Respectfully Stuart and Cliffe should stop debating and just focus on their college campus ministry, because as a Christian watching this was frustrating.
@@djpeacannon8461 Many schoolteachers only have knowledge up to degree level and would be lost against further educated doctorate holders. Does that make them unfit to share and teach the knowledge they do have? Of course not. The Knechtle's may not be the most knowledgable or articulate, but they have appropriate knowledge to share with those on the journey less travelled.
Well it’s definitely safe to say they aren’t debaters or philosophers however I think they addressed very Important questions and a lot of points went over Phil and Alex’s head especially when Stuart says from their worldview they should not even have any issues with animal suffering. Phil and Alex with intellectual honesty should be able to say. You know what you are right, from our worldview with no God we shouldn’t be mad at animal suffering and on top of cliffe saying that Alex has no solution to the problem of suffering and he asked him for what is the best probably solution if he doesn’t think Christianity is it and he didn’t provide and answer.
Bottom line, people with limited formal debate skills should not debate highly skilled debaters in a formal debate. You can be right and still not help your side.
Agreed. I’ve always thought it was interesting how debates are so much more about performance and “feeling” like you’ve won. I still watch them. They have a place. But we should all be careful not to feel justified in our position based on any debate outcomes.
@@SpeakLifeMedia I don't think these debates are about winning or losing, it's more about trying to understand what other people believe and having open and honest discussions. People rarely change their views on a single debate, it can take a long long time for people to change their mind.
@@Alien1375 Dodge? Lol, do you even know the person or what runs through his mind? Is your view then that every one who wants to review a debate or do some commentaries are cowards? You have a lot of balls saying that considering you're not even showing your profile pic and just likes to stirr sh1ts in comment sections. 😊
@@Alien1375You don't even know the man He's debated dillahunty already. Quit yapping and do your homework. You're so funny trying to frame this as an act of cowardice. Before you go to that direction make sure you guys have the balls first to explain your reality and get it scrutinized instead of sayingg " uhh we don't have the burden of prooff uuhhggh "
First, the title of the debate is: “Does the Biblical God Exist?”. Alex does not have to defend his atheistic (or better said agnostic) worldview because it is not the topic of the debate. Cliffe screaming the question what worldview Alex has is just a classic ‘Whataboutism’ that is irrelevant in this debate. Second: Alex does answer the above question with “I don’t know”, which is a valid answer from a humble person who knows the limits of his intellect and senses. A humbleness that Cliffe, who has his god of the gaps in his back pocket, will never understand. Third: proving death and decease happened before the fall and therefore death and suffering of all the animals before the existence of humans is “very good” in the eye of the Biblical god, makes the rest of the claims in the Bible pretty much fall apart. So the animal suffering argument is a big deal. A big deal the Knechtle’s can’t refute. Fourth: Christians or “The West” didn’t invent compassion or morals. Fifth: 20:50 You conveniently left out the many examples Phil gave of the tools a good god could use to incapacitate the horses (like transporting them elsewhere, or bringing them in a deep sleep). But no, he ordered the humans to mutilate them. Sixth: You ‘expect’ a god to make a ‘fine-tuned universe’. Why do you expect that? You got some examples of some other universes so we can compare them? Seventh: The universe is ‘incredibly fine-tuned for life’? Then all the planets would be full of life. We only have one sample of a planet with life. Not a great body of evidence. Eighth: 46:25 I like how you changed using the term ‘Biblical god’ and started using ‘a god’. Classic ‘moving the goalposts’ tactic. Ninth: 47:30 Ad-Hominem drivel. Tenth: 48:00 Again, it’s not an atheists duty to make up reasons why the ‘good’ god that Christians created does things that are called ‘evil’ by the same god. Don’t set up smoke screens. Eleventh: 1:00:00 Because implying the Biblical god is ok with death directly counters the claims of the Bible that death is the enemy. Don’t try to claim ignorance here. Twelfth: 1:00:38 Atheism claims or expects nothing. It’s not an ideology. Thirteenth: 1:34:32 So we are mindless fictional characters now who can only do what the ‘divine author’ wants us to do. So why is this writer so angry when the character he created does the thing he wanted to do in the story? Fourteenth: 1:35:45 Apparently god thought abortion was an integral part of his story, so why is it bad now? Also he killed a lot of unborn children during the flood, so it’s not objectively wrong. In the end, all I see in this video is the same old tactics used by all the other apologists: Moving the goalposts, setting up smoke screens, bad analogies and whataboutisms.
@@tking2199 How is the user coping? These are pretty valid criticisms to make, far from pointless. It's the Knechtle’s duty to provide something to stand on, and they have utterly failed.
Lmao. Get it off your chest, brother. I love to see accusations thrown around from you atheists. Most accusations can ALWAYS be applied to either side. If you don’t think so, then you’re not the intellectual you act like in this crazy long post. Holes can be poked effectively in either side. You just think you’re on the right one. I guess it feels good to think you’ve effectively ended Christianity, huh? As if you’re the first annoyed atheist to do so on an online forum.
Excited for this because Glen has done a splendid job in the few months I've known this channel (through Dr. Gavin Ortlund's Truth Unites) of equipping me intellectually. Saddened though because I noticed Cliff and Stuart aren't cut out for debates. Their rhetoric is usually strong for campus ministries and sermons (I'd assume) but even I haven't been moved by them in such conversations. I don't think they're the Christopher Hitchens of Christian apologetics. But I do appreciate these conversations regardless. Like the O.T, they equip us on what NOT to do. Wise disciples next. Also, just to add, I did love the heart of pastors that they have, even in this debate
It's propably true that Cliff is not at his best against sophisticated scholars like Alex. However, the aftermath (thx to Glenn and Capturing Christianity) has been exposing and devastating for atheism. Alex's arguments are embarrasing and his choice to emphasize the "expectations" regarding how the world would look like if atheism is true backfired on him. Atheism explains absolutely nothing. Even if we give the atheists a life permiting universe they would still need life, counsciuosness, logic, morality etc. (all of which are expected if theism is true), to be able to argue against theism. This is just absurd, ridiculous and intellectually dishonest.
@@TheSpaniard-5337 I agree. As much as I love Alex, the reason I didn't address them in my comment is because they didn't stick to the topic and did not move me at all.
Stuart/Cliffe's inadequate response to a super chat commenter who mentioned their desire to end their own life was troubling to me. They posture as if their worldview is the only helpful response to despair, and they kept insisting that athiestic positions have no hope. Then, when presented with a real human who needed reasons to live, they quoted Bible verses about despair where death IS the hope in ending their suffering. Then, they said something akin to "you just need to suck it up for now and live until you can finally die and stop suffering." Someone can find the exact quote if they want to watch the debate, but I don't want to watch it again. I was just struck with what a pathetic response that was to give to someone struggling with self-death ideation. As someone who has struggled with depression/despair, what I needed was reason to live and ways to enjoy this life, not the idea that the only way to move past suffering is to die and go to some vaguely defined heaven, if you're lucky enough to get your theology right. Horrible. I would not call what these men do "ministry."
yeah that was disgusting. it was like he was using someone wanting to end their life as a talking point for the debate instead of actually trying to help the person. glad that james actually tried to help by offering a professional.
It's the failure of getting in the weeds with dogma. Religion is often basically a man-made sketch that isn't, itself, the image of the real thing, but is close enough for us to be able to recognize it when we know what we're looking for. The new testament was written by people who very likely did indeed find God, and there is tremendous value in that, but I think we make a few too many presuppositions about the details. They might have been wrong about some of the gaps, even though they got the gist of it right (and frankly, I do think there is something to the whole Jesus thing, it's unlikely that the disciples made up the story of him rising from the dead.) For what it's worth, there IS purpose to you, to your existence, and to what you're going through. I've been where you're at. Please don't give up, and keep it in prayer. You don't need to find systematic religion to pray, just praying to God works. We can all start there, and frankly, I think that's where we should start. Don't listen to man made doctrines and man-made confusion that tries to take away your hope. Everything will be okay. :)
If God only sees animals as weapon, weapons, tools, and food, then why give them tears why make them scream in pain when they’re being hurt why give humans the moral intuition to feel bad for animals death
@@lawrence_of_osaka And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. No Jesus Christ, no life; Know Jesus Christ, know life. God/Jesus Christ/Holy Spirit is mankind's only hope. This evil world, atheists and the enemy (Satan - the devil) offer no hope. No religion needed. Just faith, faith plus nothing.
One issue is whether some version of PSR is correct, in which case, looking at the totality of really, some aspect/feature of the totality would exist in virtue of its nature and would be the ultimate ground for everything else. Of course… that is not enough for “God” unless you have worthy arguments for placing intellect and will at that level. And still more would be said. But I think enough has indeed been said. See the chapter on PSR in Feser’s “Five Proofs” (I am only talking about the PSR chapter!) Combine that with both Pat Flynn’s 2023 book “The Best Argument for God” (which includes a discussion on an argument that doesn’t require PSR) And DBH’s 2014 “The Experience of God” Please note that I am not defending biblical inerrancy, which isn’t necessary for Christianity to be true, although that’s a separate problem
I'm an atheist but i have heard cliff argument and i would say that his arguments sound convincing amongst the students as his audience. So i expected his debate with alex would be mind tickling. But to my surprised, he dissapoints me. And i think the main reason alex falls short is due to cliff constantly asking him and accusing him that the debate could not move on
The problem is debating is a very specific scenario and skill that needs to be developed, their reality is actually quite far from what we most think of a debate winner being the right one, that is not always the case, at all.
@@channelMasterGuiGame People often say, “I’m not hurting anyone so it’s ok to sin (lying, stealing, sexual sins, disrespecting parents etc)” The same God who said to love your neighbour first said to love Him to the best of your ability. If you carry on sinning, then you do not love God but are selfish like the devil so you will be joined to your father in hell or repent of your sins and believe in Jesus as God so Jesus adopts you as His child and you will join Him in Heaven forever.
Great breakdown of this debate. The Knechtles, unfortunately, need some help if they are going to continue to debate. There is a difference between person-to-person evangelism and debate. If you are going to debate you really need to know data, arguments, and how to shift burden of proof. The Knechtles were immediately put on the defense, and never were able to come back and press Halper or O'Connor. Also, you need to be able to summarize your opponents' objections quickly. Alex and Phil only brought up three objections: the problem of animal pain, the "apparent" contradiction in the Bible, and the apparent failure of the fine-turning argument (i.e., that the universe is thought to be eternal). That is what they needed to focus on, and, even when they tried, they weren't fluid in their argumentation. Also, it doesn't help to have a better grasp of academic language: rhetoric does a long way in debate.
At 6:08 into that debate Cliffe - “No, I cannot prove God. I cannot prove Christ”. This is what the agnostics and atheists demand before they dedicate the only life they have to worshipping a fairytale God. If you can’t prove God or Christ, what are you debating? If the atheist is wrong, the atheist doesn’t care. If God wants worship from an atheist based on faith alone, then God can go kick rocks.
Hi, thanks for the discussion. It would be nice and very helpful if you could put a link to the videos you use. I know you almost never do it, but it honors the creator of the vdeo you use and it gives us the chance to make our own conclusions.
11:58 Also: if no God, why do we have an innate impulse to seek transcendent purpose and communion? Why do we desperately hunger for beauty? What is the cold mechanical purpose of being in awe of a golden sunset? Or our universal love of stars despite how they remind us of our insignificance in the grander universe?
