SHOULD"* or *"OUGHT"* do or not do, we are unable to differentiate between human intentions, decisions, and actions that are appropriate from those inappropriate. If i hit someone they feel pain ( *objective fact* ) means nothing without first agreeing "we don't want people to feel pain" ( *subjective goal* ) only then can we say "I OUGHT not hit people"
8:03 you're wrong here saying evolution is guided doesn't mean by a god its guided by survivability not god. This is what a lot of theist debaters do if its not random its god this is a false dichotomy fallacy. Your point is mute
While you say evolution is guided by survivability, that doesn't establish a moral standard. Just because something aids survival doesn't make it morally good. For example, if killing enhances survival, we must ask: why is survival inherently good? You can't derive an "ought" from an "is" without assuming an objective moral framework. You claimed my argument presents a false dichotomy, but the real issue is that without divine guidance, morality doesn't have any foundation. If evolution is unguided, we face a moral vacuum where concepts of right and wrong become completely subjective. When you suggest survivability as a moral guide, you're assuming a moral standard that exist independent of evolution, because you are assuming that survival is OBJECTIVELY good, which cannot stand under your own worldview. If kindness enhances survival, we must question why these traits are good. Without God, they are just strategies to aid survival which isn't objectively good to begin with, so everything that derives from that must be subjective aswell, you have to borrow from a theistic worldview to make sense of your own.
@@piercec7523 I don't believe there is objective morality it's only a consequence of humans and some animals that live in communities who benefit from helping and protecting each other
@@tomadams5541 so with your logical framework helping each other isn't objectively good, thanks for showing why what i'm saying is right, why not just agree with me man
So in order to justify atheism, one must devolve into nonsensical arguments that end up sounding like Bill Clinton asking what the meaning of is is. Hardly rational.
@@somerandom3247 “Not sure how you got that from this video” Oh the irony!! Sorry but as Nietzsche wrote in "Beyond Good and Evil," “No one is such a liar as an indignant man.” The fact is that militant atheism is a cult movement hidden behind the cloak of “rationality” and scientism and materialism of the gaps fallacies that constantly uses anti religious Soviet hate propaganda left over from the Cold War, that is dishonest memes and buzz words to mock, badger and demonise anyone who challenges its myths and metaphysical presuppositions. It’s no different to debating a recruiter from the church of Scientology who just won’t leave you alone.
@@somerandom3247because theists are stupid and will NEVER for even 1 second think critically about their beliefs and people that vanguard their beliefs
"Morality, to me, is entirely subjective." Then who are you to call any act "right" or "wrong?" "Because evolution has instilled within us, a drive to stay alive, we can derive objective moral truths about how we should act..." So, we arrive at objective morality... ...subjectively?!? 🤣🤣🤣🤣‼️
@cthulhucrews6602: That's a nice word salad you served up. Since you like questions, and believe that morality is subjective, I have a question for YOU: Do you lock your door at night, and if so, WHY? Now, I'll go ahead and answer for you: you lock your door at night to protect yourself from people who engage in subjective moral thought; and reason, somehow, that it is perfectly acceptable for them, to enter your unlocked home, and take things that you worked for! You encounter objectivity every day, and ignore it. The speed limit on the expressway is not just some arbitrary number; it was determined by the engineers who designed the roadway, as being the safest top speed that one can travel in good weather conditions. In other words, the speed limit is an objective standard, that was established by someone other than the driver!
I'm very sorry about your lack of reading comprehension, but I made the point that the speed limit is arrived at objectively, as is morality, because, if you can change the rule at your whim, there's nothing "moral" about it... ...or about you! THAT is the point I'm making!
I have a couple of remarks 1) The presenter tries to claim that apologists have an easy time schooling college students who know nothing and uses Alex as a counterexample… Alex was either 17 or 18 in this video 2) Alex, after this, studied theology and kept on questioning morality and it’s arguments ‘till this day 3) I don’t think he’s being schooled here (this one’s a little subjective) however, I do think that they are dealing with an extremely controversial issue where neither have the ability to demonstrate the morality of things Being moral cannot be attributed to a God specifically, many Gods have moral standings that differ from each other, we either admit that they all revealed to us different moralities as true or we can’t accept one as the truth edited for typo*
Schooled? Omg! Look, I'm an Agnostic and I don't have problems with Christians being Christians and believing in god based on their deductions of reality; However, I was able to understand Alex's Argument and it makes total sense if we bear in mind other things we know about science, reality and quantum physics that I won't explain here for I'm not as versed in English as I am on my mother language. Basically, Christians are too tied to Logic. They don't see we HAVE TO establish some facts as objective so that we can create some deductions from there that allow us to TRY to understand the world. But outside of that, everything is subjective because reason is a tool, just like Mathematics and if we don't establish some parameters, then we have a useless tool. Don't claim Alex was "Schooled" here. If any, Frank and Christian weren't able to understand Alex's point of view, and I get it. My best friend is a great person and an Awesome disciple of Christ. We have talked many times about our points of view and I discovered there are some "facts" about reality that we fundamentally see from a different point of view and, as they are contradictory, they mold all the ideas that fall from those original ones and Voila! a theist and an agnostic were born XD
I’d go further. If you believe mind was the origin of morality, then even god or Christianity isn’t objective morality. Not close. If it comes from a mind it’s subjective. And let’s ignore the fact that on top of that, the Bible has god violating this objective morality all the time. And when god violates it, the Christian will excuse it it’s just because god did it. Again, confirming its subjective. A thing and it’s opposite cannot both be true at the same time and be objective.
@@beadoll8025 if he’s violating objective morality and it’s still good, because what god does is good, then there is no objective morality. It’s based on the subjective actions of god.
Atheists constantly talk about how they don't believe because there's no evidence for God but they have no problem believing things like the laws of logic or physics without evidence, which is special pleading.
@@patula3499 so no, you can't provide an example of a law of physics we have no evidence for. So your claim was false and probably based in your own ignorance.
7:59 it isn’t guided and Evolution isn’t random. The mutations are random, but the ones that are passed on are dependent on the environment they are taking place in.
"It's objectively true that reasoning is subjective." Brilliant. That summarizes what Alex believes. He crashed and burned at that point. Dang, I wish I were smart enough to hang out with folks who think things through like this.
One things for certain,Alex will not put this clip on his TH-cam site!
He did...
I just looked it up on Alex o Connor’s TH-cam he did not post this video stop the 🧢.
I just looked it up on Alex o Connor’s TH-cam he did not post this video stop the 🧢.
I just looked it up on Alex o Connor’s TH-cam he did not post this video stop the 🧢.
I just looked it up on Alex o Connor’s TH-cam he did not post this video stop the 🧢.
The mental gymnastics that he has to jump through to say math is subjective is astounding. His whole world view is amazing amounts of work to avoid the most simple logical answer.
But it is ultimately, we invented it in our mind.
It produces objective results but it’s completely subjective whether we decide to use it or some other system
@@Gumpmachine1
“Invented it in our mind”
Is that absolutely “TRUE” or did you just “INVENT” it in your “MIND”? LOL!!
Is that objectively “TRUE” or is it just an arbitrary subjective opinion?
By the way, you just totally and utterly refuted yourself!!
The statement “there is not one standard of objective morality” or the statement that “all morality and truth is just a subjective opinion” is ironically presented as one universal absolute standard of [OBJECTIVE MORALITY AND OBJECTIVE TRUTH). Thus it’s logical converse [OBJECTIVE MORALITY] and OBJECTIVE moral facts exist. Therefore an absolute, universal objective standard of morality and truth exists within a universal mind!!
Equally, the fact is that no one has ever empirically observed “MATTER ” outside and independent of MIND/CONSCIOUSNESS for we are forever locked in the fundamental primitive, that is we are forever locked in MIND/CONSCIOUSNESS. That is we are forever locked is Soul/Self. All we can observe are the contents of perception, which are inherently mental. Even the output of measurement instruments is only accessible to us insofar as it is mentally and consciously perceived by the conscious agent!!
Sorry but try again nihilist. 2+2=4 is not subjective buddy it’s an objectively true fact like the fact that raping and murdering a child is objectively evil and depraved not just an arbitrary subjective taste, not just an arbitrary subjective opinion, an arbitrary social construct, that is as arbitrary as the fact that we evolved five fingers instead of six!!
Maths is discovered not made up and invented like some fictional object in our mind LOL and mind and consciousness is still irreducible to “physically” determined processes. Because mind and consciousness is clearly the fundamental ground of reality and is a reflection of the ground of all being. Hence the common term among experts on MIND AND CONSCIOUSNESS THE “HARD PROBLEM” OF CONSCIOUSNESS!!
@@Gumpmachine1 Mathematics would still exist even if human minds didn’t exist, the semantics we use to describe mathematics (such as the word “math” or “two”) wouldn’t. The subjective description references a real objective truth.
@@Gumpmachine1 We could use another mathematical base but you can covert between mathematical systems because they all describe fundamental truth regardless of the semantics we use to describe that truth.
@@Gorpmeat the things we describe with math would exist but the concept of mathematics itself would vanish with the last human mind
Professing to be wise, they became fools!
“Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,”
“Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction. “
The fool says in his heart, "There is no God"
*The wise person says it out loud.*
Ahhh yes, those old *misunderstood* chestnuts again, eh? Both Psalm 14:1 and Psalm 53:1 read, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God” Some mistakenly think these verses mean that Atheists are stupid, i.e., lacking intelligence. However, that is not the only meaning of the Hebrew word nabal- as translated; “fool". The meaning of the text is not “unintelligent people do not believe in God”, rather, the meaning of the text is “sinful people do not believe in God”. As many Atheists are highly perspicacious, it is not intelligence or a lack thereof that leads a person to reject belief in God, it is simply a well-reasoned conclusion. Mathew 5:22 “But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire”.
p.s. *You really should take the time to deeply study and investigate your Bible verses just as thoroughly and honestly as the Atheists do before posting.*
That's what you get by believing the bible.