This is such a weird statement because it infers that if a person is Buddhist, or a Naturalist, or a Pegan, or a Devil worshipper, or a horoscope believer, or a Wiccan or literally any other form of belief that isn't monotheistic or even God based is by default a person who has no meaning.... Its insulting to the world to try and lump everyone together as if we believe the same things in a deep enough level. We don't. and people still find motivation and purpose without a judeo Christian perspective. Even Christians themselves fight about the god they supposedly share and have for centuries. So.. just... think a bit and realize that your framework for reality is a bias one.
@ You misread. I explicitly said “we” - meaning everyone - have an impulse to seek transcendent purpose and communion. “Transcendent” means “higher, deeper.” Even Alex O’Connor, Sam Harris, and neurologists recognize this impulse. My only claim is that God gave us this impulse so we may come to know him. True beauty - like stars or a mountain summit view - invokes a sense of transcendence which that we desire desperately. We don’t want to possess true beauty; we merely want to be in its presence. We desire communion with transcendence, something higher. In the world but not of the world. Beauty that is not merely that prettiness but recognition of deep pattern of “rightness”, of truth. Transcendence causes a slowing down so that we can immerse our elves in the experiences; invokes a sense of wonder and contemplation. And I ask, to what cold evolutionary purpose?
Yeah again you're making claims that are simply untrue. People are not all doing this particular action you're describing. You would have to make the definition of "pursuit of transcendence " to be so broad it is absolutely meaningless as a statement. Even the word beauty itself is completely subjective. There is no ultimate goal for all people's that's even remotely definite. You can use a word like god but it has no explanatory power when you consider for one second that gods as we see them can completely contradic each other and even themselves. You use the word god as if it's a ubiquitous understood word... its not at all. It's argued about, fought over, and used endlessly to condone bigotry, hatred, and rigid definitions of pure right and wrong that just based on a cursory observation is revealed to be incorrect.
God is the epitome of Holiness because He is sinlessly perfect, A sinner (liar, sexually immoral, taking the Lord’s Name in vain, thief etc) cannot be in the presence of God or else he will be utterly consumed therefore repent of your sins and put your faith in Jesus as your Lord and Saviour to go to Heaven.
Being Australian also, I can't get past how poorly you interpret the cultural cues on who is being rude here. When an American talks down to someone like that, they mean it. They are angry and failed big time.
All Humans need to repent & Believe in Jesus as their God. Why? Because all Humans have sinned (lied, lusted sexually, stolen, dishonoured parents, unbelief etc). Avoid the fires of Hell (justice of God) and choose Heaven today. Jesus defeated death by rising from the dead. GOD IS HOLY
Re: post-Christian animal suffering, people are both more concerned, and less concerned. People choose to feel compassion for certain animals like puppies and kittens but don't blink an eye at the extreme emotional anguish and physical torture humans inflict on the 9 billion animals in industrial factory farms and slaughterhouses. Just look at undercover videos.
People often say, “I’m not hurting anyone so it’s ok to sin (lying, stealing, sexual sins, disrespecting parents etc)” The same God who said to love your neighbour first said to love Him to the best of your ability. If you carry on sinning, then you do not love God but are selfish like the devil so you will be joined to your father in hell or repent of your sins and believe in Jesus as God so Jesus adopts you as His child and you will join Him in Heaven forever.
"Everything we observe in the world is not just unexpected but profoundly improbable, improbable to the point of impossibility, if Atheism is true. If Atheism is true, what we would expect is Nothing and not Everything" The mere question why there is Something rather than Nothing is neither evidence for Atheism or Theism or Deism. What we don´t know is what came before the Expansion of the Universe and there is no scientific model that I am aware of that claims that there was Nothing before the Expansion. So, we are starting with the same knowledge, that there is Something. It does not logically follow to say that if Atheism is true we would expect there to be Nothing since it presupposes that there can only be Something if there is a god. This requires evidence that nobody has. Everything we observe in the Universe seems to come back to the Physics that are happening in this Universe, at least that is what we were able to gather so far, and it is what we now expect because it is being confirmed again and again and again. We are able to make novel testable predictions with models and they don´t require a god. You can argue that a god created the natural laws but there is no evidence for that, let alone that it is a specific god. In other words: We have no reason to think that the existence of Physics require a god or point to a god. Therefore we have no reason to think that this Universe is unexpected or improbable if there is no god. You brought up Fine-Tuning. First of all, to call it Fine-Tuning is misleading imo. We only have this Universe and we don´t know if the constants have to be this way. Second, in a naturalistic Universe we would expect that the constants are not just arbitrary. Not an Argument for the existence of god or what we would expect from a perfect mind. You brought up Chaos and Order. I am afraid of messing up the details so I would suggest looking up how Physicists/Cosmologists explain Entropy and how, despite the Universe increasing in Entropy "Chaos", we have Low Entropy Systems, which will eventually follow suit.
Emergence is what you are looking for maybe? (For the chaotic systems part). Emergence is directly observable, and isn't a mystery to either philosophy or science, so I'm surprised Glen just steamrolls on through with his list of assumptions at around the 10 to 14 min mark. I haven't gotten beyond that point though.
Bhuddist has already raised the point of animal suffering way before Christian. The point is not that the bliblical God is unlikable, the point is that he is said to be omni-benevolent. How can such being made the world so horrible and unjust? Animal is just one aspect of such unjust and it is pretty hard to explain.
@kenmashikin that the world is "horrible and unjust" is an opinion based on your limited perception of reality. To be able to say that with ontological certainty, you would need to know everything. In other words, you would need to _be_ God
How do you know that the world being horrible and unjust for a finite period of time is not the most benevolent thing a God could do ... especially a God who let that world be horrible and unjust to Him ...
@@thegenapp well, yeah, the problem of evil is only a problem if god is all loving. But still, if we can think of higher moral standard than god presents...isn't that a strange idea?
@@asphilosophyusa any statment that we make are based on our limited perception of reality. It is not the most convincing couterargument. I addition, I think that it would be reasonable to assume that we should know more than we actually do about the reality - John 15:15 : “I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, I have called you friends, for EVERYTHING THAT I HAVE LEARNED FROM FATHER I have made known to you
Thank you so much for pointing out the acting and dishonesty being posed here, it is disappointing when we (the observers) want good intellectually, thoughtful arguments. I appreciate you so much for your breakdown.
The argument presented for Markian priority is a straw man. There is much stronger evidence for Mark being earlier than just it being "stripped down". I highly recommend Religion For Breakfast's video on the topic for a primer.
All Humans need to repent & Believe in Jesus as their God. Why? Because all Humans have sinned (lied, lusted sexually, stolen, dishonoured parents, unbelief etc). Avoid the fires of Hell (justice of God) and choose Heaven today. Jesus defeated death by rising from the dead. GOD IS HOLY
You’re probably right in that compassion within families/kin groups/social groups is natural and can be argued to be part of an evolutionary strategy to survive and reproduce. Compassion for your enemies, though, and compassion for the most vulnerable in society/those who have no social group is much more difficult to trace back to something other than Christianity.
@@SpeakLifeMedia I'd put to you that a lot of the focus on compassion in the west comes from critique of Christianity as much as it comes from Christianity itself, whether it be Christian critique or not.
@@SpeakLifeMedia I do get compassion from Christ, but I don’t get it from most Christians. Here in the US at least, their vote alone tells me they are more interested in nailing other people to crosses than picking up their own .
@@elicorry-wright5364 But one could argue, as many have, that you can't critique Christianity without moral standards that were in large part provided and nurtured by Christianity itself.
You can actually almost see “God” influencing their thoughts in real time. You can see when they start to process things in their head, and how their body language follows. It’s completely in opposition to a sprouting mind. Whatever they’re pulling from is evil & negative.
Interesting. I didn't think they kept cool, but I thought Alex came across as amazingly arrogant, (very unlike how he has been when I've watched him recently) and I have a similar accent to him, so I'm used to that part of the equation.
I have to say. I listened to this hoping for answers. Yet I am sorely disappointed. There was some miss representing of peoples beliefs, hypocrisy in arguments, conscious bias ( I hope not), cognitive dissonance and a lack of answers to the point. I am tempted to write the points as to why I think this. I am really disappointed ☹️ I can only say. Watch the debate, the source material, watch this and just be honest, as best you can.
I'm not really on either side of this debate, but one thing I keep noticing from these Christian vs Atheist debates is that the Christians almost always back themselves into a corner by trying to prove too much. The real walk of faith that most people have starts with belief in God, then trying to figure out what we can ascertain about God, then (if one so desires) choosing a religion and a set of practices to live by. In reality, almost nobody really knows what a high resolution picture of the real thing looks like, we fill in the gaps with our own reasoning, but we have some guideposts to go by that tell us that God exists, that he cares and values certain things (righteousness, love, mercy), and that those things are written on our hearts. The problem with these kinds of debates is that the atheists will quickly back a lot of Christians into a corner of trying to prove a lot of these details that, quite frankly, if we're honest, we just can't prove. And then what ends up happening is that EVEN though the Christians almost always have very compelling arguments for God's existence (and the arguments for God's existence, if we're being honest, are good), their arguments for Christianity quickly end up looking foolish in the debate because the atheists go after them for details (details that, in my opinion, we sometimes get wrong). In other words, the argument for God seems strong, but the argument for Christianity seems weak, and then they end up having the upper hand in the debate. Does this mean Christianity is false? I don't necessarily think so, but I think we rely on too many presuppositions when we're looking at this stuff. We assume that people would have to find a systematic religion to find God, but yet folks like Abraham just called God "El Shaddai" which translates to a generic term for "God Almighty". Jesus himself just calls his father "Father". It seems more likely to me that the early Christians did in fact find God, but that there are some details that we get wrong in the gaps, and some areas where we have to admit that we don't know the answers for sure. It's clear that they found God just by calling him "God" - and they didn't have all of the detailed doctrine and systematic theologies that we have today. How did they find God? Well, it's a very important question to answer, because if we can figure out how they found God, we can figure out how we can find God too. I've noticed a big difference in the way that God is handled by former atheists who became people of faith. They, too, still have many of the same questions we all do. They won't try to dance around very real objections (e.g. a lot of troublesome stuff in the old testament). But they engage almost solely around the reasons that they were brought to faith in spite of these things. How they still found the evidence for God to be compelling. And frankly that's been my own path to faith too. A lesson we can all learn in these debates is to debate honestly. We shouldn't try to find a hill we can't defend to stand upon. I see this mistake often being made by apologists, and it ends up going sour very quickly in these kinds of debates as soon as they're debating professionals in the field rather than university students. People like C.S. Louis largely avoid these kinds of pitfalls because they admit when there are real objections, and they're willing to question mainstream doctrine where it doesn't make sense (C.S. Louis, for example, acknowledged the very real possibility that God would bring all to Christ, thereby bringing "universal reconciliation" - which interestingly appears to be what most of the early Church actually believed, even if they weren't very clear in fleshing out the theology.)
Simply put, the teleological argument for god is fallacious. It begs the question by pre-supposing that there is a designer to begin with. Anyone arguing from that position is already a failure, they just won't tackle the very first premise. You never get the religious to tackle the first premise of the teleological argument.
@@SpeakLifeMedia Right you are, I completely meant teleological. I was just watching a video discussing the ontological argument, so I guess my brain got all muddy. So yes, teleological is what I'm referring to. There's a pre-supposition there that is never properly addressed by anyone I've had exposure to. I'll go and edit my comment to reflect the correction. I appreciate it.
@caseyobrien1082 the teleolgical doesn't presuppose anything. It says some elements of what we observe in the universe are better explained by an intelligent designer rather than the blind forces or nature. That doesn't require any presupposition; you are wrong.
@@asphilosophyusa That's incorrect. It presupposes that we would know what something designed by an entity other than a human would look like. It presupposes that something "designed" is what we believe looks too complex to be natural. You have to accept the outcome of the assumption to accept the first few premises of the argument. Hume, for example; "Just because things in the world have designers, that doesn’t mean that the world itself has a designer. We have experience of house being designed and built, but we do not have experience of worlds being designed and built." "The universe is unique and we cannot make assumptions about the creation of unique things." "The designer of the world may have a designer: this leads to an infinite regress." In other words, it's a weak argument with multiple fallacies interwoven.
@caseyobrien1082 wrong again. All one has to do is establish that there is a dichotomy between things that are designed by an intelligent agent and things arranged or created by the blind forces of nature. The basis of this is the limitations of natural forces versus intelligent beings. If there are things ineltelligent beings can create that can't be created by natural forces, then it stands to reason things more complex than those also must have an intelligent cause. For instance, a watch is too complex and specifically arranged for the forces of nature to create, so we can conclude it has an intelligent cause. Since living organisms are far more complex than a watch, it stands to reason their creator is even more intelligent than the watchmaker. No presuppositions necessary.
Really, the fine tuning argument? Can you remind me again, how do you know the prior distribution of the parameters to conclude that they have a small probability?
I think if you combine the relevant points of the argument (fine tuning vs the problem of evil and inconsistencies in the Christian account) you arrive at the conclusion of a probable existence of some kind of creator of the universe that we know of, but that creator not being the biblical god. Which I think is not very damaging to the atheists, but is quite problematic for the Christians.
I don’t think the problem of evil is that much of a problem if there’s only ‘some kind of a creator’. We should then shrug our shoulders to evil and suffering and simply say “It is what it is.” It’s the /goodness/ of God that makes us expect so much more than this suffering world.
@@SpeakLifeMedia The problem of evil, is a big problem. Any random death is unfair and can only be seen as evil, if god knows what is going to happen. If someone makes the world, and knows what is going to happen then its all planned. Then somehow cancer was planned by god. Maybe you go out from a different way, where god is not all knowing and then it would be okay.
@@SpeakLifeMedia right, I fully agree with you. So Alex’s point is “If the goodness of god is true, then we expect much more than this suffering world.” And your point and cliff’s point is “if atheism is true then you would not expect a world at all, you would expect nothing to exist.” I think this is quite fair. But obviously there lies a point in the middle-there is some creator, but there is no all-powerful benevolent being, which fulfills both requirements, and results in the universe we expect. I think most atheists would just shrug their shoulders at this, but most Christians would find this very damaging to what they believe in.
@jacobstisen6366 The LORD gives and the LORD takes away, blessed be the name of the LORD. When the Author of life ceases to give another breath to his creatures, he has wronged none of them.
I’m going to add my voice as a Christian that the Knectle’s should stay in their lane, which might not even be doing apologetics with college students. My college aged son cringes at some of the way they work around the questions without actually answering them head on. Most people knew that a conversation with Alex O’Connor would not go well. It didn’t. They should look at their ministries and judge for themselves if they are doing more harm than good. They would know better than I. I just know I can’t watch them without admiration that they try but disappointment at what I hear is a short coming in skill and knowledge. The best outcome is if they took time for serious and difficult training in orating and building up their knowledge then starting up their ministry again. I hate to think I’m discouraging people that have a heart to do this. Instead think of this as encouraging them to put in the difficult work to get better.
I started to appreciate what Alex is doing in this current day and age, the way he carries himself is admirable. If the current opinion of the day regarding "new Atheism'" being dead and buried is true, then I guess this is the way forward for a questioning person. Alex exudes the quality of holding his emotions back and "listen" while being ready to debate, he made peterson admitt that he Petersons' idea about God is so out there that even the Christians found the feat incredible, Alex managed to make Billy craig solve the Euthyphro dilemma and made the father-son duo show the world what Christ-like beaviour looks like when the dogmas of their beliefs are tested. Alex has managed to bring out the "vile" (I guess rearranging vile can mean love) ideology of the most popular apologists of the current times. I cant wait for the day that Alex announces that he is a beleiver in the manner similar to Philip Goff but till then I am enjoying watching the train wreck that Alex is causing. Philip Goff, is he the same Christian who doesnt beleive in "virgin birth" or is disgusted by the idea of "penal substitution" and other such BS but he is a christian right? cool.
Here in Ireland we distinguish between "a Catholic atheist" and "a Protestant atheist" so I totally get Richard Dawkins' cultural Christian. Recently, the phenomenon of the "reared atheist" has been recognised.
This video has really shown me how flawed the argument from animal suffering really is and how wise God actually was in telling the Israelites not to keep the economic/military assets (aka animals) of another community for themselves. That would have set a precedent for unjust war and conflict, which of course did happen and does still happen today (people going to war over assets/wealth under a false claim of an ideological reason). 1 hr 25 mins is the time stamp for anyone reading this comment but who hasn’t got there yet.
People often say, “I’m not hurting anyone so it’s ok to sin (lying, stealing, sexual sins, disrespecting parents etc)” The same God who said to love your neighbour first said to love Him to the best of your ability. If you carry on sinning, then you do not love God but are selfish like the devil so you will be joined to your father in hell or repent of your sins and believe in Jesus as God so Jesus adopts you as His child and you will join Him in Heaven forever.
The problem with your argument is that you are claiming a call to outright genocide and murder in order to steal other people's land somehow constitutes a passage against war for assets. Do you not see how contradictory your argument is? God is calling for a war for wealth and calling for that war to be waged brutally.
@@przemeksledziewski1973 All Humans need to repent & Believe in Jesus as their God. Why? Because all Humans have sinned (lied, lusted sexually, stolen, dishonoured parents, unbelief etc). Avoid the fires of Hell (justice of God) and choose Heaven today. Jesus defeated death by rising from the dead. GOD IS HOLY
@@404Dannyboy God is the epitome of Holiness because He is sinlessly perfect, A sinner (liar, sexually immoral, taking the Lord’s Name in vain, thief etc) cannot be in the presence of God or else he will be utterly consumed therefore repent of your sins and put your faith in Jesus as your Lord and Saviour to go to Heaven.
I think the issue Glenn raised was that people in the past did no view animals as pets, like we do today. Animals were viewed as either food, money or for military purposes. Thus to kill animals was viewed less as cruelty and more as losing food, money and military might. Into this God’s interactions were in dealing with man’s reliance on animals for the above. God clearly cared about animals, as Jesus mentioned, but cared more about man and his attitudes.
@@martynmettam9296 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. No Jesus Christ, no life; Know Jesus Christ, know life. God/Jesus Christ/Holy Spirit is mankind's only hope. This evil world, atheists and the enemy (Satan - the devil) offer no hope. No religion needed. Just faith, faith plus nothing.
Compare the American south, american NW, and American west. And then ask if Christianity is correlated to geography. Also break down the distribution of Protestants and Catholics Throw in Mormonism as well.
With the question of animal suffering Alex is reaching for the vision of the author's of Genesis when casting the initial creation, and Isaiah when seeing New Creation. The problem of animal suffering belongs in the Christian view of the world because even the Hebrew prophets saw it and they glimpsed a future world where it would no longer be. Alex loves to quote Lewis's line summarizing his argument from desire... That's where you will find the key Alex.
if you want to assume evolution then I will say we evolved brains to recognise our morality comes from a higher power and at the same time recognise our morality makes no sense without a God.
This exposes a definitional problem with the term: Anything immaterial cannot be demonstrated to exist, for if it could, then it would be considered material to begin with. This is also a problem for Platonism and other religious and philosophical ideas relying on immaterial entities.
@@dagghui The way you’re using it, “spirit” is just another term for immaterial. I think there’s a way of getting around the problem, though. If causation went both ways, we would consider the entity material, but for God it only goes one way. Therefore, identifying God as the only uncaused cause would be consistent. However, human souls and traditionally supernatural beings wouldn’t be.
Please do not ever say that under atheism we would expect nothing. This is ridiculous. Under "there is no god" hypothesis we would expect absolutely everything. Just grant atheists one miracle and everything is explained. Naturalistic pantheism for example. If you are trying to be an expert then don't talk for atheists as unfairly as you just did
Yeah, I don’t understand why believers are so incredulous on these points. The basis of biology is chemistry and psychology (consciousness) can simply be an emergent property of the human brain. And if matter can neither be created nor destroyed then something always having existed is reasonable. Why add an agent?
@@scottgodlewski306if your ‘psychology’ (by which I think you mean consciousness) is simply a product of random chemistry in your brain and there is no purpose from a designer behind the human brain, how can you trust anything that you think? How can you try to discern truth when you don’t think your brain was designed for the purpose of thought (it just happened to be able to)?
@@evanmcclure6212 What is a miracle? Is it just a highly unlikely occurrence? Those happen all the time. If something can not come from nothing, then the fact that there is something means there was never nothing. I don’t understand the need to add anything else.
The hard problem of consciousness is not solved by proclaiming “emergent property”. Yet, here we are, conscious beings thinking immaterial thoughts and communicating using rhetoric, reason, emotion - none of which are physical. What is closest to all of us is consciousness. Even our experience of the material world is an /experience/ of the material world. It seems like the added thing in reality is physical. After all, all our experiences are of mind over matter.
Cliff opening was brilliant, I wish he stuck on those points and ask Alex how meaning can come out from meaninglessness. I don’t think Alex realise he lost the debate because they was no substance in what he said. I don’t think that Alex knows that suffering doesn’t disprove the Christian God.
People often say, “I’m not hurting anyone so it’s ok to sin (lying, stealing, sexual sins, disrespecting parents etc)” The same God who said to love your neighbour first said to love Him to the best of your ability. If you carry on sinning, then you do not love God but are selfish like the devil so you will be joined to your father in hell or repent of your sins and believe in Jesus as God so Jesus adopts you as His child and you will join Him in Heaven forever.
Ehh I like to separate arguments for god from arguments for religion. Not a fan of organized religion, but I like to think one can find God without it.
@@tobias4411 Respectfully, I never said my thoughts are evidence. Our thoughts are, by definition, what we do WITH evidence, and how we choose to reason with the outside world. I disagree with your assertion that there is no reason for anyone to believe in God, people make that choice for themselves.
@@photoniccannon2117 So, what's true and what's not true doesn't matter? I know already that people make their own choices- if they want to believe in a specific god or not. If they want to believe in ghosts or not, if they want to believe in a flat earth or Bigfoot. Does that mean it's rational to believe in such things? If not, why should anyone believe in it? How do you distinguish what people claim from truth or lies? If a Buddhist monk tells you he sometimes levitates during meditation, how do you know it actually happened? How do you know he's telling the truth?
It is sad to see the debate go this way but it is crazy how dishonest both Phil and Alex are. Their conclusions simply don’t follow from their arguments and the arrogance with which they dismiss the Bible is baffling
do you acknowledge that you were experiencing nothing for most of calculated time (billions of years), you have to be alive to observe anything that doesnt mean it wasn't improbable
What gets me about all of the "problem of suffering" arguments is: if you really believe there is no God, why do you see suffering as "bad" in the first place? What makes it "bad"? It's a nonstarter of a premise.