@@piesho Says the man who can't spell.
@@rickroberts9182 That, or I have crooked fingers. I don't know. 😂
@@piesho I was going to say "says the man who can't speel" but changed my mind, what little there is to change.....
I respect that Alex actually having these calm conversations. Most atheists that cross paths with me in the comments section start with insulting and name calling. 🙏🤗♥️✝️
Yup
I dont think that is unique to athiests...youtube comments are known to be cesspools of deranged angry keyboard warriors. I mean I'm an athiest and I dont run around yelling at christians in real life or online
I do my best but it is difficult sometimes and I don't believe it's always one party's fault. If one side provides a reason as to why something is unreasonable or even fully debunked and you just ignore it or come up with and arbitrary reason as to why this not important because it goes against what you want to believe, it can be frustrating.
And when a christian finally does realise they are wrong they deny it so hard that they convince themselves it didn't happen and tell the perso they are arguing with that "Jesus loves them" and dips out without confronting the problem.
@@wadegarbutt9758 And what is the problem that Christians are NOT confronting?🤔
I don't. I criticize and/or insult beliefs, dogmas, etc., not people.
We all have that one friend that no matter what we say they find a way to disagree.
That's every atheist. Including myself back when I was one.
Disagreements can be healthy. At least if it's in a genuine pursuit of a truth...
@@Western-Supremacist that's every Theist. Including myself back when I was one.
@@wadegarbutt9758 original...
@@Western-Supremacist just showing how irrelevant your comment was
Everything points to a creator but atheists will still say there's no evidence because they don't want God to exist
"Everything points to a creator"
It sure does if you start with a belief in one.
@@BeachsideHank Nope even if you don't believe, everything still points to a creator. Some people just don't want God to exist
@@BJtheMountaineerguy "...even if you don't believe, everything still points to a creator...."
And your proof of this is?
@@BeachsideHank Not going to get into a debate with someone that will never accept any kind of evidence I provide, it's a waste of my time. I'll say this tho, something pretty special had to occur for all of us to be here. That's one fact that can't be denied
@@BJtheMountaineerguy You wouldn't be providing evidence, you'd just be sharing your "feelings", there is a difference, but you know that already thus your disinclination to engage, it's like when you choose not to take the field- you lose that game to the opposition.
Kid knows he’s intelligent, but this awareness has cultivated a very ego driven thought process. He’s dancing AROUND the truth, looking at it, but refusing to accept it. Alls we can do is pray that the spirit of God will penetrate his hard heart.
Exactly!! Alex actually tried to say that evolution was not random? But this would mean it was somehow guided and he quickly realised there isn’t a middle option. He did this because he knows deep down that you can’t possibly trust a random process for imparting true knowledge.
Equally, Alex then backtracked again when he realised the implications of admitting that our origins can’t possibly be random and produce TRUE beliefs. He was all over the place with his mental gymnastics and Turek went really easy on him to be honest!!
In my experience atheists, that is fatalists and epistemological nihilists use this parlour trick and sleight of hand when they are backed into a corner and always backtrack and steal from our world view to make sense of anything.
If a doctor actually told you that a vaccine he developed was created using a random unguided process you would question if they had gone to medical school and not give that doctor the time of day and definitely not give that “vaccine” to your children in a million years!!
What truth?
@@FECtetra1918 The truth that regardless of what you think of it, will continue to be true, God.
@@wraves693 Regadless of what I think, you can’t demonstrate the existence of your imaginary friend.
True but I will say Alex has come a long way since this video which was 10 months ago.
Some people are so intelligent that they cant understand simple things.
It’s because they wanted to sound complex to feed their pride, reality it’s simple because God want us to understand it, we should let complex things to God and focus in what he reveled to us.
No; it is that even great intelligence is no guarantor of knowledge of the truth of reality, namely to know God, who is Christ, our Lord & Savior, that given even all of the sufficient evidence and the intellect to understand the evidence and arguments, it still requires the work of God, the Holy Spirit, to regenerate a heart, to enlighten a mind, however intelligent, as it was also necessary for God, the Son, to live on our behalf, no matter how good/godly any human being could be, they could not be good enough, as no man can also be intelligent enough or wise enough or religious enough or spiritual enough to work out salvific faith and trust in Christ, and so it is all by grace and mercy, all a gift, not of our works, but a work of God for us, and so none of us can boast even in our own understanding or comprehension of the truth.
@@alanambriz5320 i think it’s more so they have so much going on that they partial are working on. They have to many ideas floating but never really connect them. They try and solve each one individually they enjoy the knowledge so they get caught up in a game of cat mouse and don’t look at the overview enough.
All this matter is not a matter of intelligence.
@@LNVACVAC exactly, it’s just about being humble enough.
Alex definitely loves to hear himself talk, I used to be this guy, who always thought he could never be wrong nor always spoke smarter or more eloquently than others, and if you ask him if he likes to hear himself talk he’d say “no of course not “ yet his words and actions show he subconsciously does like the sound of his voice and the pride of feeling he’s smarter than everyone else
As a Christian, I admire Alex’s search for truth and his willingness to change when he realizes his past incorrect ideas. I pray He will accept the truth and have hope we will.
I don't see this as Alex searching for truth he knows what the truth is and he's choosing to push deception
Alex is suppressing the truth As Romans chapter 1 declares. He's just trying to sound like an intellectual but God has made foolish the wisdom of this world which makes Alex dumb as a brick
@@emoure77 why do u say that
@@m4andi0cabecause according to atheism, there is no Truth, Certainty, or absolutes of any kind, yet everything we say depends on truth and certainty. Atheism is self refuting, you have to make an absolute statement just to say there are no absolutes. Alex knows this, as does everyone.
@@emoure77 i mean, atheism is just a lack of belief in a higher being. What u are saying is that there are no absolutely truths, yes, there are not, because everything is subjective, even the statement that everything is relative is in fact relative
What's truly sad is this ability, shown by both men, to reason & logically argue while remaining calm, respectful, & blunt used to be standardized teaching in US schools.
NOW... People no longer argue (argument is meant to dispute suppositions with the solitary goal of arriving at the truth, like in court lawyers argue the case) instead they debate (defend "their truth" no matter how absurd their side is & ignore opposing logic, even truth, while they vilify their opponent.
FYI - in debate you literally pick/assign a side & defend it no matter if you agree 100% or think it is incorrect, non-factual, or illogical.
I always thought debate meant an unbiased attempt of arriving at the truth, and argument meant "defending your position no matter what", or essentially a much more biased form of debating. No matter really, but it is important to know the difference between a good argument and a bad one.
everyone holding on to their own truths. its just weird
@@419 You definitions are swapped. Another sign of the terrible "education" system. It's be design, so don't be offended - people with power want those able to gain power to be stupid, as this is the best way to retain all their power.
Watch a debate of the coming primaries and ask yourself: "Are they trying to arrive at truth? Or they just trying to beat down the other candidate?"
I'd suggest downloading Websters 1828. It's free and will elucidate.
Yes, to argue and seek the truth is worthwhile, and to practice with formal debates is also instructive in its own ways, but our ultimate goal should, indeed, be to know the truth/reality
According to Alex, if reasoning, logic and math is subjective, then he couldn't say 2+2=4 is correct, nor 2+2=5 is wrong. Because it is just a matter of persoanl subjective opinion. And in the world that there are no such thing as right or wrong, how can anything be possible?
A succinct summary of the whole video. Thank You.
Alex is not intelligent enough to admit that he is a fool
Have you ever tried adding in base 3? 2 + 2 = 11
In binary 2 + 2 doesn't even exist.
It does not mean 2 + 2 cant be 4 or that there is no right or wrong.
It just means that you have to play with the same rules before you can make those determinations.
In chess the rook only moves in a straight line. This is utterly ridiculous on the real world as you can move that piece anywhere you want.
But if we play a game of chess this is correct.
Morality works like this. We all opt in this moral playground by living in a certain country with major agreement on the more obvious topics and minor agreement on the minor topics. We enforce this shared consensus on other through government or social pressures.
@@aidanya1336exactly
You could but we both agree that math works then we can make objective assessments using that agreed upon foundation
Thank you for sharing this. Shared this video on Facebook & Twitter (X).
I'm atheist who also watched that full debate and seeing this video makes me realize how much our personal bias plays into what ideas we perceive. I watched that entire debate and thought that Alex put up great arguments and actually caught Frank off on many points (and I still think that). Man how I wish our brains were less prone to cognitive biases so we could accurately assess good arguments. When it comes to discussions like these its so hard to assess who is making better points when our entire judgement of the events is swayed by our a prior judgements about the positions that people hold.
Couldn't agree more!
The comments section including the guy who posted this with a title "atheist... schooled by..." shit , are all doing cringe stuff...
Alex was consistent with his argument , while Frank jumps between descriptive morality and normative morality back and forth
It is obvious Frank was correct and Alex wrong. Obvious. The bias is on the atheist side. Alex has to come up withall kinds of hair brain ideas to create some objective steady point for him. Atheists need God not to exist. Desperately so!
lol I was thinking the same thing I thought the kid spoke well!! Ive always wanted someone to argue where gods morality was when humans were killing each other for sport/entertainment and sacrificing virgins!!
🤣🤣🤣
absolutely correct!
In watching the debate, it seemed that each time Frank made a point, the young gentleman would say "how I see it". He even did that with a basic definition, how I define it. Hard to debate when someone defines everything their way and not "objectively" :)
Exactly!!!
Perhaps its either one of those "I feel" statements or a way to avoid getting bogged in an argument about definitions.
I haven't watched Alex enough to determine his habits or patterns.
So, Frank is better because he states his thoughts as fact, instead of his view or understanding of the topic?
and that's the point. they want to be their own god. 'you see that is YOUR TRUTH, and let me have MY TRUTH'. but there is only truth and false. logic and non-logic. pretending to not know there's God and ignoring Jesus Christ is not going to work on that day LOL but they r still God's children so we pray they return
@@Zanivox72depends on the word as some words describe an objective reality and others describe a subjective opinion.