It’s pointing to an inconsistency in the argument. Since the Christians believe in God and good and bad, you follow where that goes. I think Alex O Connor likely doesn’t believe in objective good and bad himself
That just seems like a cop-out to the question of "if your god is real. Why does it love suffering of life." It truly does love suffering. But this is deeply ingrained in human nature. Empathy helps us understand that suffering causes harm and distress, leading us to view it as undesirable. Regardless of the presence of a higher power.
This is the problem: atheism isn't a cause, it's a conclusion. It's a reasonable conclusion given general scepticism, material monism, logical positism, cartesian dualism and other factors. Deconstruct those factors and then see whether atheism or theism is a reasonable and rational conclusion........
Thanks, also debates can be an opportunity for learning regardless of who 'wins'. Good comment about how animals were not seen as pets in the ancient world in the way the modern world sees them today.
(/_;)/~~ This is an artistic proof of a created universe. When you paint a shadow it's the opposite color of the object that made the shadow. Nobody knew what the opposite color of white was so the artists avoided painting white on white. The opposite color of white is baby blue and baby pink. The first artist to figure it out was Norman Rockwell. I was the second artist to figure it out. I saw it in the corner of a white room. The lighting was perfect to see it. Pigments have different rules than light. It took them thousands of years to get all the pigments they have now.
We need to update the Paley analogy and replace the pocket watch with a cellphone. Something that Paley hasn't seen before and knows nothing of its function, yet he would determine that it was designed. This is a closer analogy to how we actually look at the universe........
People often say, “I’m not hurting anyone so it’s ok to sin (lying, stealing, sexual sins, disrespecting parents etc)” The same God who said to love your neighbour first said to love Him to the best of your ability. If you carry on sinning, then you do not love God but are selfish like the devil so you will be joined to your father in hell or repent of your sins and believe in Jesus as God so Jesus adopts you as His child and you will join Him in Heaven forever.
I agree with many others who say that Cliffe should focus on campus ministry, he doesn't have the high-level apologetic skillset like some of my other favorite modern apologists (Trent Horn is my personal favorite, but there are others like Gavin Ortlund, William Lane Craig, etc.). From what I did see in the Matt Dillahunty debate that Cliffe had, I thought Matt won fairly convincingly, which was a STARK contrast to when Trent Horn debated Dillahunty and pretty much steamrolled through him. Alex is one of the best atheist apologists today (he or Graham Oppy are #1), and honestly the Knechtles just aren't even close to that level.
Im really not sure why you go through so much effort to defend Cliffe and Stuart here -- why can't you just say people are wrong, their presentation and their arguments have flaws (even if you agree with their conclusions). It comes across to me as unnecessarily sectarian and insecure (especially given the "I went to Oxford" signalling and stuff too).
The controversy is that you want to use the Bible as a historical reference, yet it can’t get its own stories straight. That’s a problem for being historical record. And is this an edit selection, or simply made up. And which one is fact?
It’s a problem but can you tell me a historical record where all the sources agree on everything? It would only be a major problem if they disagreed at a core fundamental level.
@ Read Bruce Catton; Shelby Foote; Jeffry Wert. They all cover the Civil War and are very good and they agree with the start and the outcome and we have a myriad of primary resources that speak to the Civil War actually happening. That does not exist for the Bible stories.
@@andrewcadman951 Not to mention the standard for ancient texts is different since they wrote "history" differently than we do today. We would not expect them to follow modern standards. Also most modern events don't get their stories straight. You can read two articles about one event and get vastly different understandings on what occurred.
The problem is not whether the gospels are broadly historical. It’s whether you trust them enough to get the resurrection and other miracles correct. If they can’t get X detail right, it makes it less likely that you can rely on any specific claim. Plus, you have to take into account the ideas floating around at that time and the biases they would produce. Miracle claims stand out from other historical claims because they’re the most likely to be religiously motivated invention.
@ My problem is that there are no other primary resources for that period to speak about the events that occurred in the Bible. The whole Exodus story, for example, is completely made up and there is no historical record of those events whatsoever. That is my problem.
Glen, you have to do better than this banality. You can't just rely on your "posh" accent to convince the many thoughtful listeners in your audience. Neither Alex or Phil make a claim that non-existence produces existence, as Cliffe states. You, Glen, know that this is the trope of many preachers who are poorly educated in argument. As for someone like you, with a better education, I'm sure you would benefit from careful attention of the following analysis: th-cam.com/video/ivRM6-dvCBU/w-d-xo.html . Your listeners might also appreciate my modest comment on the original debate site: "I found Alex and Phil much less judgmental and more on topic most of the time. Alex's biblical training and wide reading seemed well suited for this sort of encounter. While I am sure Cliffe and Stuart wanted to be conversational partners, they are clearly trained to be preachers who seek to convert their interlocutors in these settings and do not expect their views to be challenged so thoroughly. I admire their strong opinions and sincere confidence, but don't think debate or careful argument suits them very well. It was very kind of Phil, showing no ill will, to invite Cliffe and Stuart to visit him in London. I'm not sure Cliffe and Stuart felt emotionally well enough, given their expressions of dissatisfaction with this experience, to reciprocate."
People often say, “I’m not hurting anyone so it’s ok to sin (lying, stealing, sexual sins, disrespecting parents etc)” The same God who said to love your neighbour first said to love Him to the best of your ability. If you carry on sinning, then you do not love God but are selfish like the devil so you will be joined to your father in hell or repent of your sins and believe in Jesus as God so Jesus adopts you as His child and you will join Him in Heaven forever.
Your comments to the opening statement are disingenuous because the points you make do suggest intent in the universe but does not make a case for Christianity. One reason is that Jesus may be the subject of that faith, but it was a certain Saul of Tarsus who is the initial driving force, and a whole number of literary models that were used by the Gospels to promote Christ as the better Dionysus, or the better Mithras for example. Significant Christian apologists and authors made extensive use of Graeco-Roman mythology to create their own hostile accounts of its gods and heroes, using every technique, too, of the pagan schools of rhetoric. They were also strongly influenced by Hellenistic Jewish sources. They built on one another’s information, omitting or adding different themes and interpretations, in response to their times. The effect of Constantine’s conversion in 312 CE and his legislation was only briefly shaken by Julian’s reign; by 392, pagan cults had been banned. The Christian faith rose above the sack of Rome in 410 to refute, but not entirely to forget, Graeco-Roman mythology. As I suggested above, I believe there is intent in the universe, but we must get used to the fact that Jesus was, in the modern sense, a tragedy, and there are numerous loopholes in what we know, suggesting that Christianity was saying that it could explain the ‘mystery of existence,’ but there are numerous examples of cultures offering another mythology. None of this is, however, proof of God.
The controversy is that you want to use the Bible as a historical reference, yet it can’t get its own stories straight. That’s a problem for being historical record. And is this an edit selection, or simply made up. And which one is fact?
I don't think the Christians lost. But your critiques for the Christians here about their set-up and so on... I agree with you. So for that reason; I give you a like!!!! God bless brother.
@@SpeakLifeMedia And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. No Jesus Christ, no life; Know Jesus Christ, know life. God/Jesus Christ/Holy Spirit is mankind's only hope. This evil world, atheists and the enemy (Satan - the devil) offer no hope. No religion needed. Just faith, faith plus nothing.
The theatrics in this video from the host with breathy voice, taking a gulp loud enough to be heard the video and the confident sharing of his opinion on a certain point that he does not feel comfortable as weak sauce. Makes complete sense, the point about a film being edited, I mean makes complete sense when your are cooking up a story, people write something without a clear understanding of things or cook up shiiite to make their protagonist seem like the devil (ask gnostics about their idea of the creator of the our Universe) but then realise that we also need to show the loving side of this devil and end up embelishing the story just a tiny bit (like virgin birht) and inconsistencies are just one step away from being harmonised by this australian genius (given the chance the host would have crushed the Atheist side by using his (dare I say) passionate theatrics and most importantly big words like "weak sauce" and "I dont see a contradiction"). makes complete sense when one or the institution of the Church is motivated enough to cook up shiiite. Remember the intial time spent on the statement from Phil about cats and dogs and this genius concluding that only the western Christian ideology has given rise to the idea of pets ( I guess when you live down under all you see are peoples asses and not realise that there are far ancient civilisations than this cult where they not only treated animals with respect but also dogmatically revered certain animals as members of family or in some cultures as Gods) but dont let educating yourselves get in the way of your cult.
Some theologians hold to evolution and believe there are ways to explain animal suffering. "The problem of animal pain" by Trent Dougherty is one of many examples. Many christians hold to modern scientific theories and harmonize them with the biblical data. The way they define inerrancy may differ, but there are lots of books and papers about animal suffering and the relations between science and faith. On the problem of animal pain and corruption of nature, there is an old argument that is based on the angelic or satanic fall, that is found in some church fathers, which caused the corruption of the world. I think this defense is pretty old, basic and standard. Gavin Ortlund talked about animal pain on his channel Truth Unites, also Bertuzzi on Capturing Christianity.
( ´・_ゝ・) We need to popularize the idea of getting God married. Getting God married is a good use of someone's time. You are supposed to make the environment intelligent so no God is needed. We fixed the video and audio for the best experience possible. Cameras are supernatural and all of them captured 3D that not a gimmick. The audio loud don't make violence so has depth. Nobody has to buy anything for it to work.
The bunch of people angry at cliff and stuart in thecomment because he was pissed of at Alex and phil misrepresenting him is crazy!yall sluld chill with the tone policing and being so soft! Stop caring less abt appearance but more abt substance
Do animals even suffer? It's true they react and assumably experience pain, but when a lion disembowels a live antelope, why doesn't the LION concern itself with being the agent of agony to another creature? Why doesn't the lion pride quickly and compassionately kill their prey before consuming it. Our concern for creature suffering is anthropomorphic projection when actual observation of the subjects seems to indicate that this is outside of their salience landscape.......
People often say, “I’m not hurting anyone so it’s ok to sin (lying, stealing, sexual sins, disrespecting parents etc)” The same God who said to love your neighbour first said to love Him to the best of your ability. If you carry on sinning, then you do not love God but are selfish like the devil so you will be joined to your father in hell or repent of your sins and believe in Jesus as God so Jesus adopts you as His child and you will join Him in Heaven forever.
Also… saying “atheism is true” doesn’t make sense because atheism isn’t a comprehensive statement or claim about reality. It’s not like a religion or a scientific theory that makes testable assertions. It’s simply the absence of belief in gods. Until you recognize this, your debates will continue to miss the point and fail to address the actual arguments atheists are making.
Wrong. Atheism is the claim that “there is no God”, and that certainly is a statement about reality. This definition is completely normal and uncontroversial in academia (eg world leading atheists such as Graham Oppy affirm this definition). It’s only in sloppy internet discourse that the “lack of belief” spin has been circulated - usually as an attempt to muddy the waters.
@Horaciojonesjr if one lacks a belief in God(s), that means one doesn't believe God exists. That is a positive belief about the nature of reality that must be supported by evidence and reason.
@ the way you’ve phrased it is ambiguous, though. “Doesn’t believe in Gods” could mean “lacks belief in Gods”, or “BELIEVES THAT that there are no Gods”. It’s critical that we be as clear as possible with our terms here, because there’s a lot of obfuscation on this issue (take Christopher Hitchens, for example, who kept evading and filibustering in his cross-examination with William Lane Craig until finally, having been asked multiple times, he admitted that he holds the positive claim that God, and I quote, “does not exist”).
Cliffe is like a motivational speaker for people wanting to believe something is in control. Maybe try street preaching to the homeless or drunk people on the street.
I don't understand the use of the so called "development" model in atheist apologetics. Not only does it rely on you starting with the conclusion that "this is the order because it develops" before then showing the developments, but the developments aren't even consistent. You have to cherry pick to get the result you want. Mark starts his Gospel by applying 2 prophecies about Yahweh to Jesus. If you read a different section of the crucifixtion account you get John having nothing of note happening, and Mark having the earthquake, darkness, and curtain ripping. If you take this section you would have to flip the order of development. So it requires a bunch of apriori assumptions, and then cherry picking. Not only that but Alex and atheist apologists like him argue that we don't know who the authors are and that the Gospels are full of contradictions. If you grant this aspect for the sake of argument it makes even less sense. Now you don't know if maybe Mark was first but was wrong and so John came in to correct mistakes. We see a little bit of John doing that in a sense where he corrects the misunderstanding people are getting from Matthew and Luke about him living forever. This argument makes no sense. If the wholistic argument against the Gospels has to contain multiple things that don't work together and in fact are contradictory, then we should reject the argument and ignore atheist apologists when they make it.
The way Alex speaks just surgically cuts to the quick. Not emotional, no raised voice, comes across like a sniper's bullet. Cliffe and Stuart, loud, angry, smug, firing shotguns in all directions hoping for a hit somewhere, but usually getting themselves in the foot! Cliffe's opening argument was pathetic! Just wild assertions without anything to back them up, most of the false dichotomies. You seem to confuse atheism with a thing, it isn't, it's simply a term for people who do not have a belief in a god or gods. We live in a world with all 7 things you mention, but they are not dependant on the biblical god! That's nonsense!
Even taken individually, those 7 realities are very unlikely on atheism (especially fine tuning and consciousness). If you don’t see the cumulative force of such arguments I’m not sure you’re fairly weighing the evidence.
@@SpeakLifeMedia About 2.3 billion Christians on a planet of 8,2 billion. Where do the other 5.9 billion fit into this Christian myth? Consciousness is an evolved trait. Or do you believe 1.2 billion Hindu get theirs from Vishnu? (Or maybe Brahma or Ganesh or Krishna or whomever) We are here as a consequence of the universe being the way it is. We are not the reason it is like it is.
What a strange false dichotomy to set up notions of animals as either ‘pets’ or resources, completely overlooking the notion of animals as conscious beings that Phil is obviously working with.
Stuart and Cliff are telling the truth! God will win this battle! Cliff and Stuart are on the right side! God created this world and humans are his creation but we are fallen creatures and we need Gods salvation given by his Son Jesus Christ!
Merry Christmas Glen, I hope you had a happy winter solstice. Whatever you do, don’t sit out on the ground in a field near Bethlehem tonight as it’s near freezing at midnight there and you’ll catch pneumonia. It is mid winter after all. Only a drongo would be out in the fields there with a flock of sheep at midnight tonight and shepherds are not drongoes. At least we know today that the days are getting shorter (me) or longer (you). The water is warming up here and is good for swimming though the local prawn catch is right down. Be positive with your Christmas sermon to your congregation. Go woke social justice and maybe use the sermon on the mount as your theme. Social justice is still needed, particularly as Christian nationalism is on the rise, and they really don’t like all that woke socialist baggage in the mount sermon. There’s an Anglican church I’ve gone past many times that has a “JUSTICE FOR REFUGEES” banner across its front fence. Woke social justice is alive and active in parts of Anglicanism. Cheers Alan PS I look forward to you having a discussion with Alex O’Connor in 2025. I’m sure Justin would moderate one. My philosophy chat group would like to have such a discussion as a topic for one of our meetings.
Why do you keep framing your argument with phrases like “if atheism is true” or suggesting that certain things “wouldn’t be expected if atheism is true”? These questions fundamentally misunderstand atheism and rest on a flawed premise. Atheism isn’t a truth claim. It doesn’t assert any specific worldview or set of expectations about reality. Humans assert their person worldview. For example, Alex as an atheist has his individual view, so Alex speaks for Alex, not atheists. Some atheists believe in sprits, ancestors, which craft and all kinds of other things. atheism is simply a position of not being convinced that a god or gods exist. That’s it. It’s not a comprehensive belief system, ideology, or explanatory framework-it’s the absence of belief in a deity, not a competing claim to theistic truth. Once you set aside this misconception, it becomes clear that your approach to this discussion is problematic. You’re imposing expectations and assumptions on atheism that it doesn’t inherently entail. For instance, you argue that “if atheism is true, we wouldn’t expect (blank),” but atheism doesn’t prescribe what anyone should or shouldn’t expect about the universe. Atheists are individuals with diverse beliefs, philosophies, and perspectives, and the only thing we all have in common is a shared lack of belief in gods. Beyond that, there’s no unified “atheist worldview” or consensus on what the universe should look like. Your argument conflates atheism with a worldview or philosophical system, which it isn’t. Once you address this misunderstanding, you may find the foundation of this video’s claims doesn’t hold up as neatly as you’ve framed it. Atheism is not a competing “truth” to theism-it’s a lack of belief in one specific type of claim, leaving everything else to be interpreted individually. I suggest reconsidering how you frame atheism and atheists before building further arguments based on such assumptions.
In academic philosophy atheism is the belief that god or gods do not exist. And this remains the primary definition of the word in the overwhelming majority of English language dictionaries. Yes atheism isn't a comprehensive worldview. But it is a belief. And that belief that does have some logical consequences (such as that the universe is not deliberately designed). And at least one of the two atheists in this debate (Alex O'Connor) has definitely moved away from using the lack of belief definition of atheism towards using the belief in non-existence.
@@fletcherchristian6522 No, you do not. I have no idea about any order of the universe. I still firmly state: evidence for christian god is not convicing. Maybe other supernatural beings actually exist? Well, it seems possible. I just don't know
@@fletcherchristian6522 i try not to use those words because they are confusing. I replied to your statements that: "If there is no supernatural order, then there is only the natural order." and "The minute you deny God, you tacitly assert a vast array of things, whether you like it or not." I disagree with both of them. Whether you want to call me atheist or agnostic (I use term atheist :))
@@fletcherchristian6522 I can't see my problem. I deny existance of Christian god. I think there are very good arguments indicating that he does not and cannot exist. But i do not positivly claim that naturalism is true. You: "No, no you don't... there may be other supernatural beings..." And? They might or might not. I do not know. But I would be happy to know what is "my problem" :)
I love cliff and stewart and frankly alex as well. I watch both their stuff frequently and this was very disappointing. I when people start asserting things as alex and cliff both do at times it gets hard to agree with their point.
Only an inconceivably tiny fraction of planets in the observable universe are suit to sustain life. Yet we are on such a planet! Is that not a crazy coincidence? - Obviously it's not, because we could only have evolved on such a planet. It could not have been otherwise. Similarly, the universe needed to be set up in such a way that it could sustain sentient, or rather sapient life - otherwise intelligent beings wondering how they came about could not exist. In that sense, sapient life is in a sense inevitable, more inevitable even than an unstable universe, because an unstable universe would never know it existed. Both as theists and atheists we can agree on this and stop misrepresenting each other for good.
( ﾟ_ゝﾟ)ﾉ Consciousness is the particle and wave double slit experiment. The cones and rods of your eyes preserve the particle and wave duality so your vision don't look like a flat screen television. It's supposed to be a violation of physics but it is the only exception in the whole universe.
It shouldn't be a dichotomy between atheism and the 'biblical God'. There is more to God than is contained in the Bible. The Bible only points the way as the way was perceived at the time.
@@michel-jeantailleur But isn’t the claim that contents aren’t perceived, that they’re inspired by God? I take that to mean revelation but I could be mistaken.
I held this revised view for a long time. I hate to say it though, but the inerrantists have a point. Given the stakes and the loving, powerful nature of God, we would expect Him to reveal His nature correctly the first time. Instead, people’s understanding of God is remarkably susceptible to the ideas of the times, exactly like the progression of any other religion.
@ I don’t need evidence for the contrary, but I’ll try one: The universe is, in fact, here. Nothing that I see, or experience, talks me that some entity created the universe, rather the laws of physics demonstrate how the universe was created and it exists in connection with those laws. No creator needed.
@@docsmith9915 Well, in fairness, you could understand why people look for a source for the universe, since our own experience of the world tells us that all things have an origin. And even naturalistic explanations that try to replace God (e.g. multiverse, eternal universe, etc.) are theories that drift into the abstract and feel like they require as much 'faith' (not fundamentally a religious word, but we can use trust instead if need be) as belief in God does; at present these theories have just as much confirming evidence (that a naturalist may accept) as God does.
@@docsmith9915expect has the meaning of "This is my model and those are the expected results based on my model." If you see the solution and just assume your model is correct, because the solution exists, then that is bad philosophical reasoning. Of course it is always possible to say: "For the sake of the argument, let's grant A and B an only look at my model after those are present." But if you do that then your model cannot cover all the facts. And if you do that then you are hypocritical, if you don't allow your opponent to do the same.
@ Except there absolutely is no evidence for a God, but one can mathematically duplicate models of the multiverse and string theory. There is no model or mathematical proof for a god.
At the end of the day what we have are different perceptions. As you are a Christian your perception of the world falls in line with Christianity being true. But same goes for people of other religions - their perception falls in line with their respective religion. And you expect differently if atheism is true. And I expect differently if Christianity was true. I expected a contemporary account of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection, especially if that was the most important event in the history of mankind. And I expect that textual account to be protected forever. Yes, excuses can be constructed as to why there are other religions, or why we are still debating this 2000 years later. So, everything you said in the first 15 mins or so about the way you'd perceive the world if atheism were true, I disagree with. A lot of incredulity. But the idea that God created us for his own entertainment and to be amused at us when he baits and manipulates us, is not off the table.
Respectfully Stuart and Cliffe should stop debating and just focus on their college campus ministry, because as a Christian watching this was frustrating.
They probably shouldn't bother with either if their arguments only work on teenagers.
@@djpeacannon8461 Many schoolteachers only have knowledge up to degree level and would be lost against further educated doctorate holders. Does that make them unfit to share and teach the knowledge they do have? Of course not. The Knechtle's may not be the most knowledgable or articulate, but they have appropriate knowledge to share with those on the journey less travelled.
yeah they need to stop debating people who know what they are talking about and argue with confused young adults. Alright buddy
Yea, as a Christian, some of the points he used to have good arguments, sometimes, but yeah, he should stay preaching
Well it’s definitely safe to say they aren’t debaters or philosophers however I think they addressed very Important questions and a lot of points went over Phil and Alex’s head especially when Stuart says from their worldview they should not even have any issues with animal suffering. Phil and Alex with intellectual honesty should be able to say. You know what you are right, from our worldview with no God we shouldn’t be mad at animal suffering and on top of cliffe saying that Alex has no solution to the problem of suffering and he asked him for what is the best probably solution if he doesn’t think Christianity is it and he didn’t provide and answer.
Bottom line, people with limited formal debate skills should not debate highly skilled debaters in a formal debate. You can be right and still not help your side.
right, I've seen flat earthers beat scientists in debates simply for being the better debater
@@prestonyannotti7661Please link!!! I'd pay to see that!!! 😂😂😂
I'm atheist. I can name a half-a-dozen theist who would clear me with ease 😂
Agreed. I’ve always thought it was interesting how debates are so much more about performance and “feeling” like you’ve won. I still watch them. They have a place. But we should all be careful not to feel justified in our position based on any debate outcomes.
Thanks for taking the time to review our debate. I hope we can chat about this stuff at some point. Merry Christmas.