Alex seemed to get backed in a corner here and to attempt to be consistent made the claim that math would not exist without humans. So did humans invent math and so math is a subjective opinion (or invention). Or did humans discover math and it is an objective reality? Meaning it would still exist without us. So would the math (a language or tool used to measure and calculate) still be true for an object falling? Would it still fall a 32 feet per second? Since we use math to measure and calculate gravity, would gravity still be true? Or is 32 feet per second a subjective opinion (or invention) based on human existence or an objective fact regardless of our existence?
Use your reasoning to answer these questions. Try to without bias.
Ouch. That kid drove his argument onto a cliff and didn’t even try pumping the brakes.
Ok is it objectively immoral to slaughter babies and the unborn? Be careful how you answer as I intend to trap you with your own Bible.
Not really, the host is completely misunderstood what was being suggested
@Gumpmachine1 No, Justin and Frank COMPLETELY understand the basic issues here. atheists put blind faith in the belief that a non-programmed, unguided accident can be "trusted" to give them "truth." I don't have enough blind faith to be an atheist. Do YOU?
@@Gumpmachine1
“Not really”
“The host completely misunderstood”
That’s just a claim buddy and claims aren’t evidence according to this atheistic, nihilistic mantra.
Furthermore, the irony and the absurdity is that Alex is actually a “HARD DETERMINIST” right? Sorry but you can’t get anymore self refuting than the belief that the conscious agent/freewill and choice, that is rationality itself is “ILLUSORY” and so doesn’t really exist right?
Alex put the final nail in the coffin for this strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism when he back tracked on veganism and even subscribed to “HARD DETERMINISM”.
Apparently the host could never “MISUNDERSTAND” anything Alex said even if the host lived a million years because according to this strictly reductive, causally closed, atheistic nihilistic fan fiction he’s just determined right?
I’m not even making this up because Alex actually believes that the conscious agent/freewill and choice, that is rationality itself is “ILLUSORY” because apparently everything is “physically” determined?
Sorry but it’s clearly a self contradictory statement to claim that “everything is determined but I know it’s true that everything is determined”!!
For example: Your position and your claim would also be determined right? So you couldn’t actually know if that was “TRUE” because you would have to have a way of knowing if it WASN’T TRUE as well, right? So under determinism there’s no way of knowing the TRUE from the FALSE as everything is just ultimately determined right?
Ultimately it doesn’t matter whether something is “TRUE” or “FALSE” under determinism because you can’t choose the TRUE or the FALSE because you’re just determined right? So TRUE and FALSE becomes ultimately meaningless including the TRUTH or FALSITY of determinism itself. Which is a self own on multiple levels and is clearly an enormous defeater for determinism!!
As I pointed out on here already everyone has a right to believe what they want and everyone including theists have a right to find it totally ridiculous, totally fatalistic, totally nihilistic and totally and utterly self refuting!!
I rest my case!!
It's hard to maintain the point that reason is subjective while trying to say it is objectively subjective.
"Reason is subjective." Is this a subjective or objective statement?
Therein lies the folly.
Does making it an objective statement prove reason (as a whole) being subjective a wrong statement? Saying that something is subjective and having that be an objective statement changes nothing. Art is subjectively beautiful. Thats an objective fact. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and no two people see the same thing the same way.
I've been reading through Frank Turek and Norman Geisler’s "I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist," book recently. It is amazing. 400 pages. The best book for any non-believer who has challenging questions like these conversations that this channel often highlights. It's been a fascinating and educational read. 100/10 recommend for all non-believer and Christians alike.
atheist have no faith, they are just no convinced by old book and gibber
@@Dan16673believing one way or the other requires a bit of faith because none of us know with 100% certainty either way. the evidence on both sides is not definitively conclusive regardless of our beliefs & biases.
@@Dan16673they have loads of faith.
If they are right about the afterlife, no one will ever know.
If they are wrong and believers are right, well everyone will know.
That's a ton more faith I have.
@@jelly7310That's a lot of heavy lifting for those "ifs".
@@jelly7310 lol what? You can make up absolutely anything w that logic
This non-believer doing some Olympic-level mental gymastics to get around that God exists.
Olympic indeed. Like just submit to God man. This too MUCH!! I feel dumb listening to it.
@@mattbrook-lee7732 Clearly don't know what mental gymnastics entails. This is Gold medalist level.
he god answer all is silly
@@mattbrook-lee7732,
Little Alex has changed his position numerous times.
Please challenge me.
Thanks for playing hooked to someone's belt loop.
If if that's the case it doesn't prove Jesus's rose from the dead so you reach nowhere
Again this was excellent. Outstanding information
At this point, these “atheists and skeptics” are arguing against their own flawed logic which doesn’t make them insightful, it makes them lost and confused…right where the devil wants all of us to be. The Truth of God is much simpler…I think people reject Him because He’s so big you’d assume He’d be more complicated than He really is but He’s revealed Himself and He’s never changed and never will 🙏🏾…
Which God did you have in mind?
@@youknowitstrue3826the one and only
@@voligod2773 Which? Answer the question then.
@@youknowitstrue3826the God that created everything. Including the devil who is causing all of this confusion.
@@dubemmba9602 Why won't you specify then? Are you also confused?
As atheists go, Alex sets the standard. Polite, VERY calm tone point of tranquility, and keeps it respectable. I dont agree with him but still enjoy listening to him
Free will is more misterious than morality to me… I actually saw a video of Alex getting AI to agree that there is a God using this same arguments of logic. The difference is that AI has no free will so it can’t reject the truth when presented to it, whereas humans can.
I think that many people choose not to believe in God not because is illogical to do so, but simply because they don’t like him.
How can you not like something you do not believe exists?
Because that is what atheism means.
@@aidanya1336 So they claim, but when you listen to their arguments for their non belief it tells that is because they don’t like him, or at least the idea of him.
@AS-bl5qy well I don't.
Nor do I think it's a condusive thing to start off with the assumption that atheists (like me) are lying.
@@AS-bl5qy Very, very true.
Great video BTB! SO happy you did a video on this debate, definitely one of my favorites by Turek.
Glad you enjoyed it!
@@ByTheBookMinistries i did! I feel like Alex purposely sounds confusing to make himself sound right sometimes, thank you for the clarity!
he did?😂 thats a 6 year old video.
@@malli561 I still watch his videos today. Sometimes it's hard to understand what his point is.
People think that guy is smart just bc his accent makes everything sound eloquent
Facts! He says nothing that makes sense
Yeah, like Richard Dawkins. Trust me, I'm English, there's many people here that sound smart because of their accent, but if you actually listen to their words you quickly realise that they're not
Smart huh? I know individuals with 130 IQ that flip burgers. Being smart often when said out loud is actually a defensive mechanism people like Alex use to cover gaps in their character flaws as well as gaps in their arguments or even their own logic.
@@SaltyGammon567
“You quickly realise their not smart”
Exactly! same here! I’m actually British and the British people are not so easily impressed by privileged Oxford University accents telling us that they are not responsible or accountable for their actions because apparently freewill and choice doesn’t exist?
The fact is that Alex is actually a Hard Determinist. Which means that he actually believes and promotes the idea on his channel to a lot of young people that the conscious agent/freewill and choice, that is rationality itself is “ILLUSORY”!! That’s a self own on multiple levels. Look up deterministic fallacy.
Everyone has a right to believe what they want and everyone including theists have a right to find it totally ridiculous, totally fatalistic, totally nihilistic and totally and utterly self refuting!!
Better for them to deny metaphysics, that is better for them to deny objective Truth, that is better for them to deny value claims, objective morality, absolutes, universals, (ought) claims, maths, the prescriptive laws of logic. That is better for them to deny freewill/the conscious agent, and with it rationality itself than admit the Soul/Self!!
Once again, the relativist, that is the strictly reductive determinist, atheist or philosophical naturalist manifests the very [dogmatism] of which he accuses those who believe in agent causation and in rationalizing it is willing to contemplate absurdities of which no religious believer has ever dreamed!!
Alex is a smart guy, no doubt. He comes across as honest and charitable in all his discussions and debates. His beautiful accent just makes listening to him more pleasant.
I love that Frank is probably 60 and still molly wopping that little whipper snapper…😂
This debate was done in 2017... Turek was 56 then and Alex... 18. I just can't see it as a win for Frank at all. Especially if we take into consideration that the host is also Christian so Alex was debating against two opponents.
Yer, frank lost this one. He cant prove that morality is objective, nor can he show that they came from a god.
Yeah Frank was terrible
This was a complete mismatch, unless this accurately depicts the modern level of atheism. Alex said nothing new nor anything old in a new way. A nonstop rehash of old, defeated arguments. He had to retreat from Frank after nearly every exchange. This was like watching an episode of a t.v. show you’ve already seen 10 times.
@@notsoanonymous2458 he didn’t need to offer anything new because Frank just trotted out the same old tired stuff he’s been saying for years.
Frank seems to fail to recognise the cleverness of Alex argument
Alex: “yes, so?”
Me: “So: you just said it wasn’t! Can’t you hold to your position for ten seconds??!”
No, because he uses another meaning for the word random.
Alex uses it in a sense that evolution is not a d100 dice where you get some unpredictable outcome.
Theist use it in a sense that random means natural/not directed by somebody.
So he is absolutly right saying "yeah, so?".
exactly, swear theists are so dumb@@DonXardas
Your explanation does NOTHING to fix Alex bouncing around. Using random to not mean random is just equivocating terms. Theists use random to mean random. "adjective. proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern: the random selection of numbers. Statistics. of or characterizing a process of selection in which each item of a set has an equal probability of being chosen."
If Alex means something else then he's just hiding the flaw in his position behind word games. That's either dishonest or inept, but it isn't good either way.
@@DonXardas
@@Cre8tvMG what are you on about? Alex is actually using exactly this definition. Random as in "without pattern".
It was the definition of the theist that was different. His definition of random was without guidance.
So no, Alex was absolutly right. Evolution is not a random. Nature/biology does not roll a dice. There is environmental pressure and thus resulting patterns. What is so difficult to understand about this? This is basic biology.
@@DonXardas
Are you suggesting that "without guidance" is qualitatively different to "without purpose'?
That really doesn't help assuage the feeling that one is bogging down in semantics to avoid the gap in reasoning.
The logical consequence of his position is that the basis for his morality (and our logic!) is random and therefore unreliable.
Every appeal to morality or logic is an appeal to a random process. There can be no truth. Or if there is 'truth' it doesn't mean anything at all.
People like Alex or Sam Harris proclaim this kind of nonsense with their mouth but do not ACT OUT such a belief. They act as though morality and truth is real. Do you understand why "dumb theists" therefore say they don't have enough faith to be atheists?
We don't have your bold faith in a random process upon which we would have to build objective standards, around which we must organise our identities AND navigate our reality.
Science and math rely on there being objective standards. The enlightenment would not have occurred if it weren't for "dumb theists" and our recognition that there is an objective reality that is reliably intelligible. It's not just subjective experience. You cannot even form a personal identity by that standard, let alone forming a community or a language!
Alex just proved Turek's point in the first paragraph. he said "good and evil don't exist if there are no minds or people".
Good and evil only exist if there are minds with the ability to recognize and perceive it. Matter does not have the mechanism to "think ABOUT" evil. Matter has no awareness about its own existence, let alone the perceived injustices being perpetrated against OTHER matter. This proves humans are not mere matter in motion. The chemicals (chemicals are just matter) in our brains are not capable of thinking, let alone thinking ABOUT the evil that other matter is carrying out.
So, if only matter and energy exist, according to Alex, evil does not. Subjective or otherwise, he has no justification to call anything "good" or "evil".
No justification is needed.
@@vladtheemailer3223 You're absolutely right...unless you you care about being logically consistent and intellectually honest.
All I'm saying is, live like you believe what you're saying. If your rights get violated...I don't want to hear a peep about injustice.
@@JoshDub78 If we are logically consistent and intellectually honest, we see the good and evil are subjective. They are literally opinions, even if we all share them. Why do you think opinions need justification?
@@vladtheemailer3223 Subjective?? Bruh...
Was it just our "opinion", that gassing the Jews was evil? Or was that objectively wrong?
I guess it was just the opinion of the King of England that kidnapping men from a far away land and forcing them to perform free labor in the American South for his benefit, was good thing...who we are to say otherwise...it's his opinion vs anyone else's.
If your REALLY believe that, then you have no problem with what Hitler and Nazi Germany did. After all, it was their "opinion" that ridding the world of Jews was a good thing.
And, you have no justification for calling slavery evil because it's their opinion vs. yours
In fact, anyone who believes that morals are just opinions agreed upon by society, would have been IMMORAL for speaking out against the genocide of Jews in 1930's Germany. Similarly anyone in the South who was an abolitionist would be, by your definition, immoral for being anti-slavery.
@@vladtheemailer3223 My replies aren't showing on my end. I have no idea if you're getting them. I replied twice...apologize if you're getting two of the same. Not trying to spam you.
I like Alex, he's a good natured guy and intelligent. Just a shame that he is shooting himself in the foot, making pretzel arguments to hold on to his 'truth' that there is no objectivity or God.
@@somethinsomethin7216 which there probably isn’t
How would someone even demonstrate an “objective morality”?
It always ultimately just breaks back down to people’s preferences which is usually a function of evolutionary biology
Not everything can be subjective because that would be an objective statement
No it’s still subjective, but remember he admits it’s founded on everyone assuming certain foundational principles
@@Gumpmachine1
“No it’s still subjective”
NOPE!! TRY AGAIN NIHILIST!! You are totally wrong!!
Now just prove me “WRONG” without appealing to an absolute, universal, objective standard of measure? I’ll wait!!
@@georgedoyle2487george is fucking stupid. Prove me wrong. Its objective as far as I’m concerned.
@@Gumpmachine1Saying "No it's still subjective" is an objective statement. To say anything with certainty means that you are making an objective claim.
@@KingStr0ng that’s the little trick the religious like to play, I can simply say that’s your subjective assessment which is yes before you say it….my subjective assessment as far as I can tell subjectively
“Ya, but evolution isn’t a random process.”
“Either something is directed by an outside source or it’s random. So evolution would have to be a random process.”
“Ya…so.”
Foundation of sticks, unfortunately. It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. It seems like this man is suffering from a wealth of knowledge with no foundation.
Evolution selects for mutations that will allow the beings who "receive" them to pass on their genes, I wouldn't call this a random process but I also wouldn't call it "guided" either, the argument you think is such a huge win is purely semantic.
He asserts the outside source out of his as*. Where is the evidence for the outside source?
Not as much as it sounds. Evolution does bring seemingly random mutations on the coming generations that are "tested" on the field with certain conditions. As several die out and some survive with those mutations, the species becomes increasingly good at doing something, as if the accumulated mutations build a path to survive the everchanging environment they're in, much like talling a rock into a more defined shape. Assuming God does to the living species the same as we breed certain kind of dogs of different races would be an accurate description of evolution as a process to shape creation.
@@troyboy1900 Nobody is interested in imaginary places.
Not sure what your point or objective is here. Only thing I can ask is, how do you know it’s imaginary? Curious as to the thought process that went into this.
7:01 False dichotomy. We don't have only two choices to pick from for evolution, "it's either guided or it is random". Reality is a real time physical pattern processor which can only give logical results even if the logic of the result is beyond human understanding. That consistent processing of combination and recombination is mistaken by many as a mind with a plan. Evolution what we call a specific aspect of that pattern processing which only gives logical results without having a goal or a plan. It's an entirely foreign concept to grasp because we're used to not understand nature and see it as random so people miss to thinking that way. Reality, or nature, is not random, anything that can happen happens. But and doesn't have a goal. Because this is counter intuitive or foreign to think about, people tend to add some human traits to the perception of this perception of the pattern processing of nature. They add intention (teleology) they add judgement (morality) they add empathy (salvation) and many many other human traits to this image about the divine. The point is that religions do not care about how reality is but rather about what people should think reality is.
He really said that "mathematics" is subjective because it wouldn't exist if it wasn't for humans but 2+2 would still equal 4 no matter if humans are around to count it or not.
Numbers wouldn't be a thing if it wasn't for humans
Mathematics is an abstraction. Its application is subjective.
Right, 2+2 still equals 4 if there were no humans on earth so mathematics would clearly exist. You would only need humans around to APPLY the laws of mathematics, but those laws still exist regardless.
The circular reasoning of materialists is wild.
Except god doesn’t fix any of that.
@@Gumpmachine1What do you mean?
@@alanambriz5320 that we still have to use logic and reasoning just to even conceive of a god.
Even if we grant that presupposition and use a deity as a guarantor of our reasoning faculties and senses we’re still having to assume that this god gave us accurate ways to assess our reality and that this yehweh character isn’t trying to f**k with us.
@@Gumpmachine1 Is not a character is God, and I suggest you to respect him.
And of course he give you reason because he create you as his image, and he revealed himself trough the scripture and oral teachings, that’s why is very important the church. When people only use their private reason, they fall in different interpretations, that’s why nowadays there are a lot of Protestant churches.
I have never heard someone angry with God for giving him free will, I guess you will be happier with being just an animal.
@@Gumpmachine1 There’s anything to fix, but there’s something to need to be understand, without God you will never understand it. This debate is the proof.
Excellent clip!..thanks for uploading...
Indeed Truth withstands all scrutiny..
Alex is soooo beating the bush and trying to remember what his favorite atheist authors have postulated on the matter.
How he went from morality to choclate tastiness is an obvious change of subject tactic to try to come up with an answer...Brother Frank is too kind with this lad.
If you are good at regurgitating what others with materialistic worldview have purported you are far from being wise...you've got good parrot skills...true wisdom only come from God!
He was making a comparison that they could both agree upon to highlight his point
@Gumpmachine1 Alex doesn't get to define words or terms to suit his way
@@vjohn1464 ok but that doesn’t effect his argument
Taste is subjective
@Gumpmachine1 you're reaching so I'll come with you...
Alex removes all of humanity to say that "see, murder is subjective"...that's an asinine analogy...he doesn't remove the earth though to say that the earth going around the sun is also subjective...this lad and all atheists beat around to bush and play semantics or use wit or sarcasm to gain audience of unsuspecting masses to pay their bills while people who follow them, cement their rebellion and suppression of God's truth...
That's the reason I ever even consider these 🤡s and charlatans...sadly most Christians are too nice...I don't care about being nice when people's lives are at stake...truth don't care about your feelings and sometimes using harsh words or sarcasm is the only way people will actually listen to the truth.
The atheists' prove that nothing produced everything is the combination of chance [no logic, no reason, no purpose...] and billions of years. That's a Cosmic Cop-out by a cosmic skeptic.
Alex is intellectually dishonest, and like most of us can put up a facade as if he's all about the truth... I say "get outta her boy"
Debate ended abruptly just when it was getting good. Want Turek vs. O Connor 2!
Wow look how young Alex is there. How many years ago did you dog this clip up from?
He's talking about objective and subjective morality. It was a thought experiment. Your click bait title is deliberately misleading.
Wow, you managed to misrepresent what Alex was just saying.
He talked about objective morality and you just ignore the objective part and put it as if Alex was talking about morslity in general.
Quite a dishonest take.
Not everyone likes chocolate therefore objective morality doesn’t exist. Nice Alex 😮😂
lol objective morality doesn’t exist, cope and seethe
@@death2damariit does, friend 🤣🤣🤣.
@@death2damariIs that objectively true?