Thanks Phil, that would be great! Happy Christmas to you too.
@@SpeakLifeMedia I don't think these debates are about winning or losing, it's more about trying to understand what other people believe and having open and honest discussions. People rarely change their views on a single debate, it can take a long long time for people to change their mind.
@@PhilHalper1 Don't hold your breath. This guy seems to dodge any real debates and just want to comment on the side line.
@@Alien1375 Dodge? Lol, do you even know the person or what runs through his mind? Is your view then that every one who wants to review a debate or do some commentaries are cowards? You have a lot of balls saying that considering you're not even showing your profile pic and just likes to stirr sh1ts in comment sections. 😊
@@Alien1375You don't even know the man He's debated dillahunty already. Quit yapping and do your homework. You're so funny trying to frame this as an act of cowardice. Before you go to that direction make sure you guys have the balls first to explain your reality and get it scrutinized instead of sayingg " uhh we don't have the burden of prooff uuhhggh "
First, the title of the debate is: “Does the Biblical God Exist?”. Alex does not have to defend his atheistic (or better said agnostic) worldview because it is not the topic of the debate. Cliffe screaming the question what worldview Alex has is just a classic ‘Whataboutism’ that is irrelevant in this debate.
Second: Alex does answer the above question with “I don’t know”, which is a valid answer from a humble person who knows the limits of his intellect and senses. A humbleness that Cliffe, who has his god of the gaps in his back pocket, will never understand.
Third: proving death and decease happened before the fall and therefore death and suffering of all the animals before the existence of humans is “very good” in the eye of the Biblical god, makes the rest of the claims in the Bible pretty much fall apart. So the animal suffering argument is a big deal. A big deal the Knechtle’s can’t refute.
Fourth: Christians or “The West” didn’t invent compassion or morals.
Fifth: 20:50 You conveniently left out the many examples Phil gave of the tools a good god could use to incapacitate the horses (like transporting them elsewhere, or bringing them in a deep sleep). But no, he ordered the humans to mutilate them.
Sixth: You ‘expect’ a god to make a ‘fine-tuned universe’. Why do you expect that? You got some examples of some other universes so we can compare them?
Seventh: The universe is ‘incredibly fine-tuned for life’? Then all the planets would be full of life. We only have one sample of a planet with life. Not a great body of evidence.
Eighth: 46:25 I like how you changed using the term ‘Biblical god’ and started using ‘a god’. Classic ‘moving the goalposts’ tactic.
Ninth: 47:30 Ad-Hominem drivel.
Tenth: 48:00 Again, it’s not an atheists duty to make up reasons why the ‘good’ god that Christians created does things that are called ‘evil’ by the same god. Don’t set up smoke screens.
Eleventh: 1:00:00 Because implying the Biblical god is ok with death directly counters the claims of the Bible that death is the enemy. Don’t try to claim ignorance here.
Twelfth: 1:00:38 Atheism claims or expects nothing. It’s not an ideology.
Thirteenth: 1:34:32 So we are mindless fictional characters now who can only do what the ‘divine author’ wants us to do. So why is this writer so angry when the character he created does the thing he wanted to do in the story?
Fourteenth: 1:35:45 Apparently god thought abortion was an integral part of his story, so why is it bad now? Also he killed a lot of unborn children during the flood, so it’s not objectively wrong.
In the end, all I see in this video is the same old tactics used by all the other apologists: Moving the goalposts, setting up smoke screens, bad analogies and whataboutisms.
Absolutely! This clown is no better than the Knechtles!
Keep coping. You have nothging to stand on to make the claims you make. This entire comment is pointless drivel.
@@tking2199 How is the user coping? These are pretty valid criticisms to make, far from pointless. It's the Knechtle’s duty to provide something to stand on, and they have utterly failed.
Lmao. Get it off your chest, brother. I love to see accusations thrown around from you atheists. Most accusations can ALWAYS be applied to either side. If you don’t think so, then you’re not the intellectual you act like in this crazy long post. Holes can be poked effectively in either side. You just think you’re on the right one. I guess it feels good to think you’ve effectively ended Christianity, huh? As if you’re the first annoyed atheist to do so on an online forum.
Your 12th point is the worst so I’ll just focus on that: are you claiming that atheists makes no claims?
Excited for this because Glen has done a splendid job in the few months I've known this channel (through Dr. Gavin Ortlund's Truth Unites) of equipping me intellectually.
Saddened though because I noticed Cliff and Stuart aren't cut out for debates. Their rhetoric is usually strong for campus ministries and sermons (I'd assume) but even I haven't been moved by them in such conversations. I don't think they're the Christopher Hitchens of Christian apologetics. But I do appreciate these conversations regardless. Like the O.T, they equip us on what NOT to do.
Wise disciples next.
Also, just to add, I did love the heart of pastors that they have, even in this debate
They're limited to ambushing unprepared students on their way to Liberal Studies 101.
It's propably true that Cliff is not at his best against sophisticated scholars like Alex. However, the aftermath (thx to Glenn and Capturing Christianity) has been exposing and devastating for atheism. Alex's arguments are embarrasing and his choice to emphasize the "expectations" regarding how the world would look like if atheism is true backfired on him. Atheism explains absolutely nothing. Even if we give the atheists a life permiting universe they would still need life, counsciuosness, logic, morality etc. (all of which are expected if theism is true), to be able to argue against theism. This is just absurd, ridiculous and intellectually dishonest.
@@TheSpaniard-5337 I agree. As much as I love Alex, the reason I didn't address them in my comment is because they didn't stick to the topic and did not move me at all.
@@TheSpaniard-5337 What ignorant nonsense!
Stuart/Cliffe's inadequate response to a super chat commenter who mentioned their desire to end their own life was troubling to me. They posture as if their worldview is the only helpful response to despair, and they kept insisting that athiestic positions have no hope. Then, when presented with a real human who needed reasons to live, they quoted Bible verses about despair where death IS the hope in ending their suffering. Then, they said something akin to "you just need to suck it up for now and live until you can finally die and stop suffering." Someone can find the exact quote if they want to watch the debate, but I don't want to watch it again. I was just struck with what a pathetic response that was to give to someone struggling with self-death ideation. As someone who has struggled with depression/despair, what I needed was reason to live and ways to enjoy this life, not the idea that the only way to move past suffering is to die and go to some vaguely defined heaven, if you're lucky enough to get your theology right. Horrible. I would not call what these men do "ministry."
yeah that was disgusting. it was like he was using someone wanting to end their life as a talking point for the debate instead of actually trying to help the person. glad that james actually tried to help by offering a professional.
Atheistic position actually have no hope and no justice ,you’re no better than the phone you’re typing this on .
@@MrChampion2024 stretch
It's the failure of getting in the weeds with dogma. Religion is often basically a man-made sketch that isn't, itself, the image of the real thing, but is close enough for us to be able to recognize it when we know what we're looking for. The new testament was written by people who very likely did indeed find God, and there is tremendous value in that, but I think we make a few too many presuppositions about the details. They might have been wrong about some of the gaps, even though they got the gist of it right (and frankly, I do think there is something to the whole Jesus thing, it's unlikely that the disciples made up the story of him rising from the dead.)
For what it's worth, there IS purpose to you, to your existence, and to what you're going through. I've been where you're at. Please don't give up, and keep it in prayer. You don't need to find systematic religion to pray, just praying to God works. We can all start there, and frankly, I think that's where we should start. Don't listen to man made doctrines and man-made confusion that tries to take away your hope. Everything will be okay. :)
If God only sees animals as weapon, weapons, tools, and food, then why give them tears why make them scream in pain when they’re being hurt why give humans the moral intuition to feel bad for animals death
Where does the Bible say that?
Thanks for the analysis and deep thoughts!
When are we going to see Glen debate Alex?
@@karl5395 I’d imagine it’d go about the same way just with less neck veins.
@@scottgodlewski306 Love it!
This guy’s mainstay is ‘everything from nothing’ - he’s repeating the EXACT same erroneous things TWICE in just the first 10min of this vid.
@@lawrence_of_osaka And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
No Jesus Christ, no life; Know Jesus Christ, know life.
God/Jesus Christ/Holy Spirit is mankind's only hope. This evil world, atheists and the enemy (Satan - the devil) offer no hope. No religion needed. Just faith, faith plus nothing.
@@paulgemme6056 Oh, you’re just cutting and pasting comments. How boring and lazy.
Good video, Glen, with some really helpful commentary. Thanks.
"Everything from nothing". I don't know why apologists continue to use that phrase. I don't speak for all atheists but many don't believe that.
Ik, I've never met anyone who actually believes that
They do kind of essentially
@@MeadeFatLoss They don't, I encourage you to ask atheists, or anyone for that matter what they believe before assuming
One issue is whether some version of PSR is correct, in which case, looking at the totality of really, some aspect/feature of the totality would exist in virtue of its nature and would be the ultimate ground for everything else.
Of course… that is not enough for “God” unless you have worthy arguments for placing intellect and will at that level. And still more would be said.
But I think enough has indeed been said. See the chapter on PSR in Feser’s “Five Proofs” (I am only talking about the PSR chapter!)
Combine that with both Pat Flynn’s 2023 book “The Best Argument for God” (which includes a discussion on an argument that doesn’t require PSR)
And DBH’s 2014 “The Experience of God”
Please note that I am not defending biblical inerrancy, which isn’t necessary for Christianity to be true, although that’s a separate problem
@@MeadeFatLoss The Universe didn't come from anywhere, it's as old as time
I'm an atheist but i have heard cliff argument and i would say that his arguments sound convincing amongst the students as his audience. So i expected his debate with alex would be mind tickling. But to my surprised, he dissapoints me. And i think the main reason alex falls short is due to cliff constantly asking him and accusing him that the debate could not move on
I recommend watching Jay Dyer.
The problem is debating is a very specific scenario and skill that needs to be developed, their reality is actually quite far from what we most think of a debate winner being the right one, that is not always the case, at all.
@@channelMasterGuiGame People often say, “I’m not hurting anyone so it’s ok to sin (lying, stealing, sexual sins, disrespecting parents etc)” The same God who said to love your neighbour first said to love Him to the best of your ability. If you carry on sinning, then you do not love God but are selfish like the devil so you will be joined to your father in hell or repent of your sins and believe in Jesus as God so Jesus adopts you as His child and you will join Him in Heaven forever.
Great breakdown of this debate. The Knechtles, unfortunately, need some help if they are going to continue to debate. There is a difference between person-to-person evangelism and debate. If you are going to debate you really need to know data, arguments, and how to shift burden of proof. The Knechtles were immediately put on the defense, and never were able to come back and press Halper or O'Connor. Also, you need to be able to summarize your opponents' objections quickly. Alex and Phil only brought up three objections: the problem of animal pain, the "apparent" contradiction in the Bible, and the apparent failure of the fine-turning argument (i.e., that the universe is thought to be eternal). That is what they needed to focus on, and, even when they tried, they weren't fluid in their argumentation. Also, it doesn't help to have a better grasp of academic language: rhetoric does a long way in debate.
At 6:08 into that debate Cliffe - “No, I cannot prove God. I cannot prove Christ”. This is what the agnostics and atheists demand before they dedicate the only life they have to worshipping a fairytale God. If you can’t prove God or Christ, what are you debating?
If the atheist is wrong, the atheist doesn’t care. If God wants worship from an atheist based on faith alone, then God can go kick rocks.