@@death2damariSo that would be your opinion, right? 😅😂 🤡
@@ChairFoldersUnitedthat’s scorched earth tactics, but yes ultimately it’s his subjective opinion that objective morality doesn’t exist and it’s your subjective opinion it does exist.
So I guess that would make it subjective
"Alex is saying that its objectively true that reason is subjective".
Right, if all reason is subjective, why do you think your reasoning on this topic is objective?
he doesnt....
@@somerandom3247 then all reason according to him would be subjective in that case. Like Frank said, how could they expect to have a productive dialog if both of their reasoning is valid? how could truth be known?
How many times can I like this video? Just one? Darn…
Love the logical, philosophical truths God has given!
Which God ? Allah ? Thor ? Osiris ?
The reason your god needs apologetics and professional apologists, arguments, book sales, seminars and flawed logic is to sell a god that can't sell itself.
Arguments aren't evidence for your god. If you can't show it, you don't know it.
But humans don't believe murder is, in fact wrong. Most people make all sorts of exceptions that make it ok. Like war, abortion, the death penalty, etc.
They're so desperate to not believe in God that they'll literally say or claim to believe anything.
This clearly shows that atheism is an attitude and not based on any logic. It’s about self importance and being in love with thinking, which is based on fundamentally wrong premises and always falls flat upon scrutiny (and counters by evasion tactics or nonsensical philosophical excursions if probed). Turek stood his ground so well here
Dr. Turek mentioned a free will component when Alex tried to claim everything was subjective. To me the person denying God's existence so strongly gives the game away. They are like a man accused before a court, desperately looking for some point of law that let's them go free, even when they know their guilt.
Lol, frank is literally the one changing the subject and using nonsensical philosophically-sounding garbage.
@@somerandom3247
“Nonsensical”
Oh the irony!! You do know that Alex is a “HARD DETERMINIST” right?
That is Alex doesn’t actually believe that Frank Turek, or anyone else for that matter, even has freewill or choice?
Sorry but you can’t get anymore “NONSENSICAL” and contradictory than coming to a debate to try and change someone’s WILL whilst subscribing to the self refuting belief that the conscious agent/freewill, that is rationality itself is “ILLUSORY” as everything is “DETERMINED” LOL!!
By the way, you just totally refuted yourself!!
yeah, sure. and you're all about talking snakes and donkeys, so you're fantastically brainy.
@@checko44 not really, we're like people tired of being told we're sinners by people who haven't grown up enough to realise the bible is as true as the quran or the any other mythology. we're sick of imaginary people trying to make laws that affect us, keep your voodoo crap to yourself.
This is a great commentary and a great video to analyze. Im so glad i found your channel.
If math was an arbitrary language that could change, i would not trust anything related to physics (flying, driving, etc.). What a weird argument .
The original video was 7 years old, and this excerpt was chopped as well. I would invite you to watch one of his more recent videos on the subject (does evil prove god's existence).
Frank Turek doesnt mess around. Repeatedly dismantles Alex's points.
Not really, he’s offering a panacea at best.
@@Gumpmachine1
“Panacea at best”
Oh the irony!! Sorry but you are triggered at best!!
@@georgedoyle2487 analysis Franks argument for yourself, it fixes nothing unless you make the same assumption that he accusing naturalism of
@Gumpmachine1 how so?
@@hankhooper1637 because even if we use a god as some kind guarantor of our logic, reasoning and senses you’d still have to make the assumption that these faculties that it gave us are functioning correctly to even have that thought
God as a solution just kicks the problem down the road and potentially makes its worse
Alex looks visibly lost and overwhelmed. Perhaps he should apply at MythVision. That would be more his level
But.... how do you demonstrate premise 2 of the argument? Frank was asked to do that and completely ducked the question, and you don't go into it beyond just stating that everyone already thinks they exist.
Without appealing to how people feel, how can you show that objective morality exists?
Notice how frank immediately pivots from the question of why he thinks moral are objective to talk about why Alex views/acts against things he views as wrong? This is a dishonest tactic as he is trying to play against intuition rather than actually substantiate his view.
This isn’t schooling skeptics, it’s avoiding the question and trying to play off intuition which is so often wrong.
Morality “to me”
If you want “my definition”
Dear lord these entitled narcissistic children test me 😂
Go ahead and prove morality without subjective input exists then, I'll think you'll find it rather challenging.
Alex is at least one of the nicer ones who will occasionally admit being wrong .
Much love! Keep on keep’in on in our Lord Jesus Christ! 😊
Evolution doesn't disprove God
Evolution is the theory of how lifeform A becomes Lifeform B
...but didn't god create everything as is?
Thwres reasoning and moral reasoning, your belief or worldview determines your reasoning.
Question, if morality is objective why does the bible contain verses basically legislating slavery? Surely that's objectively wrong?
Don't answer with its written in a different time or for people with different standards back then. However i have a counterpoint. If god is all good why wouldn't he immediately condemn slavery in his book? He does explicitly forbid eating shrimp or casting curses which isn't even possible in the first place so why couldn't he have said i understand your culture but you should move away from slavery. Maybe because it was written by immoral men of the time
and the cringe thumbnail creator will never respond to this comment or dare to heart it 😂😂😂
the "written in different times" was already dumb since its suppose to be a holy book not a book tha follows trend from other nations
can we agree that some people are “atheists” because they don’t want there to be a god to answer to for their life choices and not due to actual intellectual reasons
no. cause that is not true.
Opposite
@@matswessling6600??? You don’t think that at least SOME people are atheists to escape accountability??? Cmon now… there’s at least 2 people out there…
Of course. A lot of them don't want to be responsible for sin.
@@Jbb7272 no, i dont. I cannot see that anyone would reaon like that. It doesnt make sense.
it would be like: "i want to drive any where... i think I will stop believing in roads..."
Great video. I am facilitating an apologetic small group over the next 10 weeks. I planned on utilizing multiple Turek, William Lane Craig and CS Lewis content. I stumbled on your station. I really appreciate your ability to find solid Turek videos and add your comments to drive home important points. Well Done. Tonight we will watch your video where the college student addresses Turek at a college q n a regarding morality. Keep up the good work. I am advising that the 22 people in my group like and subscribe to your station!
Dr. Tour and Dr. Lenno would be great sources for you to go to
Wow! That's awesome 👍🏾! I appreciate your words and I am glad my content can be a resource for you! Thanks for sharing and I pray that your small group is richly blessed!
Do an online group 😅
I advise to get to know Cliffe Knechtle's arguments! He has a gift from God of apologetics!
Enjoy your echo chamber. Invite an atheist along you just might learn something new.
The taste of eating tar is relative. Apparently Alex has not seen 'My Strange Addition' where people eat things like drywall, because they enjoy the taste.
I had a sister in law who used to eat chalk and in school a friend who used to eat candle wax m 🙏🤗♥️✝️
Ummm that was his point, taste preferences are completely subjective
I'm not sure if that was his point. I took it as if he was saying, "Tar tastes horrible to everyone." @@Gumpmachine1
@@MrHPT3 that why he made the tar vs chocolate comparison because in general we will agree that one tastes better than the other.
But there will be some people that for some bizarre reason really hate chocolate and would rather eat tar and we can’t say they are wrong because it’s their taste preference.
Now insert morality into this example instead and creates a interesting thought experiment that Frank kinda misses
No. You're missing my point. Some people like chocolate, but some people do not. In the same way that most people do not like the taste of tar, but there may be someone who does. @@Gumpmachine1
3:32 Don’t be mad, but you’re mistaken here. There’s a misunderstanding of objective morality.
Objective morality is a philosophical notion that posits that moral principles exist independently of human belief or opinion and that there is some external, universal, objective standard by which we judge things and actions. A consequence of objective morality, as correctly pointed out, would be universally held moral beliefs that can objectively be determined to be wrong or right.
But this is where your misunderstanding lies. Even if all moral beliefs were universally held, this wouldn’t necessarily imply an objective, universal, external standard by which to judge things.
Universally held moral beliefs would hint at the possibility of objective morality being true, but it could also be an indication of shared subjectivity - a consensus of personal opinion.
Asserting that universally held moral beliefs would be definitively imply an objective, external, universal standard by which we judge things would be a logical fallacy called affirming the consequent.
If you’re not convinced by this, suppose that all current moral beliefs are universally held, and then a new moral question is posed. What standard would we use to judge this and how would this standard materialise from the fact that all previous moral beliefs were universally held.
”A wise man’s heart is at his right hand, But a fool’s heart at his left. Even when a fool walks along the way, He lacks wisdom, And he shows everyone that he is a fool.“
Ecclesiastes 10:2-3 NKJV
I truly admire his patience
I know, i wouldn't be able to put up with franks bs that long. Id be calling him out on his baseless claims, and stopping him from changing the subject when he doesnt have an answer.
@@somerandom3247 It's true, Alex is incredibly patient.
@@somerandom3247
“I know, i wouldn't be able to put up with franks bs that long. Id be calling him out on his baseless claims, and stopping him from changing the subject when he doesnt have an answer.”
CRINGE atheism in full effect!! It speaks volumes that you are so easily triggered by Franks valid points about objective morality. Also look up appeal to ridicule fallacy!!
@@georgedoyle2487
What valid points? He just dropped a baseless assertion then changed the topic as quickly as he can so it can't be examined.
@@somerandom3247
“What valid points? He just dropped a baseless assertion then changed the topic as quickly as he can so it can't be examined.”
NOPE!! TRY AGAIN NIHILIST!! As I pointed out already, remember the good old days when thoughtful atheists, that is when “thoughtful” fatalists and “thoughtful” epistemological nihilists used to give intelligent and powerful arguments [for] “MORAL” subjectivism and “powerful” and “intelligent” arguments [for] a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism???
NEITHER DO I!!
Or even better!! Remember the good old days when thoughtful atheists, that is when thoughtful fatalists and thoughtful epistemological nihilists used to give intelligent and powerful arguments [against] OBJECTIVE MORALITY, that is “powerful” and “intelligent” arguments [against] the fundamental nature of [MIND/FREEWILL/CONSCIOUSNESS/THE ACTUAL/THE ONE/MONOTHEISM]???
NEITHER DO I!!
Interesting fact, “NEW ATHEISM” that is fatalism and epistemological nihilism is exactly like the old atheism if the old atheism was bitten by two infected bats called Darth Dawkins and DARTH PROFOUNDLY POINTLESS and got a over Zealous strain of RABIES!!
I have never seen Alex jump through so many hoops to hold onto his subjective presuppositions .
It’s almost as if his reason and logic (which are very sharp ) are grounded by an EMOTIONAL BIAS 😉
A case of the pot calling the kettle black.
I’ve never seen Christian’s jump through so many hoops to hold onto their subjective presuppositions.
It’s almost as if their reason and logic are grounded by an EMOTIONAL BIAS 😉
@@dbossmotiv dboss finally an atheist to expose and debunk .
Goody goody goody 🎉
Let’s start the boss off with an easy question cause we know his superior high iq atheist brite brain can handle it easily ;)
Dboss the Bible says we have a soul and an afterlife right ;)
Tell us all dboss where does science lean towards when it comes to the existence of the soul and the afterlife .
Shhhhhhh guys in luring the big bad atheist into my catch 22 question but please don’t tell
Him cause if he finds out his superior atheist brain will easily debunk my arguments
So shhhhhhhhhh everyone 👍
Faced with suffering, evil, death constantly, it would seem there's only so many worthwhile matters to live for. If God's not real, then.... why live knowing we'll die and everything else will die? From nothing to... something, and then have nothing left, what was the purpose of being alive at all? If God is real, then it's best to measure in the context of something outside and stronger in power than death. God says, "there are 2 places here in the afterlife designed to last forever. Heaven where I dwell, and hell where the people who never wanted me don't have me." This puts our lives in simple, but the most impactful of ways. Those end up being: We suffer here and suffer hell; we don't suffer here, suffer hell; we suffer here and don't in heaven; or what each of us would reasonably want, suffer neither here and not in heaven. Faced with those 4 options, I choose the 4th and last one if possible. Thus the Christian journey begins.@@dbossmotiv
@@ggpt9641 when you watch a movie at the theater and the movie ends, do you say , “well what was the point in the movie? They filmed all of it and it just ends? What’s the point of the movie then if it’s going to end? “
Do you say that? Of course not. Because it’s nonsense. 😂
I see where he went wrong. With the quadratic equation examlple, he said that choosing how you get there is subjective, but choosing between two objective paths to get to the same destination is not subjectivism.
I thought the same thing but couldn't put into those words because they were both objective truths, but "He" subjectively chose one over the other?
Wouldn’t which equation you choose be choice/preference. It wouldn’t be subjective because they’re both objective ways to get to a objective truth. It not a opinion one or the other works. They both work objectively.
@@sarahsingleton2020 yeah, the subjective approach would be to say the answer doesn't matter in the first place because it's just your opinion
Yep! Alex is very slippery. They teach students these bait and switch tactics in the debating clubs at Oxford University which is how a lot of these Oxford graduates are groomed to run our country as politicians. We’re used to it in Britain!!
Stopped watching the second I saw deceptive editing in place... which was 2:03 - in... The statement 'the presence of evil does not disprove god' - is not an admission that God exists.
Sad to see so many here parrot the bible without thought. Blinded by faith, truly
Naturalism has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. Also, your misunderstanding of what "random" means lies in the fact that evolution lacks a narrative, which the bible provides. This is how critical thought is thrown out using religion.
As the great Greg Bahnsen said in one of his famous debates with an Atheist,where do the Laws of Logic come from?
Alex "I feel like they come out of a consensus of rational thinking, majority rules"
@chrismachin2166
Alex:
"Benevolent evolution blessed us with the laws of logic!" 🤣🤣‼️
@@mr.dennis5503 how do you get something from nothing?How do you get life from non-life? How do you get intelligence from non- intelligence( how can you get laws of Logic)?How do you get morality from non- morality? You claim to be wise,but you have a worldview full of contradictions. Think about it!
Videos like these are great. They illustrate the fallacies some theists use to justify their beliefs.
1: Frank states that morality is objective but instead of explaining why he believes this, he turns the question to Alex about why he thinks that morality is subjective. Not a fallacy but avoiding the question.
2: BTBM uses the argument:
-If God doesn't exists then there is no objective morality
-Objective morality exists
-Therefore God exists.
He asserts that objective morality exists because universally humans think murder is wrong. But this is not an objective fact. War, capital punishment, religious sacrifice, religious text etc... all prove that murder is subjective. Murder is ok if it's the enemy, for the greater good or because your God commands it. It is subjective.
3:BTBM then shows the fallacy of a circular argument.
God exists and gave us objective morality and since morality is objective that proves a God exists. This isn't a rational argument.
4: Alex explains how morality is objective and breaks it down to a simple analogy
Is chocolate tasty. What you answer is subjective, but there are only two base answers. Yes and No.
Is murder wrong? is a question with the same base answers. Although the question has more weight to it, how you arrive to the answer is subjective depending on your religion, upbringing, feelings of the person whos going to get murdered, etc...
5:BTBM asserts that evolution is either random or guided by a god.
Your using a black and white fallacy. There are other explanations, ones we might not even know. But to the best of our collective knowledge we think that evolution is not random but guided. It's guided by natural factors like environment, food scarcity, sexual selection etc. Those factors can be random, like a drought happening causing less water making prey more scarce which would make large carnivores having to supplement their diets with bugs or some other food source. The ones that couldn't adapt would not reproduce leading to the eventual change in the species over time. The evolution was guided by (sometimes random) natural factors.
If you read this far thanks! leave a comment or rebuttal. Lets challenge our beliefs in a civil manner.
Murder is wrong most people agree with that. The reason why there is stuff like abortion is because people defile Gods command against murder unless its self defense
Your "logical" "intellectual" buddy got absolutely dismantled and now believes that math is subjective. You should probably sit this one out and take the L
@@CameronRoberts-jh9mr
So i assume your against the death penalty and fighting in wars?
@@stevenselleck5460
Alex O'connor in this video is 18 and was studying for a degree in philosophy and theology from Oxford. So he understands philosophy and theology very well and is coming from a true philosophical point of view.
Frank Turek had an apologetics focused education, he's learned philosophy from a Christian based view, to affirm and defend his ideology.
But they are talking across each other.
Alex is talking about the root of everything and Frank is talking about the practicality of everything.
Alex understands the practicality of subjectivity and objectivity and that we act as if something is objective, like morality, but when broken down to it's root, it's subjective. It's like how murdering a fetus is wrong but murdering a terrorist is ok. "Murder is bad" is a subjective moral argument.
Frank needs objective morality to exist for his ideology to exist. Without it, his assertion that there's a God, falls apart.
I also don't think you understand his position. He's saying the symbols we use for math are subjective.
2 + 4 = 6 but so does 5 + 1.
They cut him off before he gets into it more.
Try watching the whole video unedited. Maybe read into metaphysics as well to understand where Alex is coming from.
@@Anthony-zo8jc 18 should be old enough to know that math isn't subjective. Also if he was overmatched he shouldn't have agreed to debate. Lots of "reason" here from this extremely reasonable atheist
Some people just don't want Christ to be real.
Some people don’t NEED a christ to be real like you need it.
3:06 and on... Your logic is erroneous and misleading. You acknowledged that Alex's reasoning at the best might point to hypothetical possibilities of transcendent mind's existence. And in the very next sentence you turned this hypothesis into factual evidence. Alex argues that objective morality does not exist. To exist it would require God to exist - this part need it own proof which you on have! It's fallacious to treat speculations or assumptions as facts. Hence,
your syllogism fails at point #2 and makes it a circular: "If God exists therefore, God exists".
Moral values don't have to be objective. It's enough that they are agreeable. For ex. there is no objective colour green. Everybody perceive colours slightly differently. And yet we can agree, regardless of the language, culture, location, religion... that grass is green.
Evolution is not random. It is guided.... by natural selection. No need for any intelligence
15:00 What are you talking about? Alex did not "fall flat on the face". He clearly explained his reasoning why there is no objective morality. And despite the fact that this debate happened in 2017 when Alex was 18, he stood his ground against pro-debater, Frank who was 56 yo at the time.
If God doesn’t exist, morality doesn’t exist either.
Correct. That is Alex’s point.
How come wolves don't constantly eat each-other when they feel hungry then?
@@zaxbitterzen2178 Survival. Wolves hunt more effectively in packs. Cooperation does not equal morality.
Whats the argument for the claim if God doesn't exist morality doesnt exist?
Prove it then.
Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. Amen 🔥🙏😇
It is arrogant to even make claims that there is no objectivity. In order to get to the same answer using different formulas is not subjective - it is objective. For example, 4+4 equals 8 but so does 6+2 or 3+5 or 7+1. These are all the ways you get to this same answer, but the objective answer is still 8 - that is an objective fact even when we state that there are different formulae to get to that answer. This is not a subjective idea, it is an objective fact.
no one is saying that there is no objectivity. Just that morality isnt objective.
@@somerandom3247
“Just that morality isn’t objective”
Is that objectively true?
Sorry but the statement “there is not one standard of objective morality” or the statement that “all morality and truth is just a subjective opinion” is ironically presented as one universal absolute standard of [OBJECTIVE MORALITY AND OBJECTIVE TRUTH). Thus it’s logical converse [OBJECTIVE MORALITY] and OBJECTIVE moral facts exist. Therefore an absolute, universal objective standard of morality and truth exists within a universal mind!!
All morality, that is all OBJECTIVELY TRUE MORAL FACTS clearly comes from a higher source than humans. So whether 1000 people out of 1000 believe that raping and torturing and murdering a innocent child for fun is good, ITS STILL ALWAYS ALWAYS OBJECTIVELY EVIL
AND DEPRAVED, not just an arbitrary subjective taste, not just an arbitrary subjective preference.