Hi, thanks for the discussion. It would be nice and very helpful if you could put a link to the videos you use. I know you almost never do it, but it honors the creator of the vdeo you use and it gives us the chance to make our own conclusions.
Sorry we missed those off. Updated now
11:58 Also: if no God, why do we have an innate impulse to seek transcendent purpose and communion? Why do we desperately hunger for beauty? What is the cold mechanical purpose of being in awe of a golden sunset? Or our universal love of stars despite how they remind us of our insignificance in the grander universe?
This is such a weird statement because it infers that if a person is Buddhist, or a Naturalist, or a Pegan, or a Devil worshipper, or a horoscope believer, or a Wiccan or literally any other form of belief that isn't monotheistic or even God based is by default a person who has no meaning.... Its insulting to the world to try and lump everyone together as if we believe the same things in a deep enough level. We don't. and people still find motivation and purpose without a judeo Christian perspective. Even Christians themselves fight about the god they supposedly share and have for centuries.
So.. just... think a bit and realize that your framework for reality is a bias one.
@ You misread. I explicitly said “we” - meaning everyone - have an impulse to seek transcendent purpose and communion. “Transcendent” means “higher, deeper.” Even Alex O’Connor, Sam Harris, and neurologists recognize this impulse.
My only claim is that God gave us this impulse so we may come to know him.
True beauty - like stars or a mountain summit view - invokes a sense of transcendence which that we desire desperately. We don’t want to possess true beauty; we merely want to be in its presence. We desire communion with transcendence, something higher. In the world but not of the world. Beauty that is not merely that prettiness but recognition of deep pattern of “rightness”, of truth. Transcendence causes a slowing down so that we can immerse our elves in the experiences; invokes a sense of wonder and contemplation.
And I ask, to what cold evolutionary purpose?
Yeah again you're making claims that are simply untrue. People are not all doing this particular action you're describing. You would have to make the definition of "pursuit of transcendence " to be so broad it is absolutely meaningless as a statement. Even the word beauty itself is completely subjective. There is no ultimate goal for all people's that's even remotely definite. You can use a word like god but it has no explanatory power when you consider for one second that gods as we see them can completely contradic each other and even themselves. You use the word god as if it's a ubiquitous understood word... its not at all. It's argued about, fought over, and used endlessly to condone bigotry, hatred, and rigid definitions of pure right and wrong that just based on a cursory observation is revealed to be incorrect.
@ Just reminded why it’s a waste of time to have deep conversation with someone who enters Christian spaces just feel superior.
As a Christian, the debate was a train wreck. And the moderator was bad too, he didn't step in when things were getting heated and unproductive
God is the epitome of Holiness because He is sinlessly perfect, A sinner (liar, sexually immoral, taking the Lord’s Name in vain, thief etc) cannot be in the presence of God or else he will be utterly consumed therefore repent of your sins and put your faith in Jesus as your Lord and Saviour to go to Heaven.
love the humble brag crowbarred in by Glen 'i was at Oxford University too' ; very well done
Being Australian also, I can't get past how poorly you interpret the cultural cues on who is being rude here. When an American talks down to someone like that, they mean it. They are angry and failed big time.
All Humans need to repent & Believe in Jesus as their God. Why? Because all Humans have sinned (lied, lusted sexually, stolen, dishonoured parents, unbelief etc). Avoid the fires of Hell (justice of God) and choose Heaven today. Jesus defeated death by rising from the dead. GOD IS HOLY
Re: post-Christian animal suffering, people are both more concerned, and less concerned. People choose to feel compassion for certain animals like puppies and kittens but don't blink an eye at the extreme emotional anguish and physical torture humans inflict on the 9 billion animals in industrial factory farms and slaughterhouses. Just look at undercover videos.
People often say, “I’m not hurting anyone so it’s ok to sin (lying, stealing, sexual sins, disrespecting parents etc)” The same God who said to love your neighbour first said to love Him to the best of your ability. If you carry on sinning, then you do not love God but are selfish like the devil so you will be joined to your father in hell or repent of your sins and believe in Jesus as God so Jesus adopts you as His child and you will join Him in Heaven forever.
"Everything we observe in the world is not just unexpected but profoundly improbable, improbable to the point of impossibility, if Atheism is true. If Atheism is true, what we would expect is Nothing and not Everything"
The mere question why there is Something rather than Nothing is neither evidence for Atheism or Theism or Deism. What we don´t know is what came before the Expansion of the Universe and there is no scientific model that I am aware of that claims that there was Nothing before the Expansion. So, we are starting with the same knowledge, that there is Something. It does not logically follow to say that if Atheism is true we would expect there to be Nothing since it presupposes that there can only be Something if there is a god. This requires evidence that nobody has.
Everything we observe in the Universe seems to come back to the Physics that are happening in this Universe, at least that is what we were able to gather so far, and it is what we now expect because it is being confirmed again and again and again. We are able to make novel testable predictions with models and they don´t require a god.
You can argue that a god created the natural laws but there is no evidence for that, let alone that it is a specific god.
In other words: We have no reason to think that the existence of Physics require a god or point to a god. Therefore we have no reason to think that this Universe is unexpected or improbable if there is no god.
You brought up Fine-Tuning. First of all, to call it Fine-Tuning is misleading imo. We only have this Universe and we don´t know if the constants have to be this way. Second, in a naturalistic Universe we would expect that the constants are not just arbitrary. Not an Argument for the existence of god or what we would expect from a perfect mind.
You brought up Chaos and Order. I am afraid of messing up the details so I would suggest looking up how Physicists/Cosmologists explain Entropy and how, despite the Universe increasing in Entropy "Chaos", we have Low Entropy Systems, which will eventually follow suit.
Emergence is what you are looking for maybe? (For the chaotic systems part). Emergence is directly observable, and isn't a mystery to either philosophy or science, so I'm surprised Glen just steamrolls on through with his list of assumptions at around the 10 to 14 min mark. I haven't gotten beyond that point though.
You earned my subscription sir 😇
Bhuddist has already raised the point of animal suffering way before Christian.
The point is not that the bliblical God is unlikable, the point is that he is said to be omni-benevolent.
How can such being made the world so horrible and unjust?
Animal is just one aspect of such unjust and it is pretty hard to explain.
I don't know where onni-benevolent comes from. Psalm 5:4-6 disagrees with that statement
@kenmashikin that the world is "horrible and unjust" is an opinion based on your limited perception of reality. To be able to say that with ontological certainty, you would need to know everything. In other words, you would need to _be_ God
How do you know that the world being horrible and unjust for a finite period of time is not the most benevolent thing a God could do ... especially a God who let that world be horrible and unjust to Him ...
@@thegenapp well, yeah, the problem of evil is only a problem if god is all loving.
But still, if we can think of higher moral standard than god presents...isn't that a strange idea?
@@asphilosophyusa any statment that we make are based on our limited perception of reality. It is not the most convincing couterargument. I addition, I think that it would be reasonable to assume that we should know more than we actually do about the reality - John 15:15 : “I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, I have called you friends, for EVERYTHING THAT I HAVE LEARNED FROM FATHER I have made known to you
Thank you so much for pointing out the acting and dishonesty being posed here, it is disappointing when we (the observers) want good intellectually, thoughtful arguments. I appreciate you so much for your breakdown.
The argument presented for Markian priority is a straw man. There is much stronger evidence for Mark being earlier than just it being "stripped down". I highly recommend Religion For Breakfast's video on the topic for a primer.
All Humans need to repent & Believe in Jesus as their God. Why? Because all Humans have sinned (lied, lusted sexually, stolen, dishonoured parents, unbelief etc). Avoid the fires of Hell (justice of God) and choose Heaven today. Jesus defeated death by rising from the dead. GOD IS HOLY
@@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363 That's not an argument against Markian priority.
Compassion does not come from Christianity, thats a crazy claim
If /westerners/ prioritise compassion (and most do), Christianity is absolutely behind that intellectual/moral genealogy
You’re probably right in that compassion within families/kin groups/social groups is natural and can be argued to be part of an evolutionary strategy to survive and reproduce. Compassion for your enemies, though, and compassion for the most vulnerable in society/those who have no social group is much more difficult to trace back to something other than Christianity.
@@SpeakLifeMedia I'd put to you that a lot of the focus on compassion in the west comes from critique of Christianity as much as it comes from Christianity itself, whether it be Christian critique or not.
@@SpeakLifeMedia I do get compassion from Christ, but I don’t get it from most Christians.
Here in the US at least, their vote alone tells me they are more interested in nailing other people to crosses than picking up their own .
@@elicorry-wright5364 But one could argue, as many have, that you can't critique Christianity without moral standards that were in large part provided and nurtured by Christianity itself.
This was the kind of response I was waiting for
Cliff and Stuart are incredibly rude and arrogant, it’s hard to watch them debate.
Guess they haven’t found that “peace that surpasses understanding”.
Their “God” is an evil corruption of power which is fueled by delusion. The whole time they are trying to bend perception.
You can actually almost see “God” influencing their thoughts in real time. You can see when they start to process things in their head, and how their body language follows. It’s completely in opposition to a sprouting mind. Whatever they’re pulling from is evil & negative.
They're more used to ambushing unprepared students on their way to Liberal Studies 101.
Interesting. I didn't think they kept cool, but I thought Alex came across as amazingly arrogant, (very unlike how he has been when I've watched him recently) and I have a similar accent to him, so I'm used to that part of the equation.
"puppies and kittens". Hilarious 😂. Reminds me of the Trump quote, "they're eating the cats! They're eating the dogs!"
I have to say. I listened to this hoping for answers. Yet I am sorely disappointed. There was some miss representing of peoples beliefs, hypocrisy in arguments, conscious bias ( I hope not), cognitive dissonance and a lack of answers to the point. I am tempted to write the points as to why I think this. I am really disappointed ☹️
I can only say. Watch the debate, the source material, watch this and just be honest, as best you can.
I'm not really on either side of this debate, but one thing I keep noticing from these Christian vs Atheist debates is that the Christians almost always back themselves into a corner by trying to prove too much. The real walk of faith that most people have starts with belief in God, then trying to figure out what we can ascertain about God, then (if one so desires) choosing a religion and a set of practices to live by. In reality, almost nobody really knows what a high resolution picture of the real thing looks like, we fill in the gaps with our own reasoning, but we have some guideposts to go by that tell us that God exists, that he cares and values certain things (righteousness, love, mercy), and that those things are written on our hearts.
The problem with these kinds of debates is that the atheists will quickly back a lot of Christians into a corner of trying to prove a lot of these details that, quite frankly, if we're honest, we just can't prove. And then what ends up happening is that EVEN though the Christians almost always have very compelling arguments for God's existence (and the arguments for God's existence, if we're being honest, are good), their arguments for Christianity quickly end up looking foolish in the debate because the atheists go after them for details (details that, in my opinion, we sometimes get wrong). In other words, the argument for God seems strong, but the argument for Christianity seems weak, and then they end up having the upper hand in the debate.
Does this mean Christianity is false? I don't necessarily think so, but I think we rely on too many presuppositions when we're looking at this stuff. We assume that people would have to find a systematic religion to find God, but yet folks like Abraham just called God "El Shaddai" which translates to a generic term for "God Almighty". Jesus himself just calls his father "Father". It seems more likely to me that the early Christians did in fact find God, but that there are some details that we get wrong in the gaps, and some areas where we have to admit that we don't know the answers for sure. It's clear that they found God just by calling him "God" - and they didn't have all of the detailed doctrine and systematic theologies that we have today. How did they find God? Well, it's a very important question to answer, because if we can figure out how they found God, we can figure out how we can find God too.