Even if a million out of a million people say it’s ok to rape and murder a child for fun the principle of credulity and Occam’s razor tells me that raping and murdering a child is objectively evil and depraved, not just an arbitrary subjective opinion, not just an arbitrary social construct, not just arbitrary cultural relativism and societal WILL TO POWER and general consensus!!.
Society nor the subject, nor Stalin, nor Hitler, nor Pol Pot, nor the majority determine objective morality. ITS WRITTEN IN STONE AND IS UNIVERSAL AND CAN NOT BE REMOVED.
It's not that complicated or hard to grasp and understand unless you really just don’t want to see it because you are being intellectually dishonest.
In fact the moral argument is so compelling that it has actually played an enormous part in many former atheists totally rejecting their atheism, that is totally rejecting a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism for the fundamental nature of [MIND/CONSCIOUSNESS/THE ACTUAL/THE ONE/MONOTHEISM]!!
@@somerandom3247
The fact is that [Objectivity] is not dependent on peoples preferences, tastes, opinions or on whether the majority of society agrees on it or not!! That's the defining characteristic of objectivity. Gravity objectively exists and if you ignore this objective fact you could end up dead if you decided to jump a 500 hundred foot bridge. Equally, if you had a society that sincerely believed that raping, torturing and murdering innocent children for fun is good it’s still objectively evil and depraved not just an arbitrary subjective taste, not just an arbitrary subjective preference. That's objectivity, it’s written in stone so it’s not subjective!!
If we based morality on moral subjectivism and societal consensus rather than an objective concept of compassion, goodness and the duty to preserve and protect the right to life and uphold justice for all of humanity, then obviously we’d have to apologize to the Nazis for condemning them to death at the Nuremberg trials as they were allegedly just following orders? That is just following their subjective cultural norms!!
Equally, we’d have to apologise to the Communists for condemning them for systematically starving and murdering tens of millions of their own people, because they were just following orders like the Nazis and just following the Communist societal consensus that had agreed that the horrific things they had done were morally right and essential for the destruction of religion and capitalism.
So what may be right for you was good to the Nazis and Communists. If you are intellectually honest and follow moral relativism consistently, you would HAVE to accept that the Communists and the Nazis were, in their own subjective world viewpoint and “values”, correct and morally good. Because you believe there’s no objective standard outside of their subjective taste and [Moral Relativity's] basic principle is to not pass moral judgement on people with a uniquely different set of moral principles and social influences. Your rules!!
Furthermore recognising genocide as universally evil and depraved is taking an objective moral stance. It’s not a subjective human stance, because if humanity universally recognized genocide as good, it would still be objectively evil and depraved. It’s not that complicated to understand unless you just don’t want to understand it for ideological reasons…..
One cannot impose the subjective "humanity" stance of morality, while also simultaneously using it as the means of criticising another culture’s actions. This is why Moral Relativism doesn't work!! It’s self refuting!!
@@georgedoyle2487
Right off the bat you made the mistake of conflating moral truths with other truths.
Just because morality is subjective, doesn't mean that other things aren't objective.
Do you have evidence of objective morality? Perhaps an example of an objective moral, and a basis for it being objective?
@@somerandom3247
“Right off the bat you made the mistake of conflating moral truths with other truths.
Just because morality is subjective, doesn't mean that other things aren't objective.”
“Do you have evidence of objective morality? Perhaps an example of an objective moral, and a basis for it being objective?”
Sorry but evil has always used ambiguity to justify murder and genocide using fatalism and epistemological nihilism and moral subjectivism as it is clearly ambiguous and riddled with holes.
The nuances of OBJECTIVE MORALITY will always be most hotly debated by those who want to justify evil and depravity!!
All morality, that is all OBJECTIVELY TRUE MORAL FACTS clearly comes from a higher source than humans.
Even if there was only 1000 people left on planet Earth after a nuclear apocalypse. Whether 1000 people out 1000 people believe that raping, torturing and murdering a innocent child for fun is good, ITS STILL ALWAYS ALWAYS OBJECTIVELY EVIL
AND DEPRAVED not just an arbitrary subjective taste, not just an arbitrary subjective preference. So it logically comes from a higher OBJECTIVE source than humans. Are you for real? This is so obvious!!
The rape and murder of a innocent child is clearly objectively evil and depraved not just an arbitrary subjective taste, not just an arbitrary subjective preference!! Society nor the subject, nor majority, nor consensus determine objective morality. ITS WRITTEN IN STONE AND IS UNIVERSAL AND CANNOT BE REMOVED.
If morality was actually subjective then those 1000 people left on planet Earth who believed it was ok to rape and murder children for fun couldn’t be wrong right???
GOTCHA!!!
Objective morality is really easy to grasp and understand unless you really just don’t want to see it because you are being intellectually dishonest and have a philosophical bias because of what objective morality points to. There’s an enormous difference between moral epistemology and a metaphysical ontological justification.
Equally, morality is a metaphysical presupposition and a transcendental category buddy. Are you sure that you are batting for the right team? You are now in the domain of metaphysics buddy!! And that’s our domain. So you clearly have an enormous explanatory gap and an enormous burden of proof. Especially if you subscribe to this strictly reductive, causally closed, atheistic, nihilistic fan fiction that is a complete denial of metaphysics right?
I had an argument with someone over whether or not evil exists. They claimed evil is just a description of behavior and really just a behavior. Then proceeded to tell me that i cannot prove evil exists. I gave him examples and told him to look it up. Instead he spend 48 hours telling me im wrong even though he wont actually look the stuff up. He scoffed at one of my examples and just brushed it off like What are you talking about. They dont want to debate. They want to troll and humiliate.
It's not ideas you are debating. What you are arguing against is indifference and apathy...
Evil exists as a "concept" created in the minds of men just like God
@@trumpbellend6717 how so
@@trumpbellend6717how so
How so
Using examples like murder, or abusing children is low-hanging fruit. When you look at more complex or nuanced questions that don't have an obvious moral answer, it becomes more clear that morality is subjective not objective.
Turek snatched him UP!
Not even close lol.
Not really, Frank doesn’t really land any good points here.
@@Gumpmachine1
“Not really”
NOPE!! Yes really!! Sorry but under this strictly reductive. causally closed, atheistic, nihilistic fan fiction thats just the delusions of an overgrown amoeba with illusions of grandeur talking. That is nothing more substantive than the delusions of an ULTIMATELY MEANINGLESS, HOLLOW AND SOULLESS APE talking. Nothing more substantive than the ultimately meaningless, accidental arrangement of POND SLIME evolved to an allegedly “HIGHER” order right?
Your world view, your absurdity, your existential crisis and your epistemological crisis not the theists!!
YES REALLY!!
@@Gumpmachine1
[“and yet there's no way around it so we proceed forward anyway.”]
Smokescreen!! Look up argument from ignorance and special pleading fallacy. There’s only “NO WAY AROUND IT” if you presuppose a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism that clearly excludes metaphysical realities right? Sorry but classical materialism is dead and logical positivism and verificationism is self refuting isn’t it? Are you for real?
[“Highlighting the discomfort with this situation doesn't make it magically go away.”]
[“it’s still subjective”]
Your subjective “discomfort” and your subjective “situation” not the theists. The universe doesn’t have to conform to your subjective preference. The universe doesn’t have to conform to your arbitrary subjective taste and neither does anyone else!!
Sorry but “SUBJECTIVE” according to who? or what absolute, universal, objective standard of measure exactly?
“SUBJECTIVE” according to the standard of an overgrown amoeba with illusions of grandeur? Or “STILL SUBJECTIVE” according to nothing more substantive than the delusions of an ULTIMATELY MEANINGLESS, HOLLOW AND SOULLESS APE who shares half their DNA with bananas?
Your world view, your absurdity, your ULTIMATELY MEANINGLESS, HOLLOW AND SOULLESS APE, your existential crisis and your epistemological crisis not the theists!!
[“I never suggested there wasn't a objective morality or reality, just don't see anyway to access it, so if we apparently can't get to these things then in practical terms they don't exist to us”]
Is that objectively TRUE or was it nothing more substantive than the delusions of a determined machine, that is nothing more substantive than the delusions of a chemical and biological robot? The blind, mindless, ultimately meaningless accidental arrangement of POND SLIME evolved to an allegedly “HIGHER” order right?
Your world view, your absurdity, your ULTIMATELY MEANINGLESS, HOLLOW AND SOULLESS APE, your existential crisis and your epistemological crisis not the theists!!
Look up pretended NEUTRALITY fallacy!!
By the way, you just totally and utterly refuted yourself!!
@@tshirtjay "math is subjective" lmaooo the logical, reasonable atheist strikes again
This guy Alex is all over the place. He said that the rules of mathematics will not happen if there are no humans. He must be kidding. Humans or no humans, the rules of mathematics are there. The humans just discovered them and used it to their advantage.
He said that evolution is not random. If it's not random, then someone is guiding evolution as Frank Turek clearly pointed out. He unconsciously actually agreed to this statement. 😂
He sounds like a guy who is already caught with his hand in the cookie jar but he still won't admit it.
“Caught with his hand in the cookie jar”
Exactly!! Alex actually initially built up a large following by pretending to be a committee vegan and thousands joined his channel and subscribed to his patron. But now he’s dropped vegans like a lead balloon as he does not need them anymore. He’s even started making appearances on national television in Britain debating the legalisation of drugs. What a surprise!!
Yeah, it seems he was caught on. About the rules of mathematics, no. Math as it's currently known was actually an invented system made in efforts to measure phenomena and get a better understanding of this world. With no humans, such phenomena would indeed still happen but there'd be no one to measure nor describe it.
@@1erickf50 " About the rules of mathematics, no."
You disagreed with me about the rules of mathematics being always there but in the end, you basically agreed with me. Make up your mind.
"With no humans, such phenomena would indeed still happen ..."
@@wavemaker2077 On the contrary. Phenomena are not rules, "rules" are our composed attempts to understand and explain phenomena. One preceded the other. That's still a consistent difference.
@@1erickf50 We are digressing. Let's go back to the rules of mathematics. Are you still saying that the rules of mathematics only happened because there are humans who made that rule?
I will give you an example of a rule in mathematics so that you understand what we are arguing here.
Commutative Property:
Addition: a+b = b+a
Are you telling me that a+b will not be equal to b+a if humans didn't make the rule on commutative property?
Amen 🙏 brother thanks for always remaining calm collective and on point!
Funny part is , Alex is VERY outspoken against the British monarchy and also an “ethical vegan” yet there is no objective truth. If you don’t believe in truth how are you against anything
// "If you don't believe in truth how are you against anything" //
If my moral measurement system ceased to exist the consequences of our actions and decisions with respect to the wellbeing of ourselves and others ( *objective factual reality* ) would still exist, irrespective of our inability to recognise and evaluate said consequences and thus differentiate between decisions and actions that are appropriate from the inappropriate with respect to the desired outcome of wellbeing. But the "measuring" of it is what defines "MORALITY" and that tool / common reference standard was arbitrarily and subjectively conceptualised.
Our actions have real consequences ( *objective* ) But without the pre - agreed desired goal ( *subjective* ) we can NOT make a determination of what we *"SHOULD"* or *"OUGHT"* do or not do, we are unable to differentiate between human intentions, decisions, and actions that are appropriate from those inappropriate.
If i hit someone they feel pain ( *objective fact* ) means nothing without first agreeing "we don't want people to feel pain" ( *subjective goal* ) only then can we say "I OUGHT not hit people"
8:03 you're wrong here saying evolution is guided doesn't mean by a god its guided by survivability not god. This is what a lot of theist debaters do if its not random its god this is a false dichotomy fallacy. Your point is mute
While you say evolution is guided by survivability, that doesn't establish a moral standard. Just because something aids survival doesn't make it morally good. For example, if killing enhances survival, we must ask: why is survival inherently good? You can't derive an "ought" from an
"is" without assuming an objective moral framework. You claimed my argument presents a false dichotomy, but the real issue is that without divine guidance, morality doesn't have any foundation. If evolution is
unguided, we face a moral vacuum where concepts of right and wrong become
completely subjective. When you suggest survivability as a moral guide, you're assuming a moral standard that exist independent of evolution, because you are assuming that survival is OBJECTIVELY good, which cannot stand under your own worldview. If kindness enhances survival, we must question why these traits are good. Without God, they are just strategies to aid survival which isn't objectively good to begin with, so everything that derives from that must be subjective aswell, you have to borrow from a theistic worldview to make sense of your own.
@@piercec7523 I don't believe there is objective morality it's only a consequence of humans and some animals that live in communities who benefit from helping and protecting each other
@@tomadams5541 so with your logical framework helping each other isn't objectively good, thanks for showing why what i'm saying is right, why not just agree with me man
The fact that so many people get their morals from that old book explains why the world is so messed up.
Human nature hasn’t changed
Obvious troll 😅
@@kapitan19969838 Not trolling, just stating the obvious. You can’t possibly get good morals from an extremely immoral book.
I have average intelligence, but I would still have trouble keeping up with some of their conversations without your help.
IQ doesn't really mean much in this context. I assume the young guy has a very high IQ, but at the same time seems very ignorant of logic.
@@martythornton604sky daddy 4all
@@martythornton604 🤣😂😂 I’d say his beliefs are far more ‘logical’ than Tureks.
@@SuperEdge67false
@@SuperEdge67 Not even close.
So in order to justify atheism, one must devolve into nonsensical arguments that end up sounding like Bill Clinton asking what the meaning of is is. Hardly rational.
no.... not sure how you got that from this video...
@@somerandom3247
“Not sure how you got that from this video”
Oh the irony!! Sorry but as Nietzsche wrote in "Beyond Good and Evil," “No one is such a liar as an indignant man.”
The fact is that militant atheism is a cult movement hidden behind the cloak of “rationality” and scientism and materialism of the gaps fallacies that constantly uses anti religious Soviet hate propaganda left over from the Cold War, that is dishonest memes and buzz words to mock, badger and demonise anyone who challenges its myths and metaphysical presuppositions. It’s no different to debating a recruiter from the church of Scientology who just won’t leave you alone.
@@somerandom3247because theists are stupid and will NEVER for even 1 second think critically about their beliefs and people that vanguard their beliefs
Meanwhile justifying theism with a book. Even if pbjectove morality was true, you can't truly be certain if your faith would be the right one
Like jordon peterson?
"Morality, to me, is entirely subjective."
Then who are you to call any act "right" or "wrong?"
"Because evolution has instilled within us, a drive to stay alive, we can derive objective moral truths about how we should act..."
So, we arrive at objective morality...
...subjectively?!?
🤣🤣🤣🤣‼️
@cthulhucrews6602:
That's a nice word salad you served up. Since you like questions, and believe that morality is subjective, I have a question for YOU: Do you lock your door at night, and if so, WHY? Now, I'll go ahead and answer for you: you lock your door at night to protect yourself from people who engage in subjective moral thought; and reason, somehow, that it is perfectly acceptable for them, to enter your unlocked home, and take things that you worked for!
You encounter objectivity every day, and ignore it. The speed limit on the expressway is not just some arbitrary number; it was determined by the engineers who designed the roadway, as being the safest top speed that one can travel in good weather conditions. In other words, the speed limit is an objective standard, that was established by someone other than the driver!
I'm very sorry about your lack of reading comprehension, but I made the point that the speed limit is arrived at objectively, as is morality, because, if you can change the rule at your whim, there's nothing "moral" about it...
...or about you!
THAT is the point I'm making!
Alex says laws are a product of consciousness. No! Consciousness is just the means by which we respond to existent laws of reality.
Murderers don’t always believe murder is wrong. Psychopaths don’t necessarily believe murder is wrong.
Frank got schooled by a teenager 😂😂😂
@@salescamilla8579 ?? He literally said reason is subjective and by making a truth claim that is subjective
Alex o’Connor is much too certain of his own cleverness to listen to anything that goes against his own cleverness.
Just switch the name and you perfectly described Frank Turek.
Alex o'Connor talks nonsense. He sounds and looks like a fool whenever he debates people
far more knowledgable and wiser then him.
I have a couple of remarks
1) The presenter tries to claim that apologists have an easy time schooling college students who know nothing and uses Alex as a counterexample… Alex was either 17 or 18 in this video
2) Alex, after this, studied theology and kept on questioning morality and it’s arguments ‘till this day
3) I don’t think he’s being schooled here (this one’s a little subjective) however, I do think that they are dealing with an extremely controversial issue where neither have the ability to demonstrate the morality of things
Being moral cannot be attributed to a God specifically, many Gods have moral standings that differ from each other, we either admit that they all revealed to us different moralities as true or we can’t accept one as the truth
edited for typo*
This channel has been doing this type of lying for a long time. Typical bait and click from theists.
Schooled? Omg! Look, I'm an Agnostic and I don't have problems with Christians being Christians and believing in god based on their deductions of reality; However, I was able to understand Alex's Argument and it makes total sense if we bear in mind other things we know about science, reality and quantum physics that I won't explain here for I'm not as versed in English as I am on my mother language.
Basically, Christians are too tied to Logic. They don't see we HAVE TO establish some facts as objective so that we can create some deductions from there that allow us to TRY to understand the world. But outside of that, everything is subjective because reason is a tool, just like Mathematics and if we don't establish some parameters, then we have a useless tool.
Don't claim Alex was "Schooled" here. If any, Frank and Christian weren't able to understand Alex's point of view, and I get it. My best friend is a great person and an Awesome disciple of Christ. We have talked many times about our points of view and I discovered there are some "facts" about reality that we fundamentally see from a different point of view and, as they are contradictory, they mold all the ideas that fall from those original ones and Voila! a theist and an agnostic were born XD
This is so circular. You can't prove that God exists with objective morality if your proof for objective morality is that God exists.
I’d go further. If you believe mind was the origin of morality, then even god or Christianity isn’t objective morality. Not close. If it comes from a mind it’s subjective.
And let’s ignore the fact that on top of that, the Bible has god violating this objective morality all the time. And when god violates it, the Christian will excuse it it’s just because god did it. Again, confirming its subjective. A thing and it’s opposite cannot both be true at the same time and be objective.
@@justinabajian1087 God is incapable of violating laws that he himself created? 😂😂😂
@@beadoll8025 if he’s violating objective morality and it’s still good, because what god does is good, then there is no objective morality. It’s based on the subjective actions of god.
Atheists constantly talk about how they don't believe because there's no evidence for God but they have no problem believing things like the laws of logic or physics without evidence, which is special pleading.
What laws of physics don't we have evidence for?
@@JP-je6jg Which ones do we have evidence for?
@@patula3499 no no, you said we don't have evidence...please evidence your statement...
@@JP-je6jg You want me to show the evidence that I don't believe exists?! Is something wrong with your brain?
@@patula3499 so no, you can't provide an example of a law of physics we have no evidence for. So your claim was false and probably based in your own ignorance.
what I heard was Alex said objective morality does not exist.
Gotta say, Alex O'Connor is 6 or 7 years younger in this video. It would be more worth time to engage with who he is now.
7:59 it isn’t guided and Evolution isn’t random. The mutations are random, but the ones that are passed on are dependent on the environment they are taking place in.
"It's objectively true that reasoning is subjective." Brilliant. That summarizes what Alex believes. He crashed and burned at that point. Dang, I wish I were smart enough to hang out with folks who think things through like this.
You're smart enough to realize that Alex was serving up a philosophical word salad, so you're doing pretty well!
What do you think is nonsensical about this statement?