I've noticed a big difference in the way that God is handled by former atheists who became people of faith. They, too, still have many of the same questions we all do. They won't try to dance around very real objections (e.g. a lot of troublesome stuff in the old testament). But they engage almost solely around the reasons that they were brought to faith in spite of these things. How they still found the evidence for God to be compelling. And frankly that's been my own path to faith too.
A lesson we can all learn in these debates is to debate honestly. We shouldn't try to find a hill we can't defend to stand upon. I see this mistake often being made by apologists, and it ends up going sour very quickly in these kinds of debates as soon as they're debating professionals in the field rather than university students. People like C.S. Louis largely avoid these kinds of pitfalls because they admit when there are real objections, and they're willing to question mainstream doctrine where it doesn't make sense (C.S. Louis, for example, acknowledged the very real possibility that God would bring all to Christ, thereby bringing "universal reconciliation" - which interestingly appears to be what most of the early Church actually believed, even if they weren't very clear in fleshing out the theology.)
The Christain camp lost because of bad argument and bad behavior not because of technical no how and nothing to do with being Americans period lol...
Having bad technical know how leads to bad arguments and bad behavior
Simply put, the teleological argument for god is fallacious. It begs the question by pre-supposing that there is a designer to begin with. Anyone arguing from that position is already a failure, they just won't tackle the very first premise. You never get the religious to tackle the first premise of the teleological argument.
Nobody mentioned the ontological argument. Do you mean cosmological? Teleological?
@@SpeakLifeMedia Right you are, I completely meant teleological. I was just watching a video discussing the ontological argument, so I guess my brain got all muddy. So yes, teleological is what I'm referring to. There's a pre-supposition there that is never properly addressed by anyone I've had exposure to. I'll go and edit my comment to reflect the correction. I appreciate it.
@caseyobrien1082 the teleolgical doesn't presuppose anything. It says some elements of what we observe in the universe are better explained by an intelligent designer rather than the blind forces or nature. That doesn't require any presupposition; you are wrong.
@@asphilosophyusa That's incorrect. It presupposes that we would know what something designed by an entity other than a human would look like. It presupposes that something "designed" is what we believe looks too complex to be natural. You have to accept the outcome of the assumption to accept the first few premises of the argument.
Hume, for example; "Just because things in the world have designers, that doesn’t mean that the world itself has a designer. We have experience of house being designed and built, but we do not have experience of worlds being designed and built."
"The universe is unique and we cannot make assumptions about the creation of unique things."
"The designer of the world may have a designer: this leads to an infinite regress."
In other words, it's a weak argument with multiple fallacies interwoven.
@caseyobrien1082 wrong again. All one has to do is establish that there is a dichotomy between things that are designed by an intelligent agent and things arranged or created by the blind forces of nature. The basis of this is the limitations of natural forces versus intelligent beings. If there are things ineltelligent beings can create that can't be created by natural forces, then it stands to reason things more complex than those also must have an intelligent cause.
For instance, a watch is too complex and specifically arranged for the forces of nature to create, so we can conclude it has an intelligent cause. Since living organisms are far more complex than a watch, it stands to reason their creator is even more intelligent than the watchmaker. No presuppositions necessary.
Really, the fine tuning argument? Can you remind me again, how do you know the prior distribution of the parameters to conclude that they have a small probability?
I think if you combine the relevant points of the argument (fine tuning vs the problem of evil and inconsistencies in the Christian account) you arrive at the conclusion of a probable existence of some kind of creator of the universe that we know of, but that creator not being the biblical god. Which I think is not very damaging to the atheists, but is quite problematic for the Christians.
I don’t think the problem of evil is that much of a problem if there’s only ‘some kind of a creator’. We should then shrug our shoulders to evil and suffering and simply say “It is what it is.” It’s the /goodness/ of God that makes us expect so much more than this suffering world.
@@SpeakLifeMedia What is evil?
@@SpeakLifeMedia The problem of evil, is a big problem. Any random death is unfair and can only be seen as evil, if god knows what is going to happen. If someone makes the world, and knows what is going to happen then its all planned. Then somehow cancer was planned by god.
Maybe you go out from a different way, where god is not all knowing and then it would be okay.
@@SpeakLifeMedia right, I fully agree with you. So Alex’s point is “If the goodness of god is true, then we expect much more than this suffering world.” And your point and cliff’s point is “if atheism is true then you would not expect a world at all, you would expect nothing to exist.” I think this is quite fair.
But obviously there lies a point in the middle-there is some creator, but there is no all-powerful benevolent being, which fulfills both requirements, and results in the universe we expect. I think most atheists would just shrug their shoulders at this, but most Christians would find this very damaging to what they believe in.
@jacobstisen6366 The LORD gives and the LORD takes away, blessed be the name of the LORD.
When the Author of life ceases to give another breath to his creatures, he has wronged none of them.
The title puts into words what I felt watching this debate.
I’m going to add my voice as a Christian that the Knectle’s should stay in their lane, which might not even be doing apologetics with college students. My college aged son cringes at some of the way they work around the questions without actually answering them head on. Most people knew that a conversation with Alex O’Connor would not go well. It didn’t. They should look at their ministries and judge for themselves if they are doing more harm than good. They would know better than I. I just know I can’t watch them without admiration that they try but disappointment at what I hear is a short coming in skill and knowledge. The best outcome is if they took time for serious and difficult training in orating and building up their knowledge then starting up their ministry again. I hate to think I’m discouraging people that have a heart to do this. Instead think of this as encouraging them to put in the difficult work to get better.
I started to appreciate what Alex is doing in this current day and age, the way he carries himself is admirable.
If the current opinion of the day regarding "new Atheism'" being dead and buried is true, then I guess this is the way forward for a questioning person.
Alex exudes the quality of holding his emotions back and "listen" while being ready to debate, he made peterson admitt that he Petersons' idea about God is so out there that even the Christians found the feat incredible, Alex managed to make Billy craig solve the Euthyphro dilemma and made the father-son duo show the world what Christ-like beaviour looks like when the dogmas of their beliefs are tested. Alex has managed to bring out the "vile" (I guess rearranging vile can mean love) ideology of the most popular apologists of the current times.
I cant wait for the day that Alex announces that he is a beleiver in the manner similar to Philip Goff but till then I am enjoying watching the train wreck that Alex is causing.
Philip Goff, is he the same Christian who doesnt beleive in "virgin birth" or is disgusted by the idea of "penal substitution" and other such BS but he is a christian right? cool.
Here in Ireland we distinguish between "a Catholic atheist" and "a Protestant atheist" so I totally get Richard Dawkins' cultural Christian.
Recently, the phenomenon of the "reared atheist" has been recognised.
This video has really shown me how flawed the argument from animal suffering really is and how wise God actually was in telling the Israelites not to keep the economic/military assets (aka animals) of another community for themselves. That would have set a precedent for unjust war and conflict, which of course did happen and does still happen today (people going to war over assets/wealth under a false claim of an ideological reason). 1 hr 25 mins is the time stamp for anyone reading this comment but who hasn’t got there yet.
People often say, “I’m not hurting anyone so it’s ok to sin (lying, stealing, sexual sins, disrespecting parents etc)” The same God who said to love your neighbour first said to love Him to the best of your ability. If you carry on sinning, then you do not love God but are selfish like the devil so you will be joined to your father in hell or repent of your sins and believe in Jesus as God so Jesus adopts you as His child and you will join Him in Heaven forever.
Hogwash
The problem with your argument is that you are claiming a call to outright genocide and murder in order to steal other people's land somehow constitutes a passage against war for assets. Do you not see how contradictory your argument is? God is calling for a war for wealth and calling for that war to be waged brutally.
@@przemeksledziewski1973 All Humans need to repent & Believe in Jesus as their God. Why? Because all Humans have sinned (lied, lusted sexually, stolen, dishonoured parents, unbelief etc). Avoid the fires of Hell (justice of God) and choose Heaven today. Jesus defeated death by rising from the dead. GOD IS HOLY
@@404Dannyboy God is the epitome of Holiness because He is sinlessly perfect, A sinner (liar, sexually immoral, taking the Lord’s Name in vain, thief etc) cannot be in the presence of God or else he will be utterly consumed therefore repent of your sins and put your faith in Jesus as your Lord and Saviour to go to Heaven.
Why would non-pet animals be worth less than pet animals? If you did explain it I missed it.
I think the issue Glenn raised was that people in the past did no view animals as pets, like we do today. Animals were viewed as either food, money or for military purposes. Thus to kill animals was viewed less as cruelty and more as losing food, money and military might. Into this God’s interactions were in dealing with man’s reliance on animals for the above. God clearly cared about animals, as Jesus mentioned, but cared more about man and his attitudes.
@@martynmettam9296 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
No Jesus Christ, no life; Know Jesus Christ, know life.
God/Jesus Christ/Holy Spirit is mankind's only hope. This evil world, atheists and the enemy (Satan - the devil) offer no hope. No religion needed. Just faith, faith plus nothing.
Pets are more subjectively valuable to people than non-pets
Compare the American south, american NW, and American west. And then ask if Christianity is correlated to geography.
Also break down the distribution of Protestants and Catholics
Throw in Mormonism as well.
With the question of animal suffering Alex is reaching for the vision of the author's of Genesis when casting the initial creation, and Isaiah when seeing New Creation. The problem of animal suffering belongs in the Christian view of the world because even the Hebrew prophets saw it and they glimpsed a future world where it would no longer be. Alex loves to quote Lewis's line summarizing his argument from desire... That's where you will find the key Alex.
You need to debate Alex
1:36:24 Slight correction: shouldn't you say 370,000 people face judgement each day (170,000 born + 200,000 unborn)?
Are you also adding miscarriges? If I remember correctly the number of them is quite high...
Morality is an evolved form of survival strategy that is shared amongst those of a species to further that species into the future.
Evolution is a myth
if you want to assume evolution then I will say we evolved brains to recognise our morality comes from a higher power and at the same time recognise our morality makes no sense without a God.
@@markschristjourney our brains did not evolve.
@@markschristjourney Do you see how that reasoning is circular?
@@iamdanielmonroe evolution is faux science
Genuine question: how does immaterial create something material?
This exposes a definitional problem with the term: Anything immaterial cannot be demonstrated to exist, for if it could, then it would be considered material to begin with. This is also a problem for Platonism and other religious and philosophical ideas relying on immaterial entities.
God is unlike anything in creation, if he created matter he's obviously not matter, God is spirit.
@@dagghui The way you’re using it, “spirit” is just another term for immaterial.
I think there’s a way of getting around the problem, though. If causation went both ways, we would consider the entity material, but for God it only goes one way. Therefore, identifying God as the only uncaused cause would be consistent. However, human souls and traditionally supernatural beings wouldn’t be.
@@seanpierce9386 but spirit is personal it's not just anything that's immaterial.
@seanpierce9386 what about concepts? Metaphorical truths? Etc. How do we acknowledge their *_existence_* ?
Please do not ever say that under atheism we would expect nothing. This is ridiculous. Under "there is no god" hypothesis we would expect absolutely everything. Just grant atheists one miracle and everything is explained. Naturalistic pantheism for example. If you are trying to be an expert then don't talk for atheists as unfairly as you just did
Yeah, I don’t understand why believers are so incredulous on these points. The basis of biology is chemistry and psychology (consciousness) can simply be an emergent property of the human brain. And if matter can neither be created nor destroyed then something always having existed is reasonable. Why add an agent?
You have a miracle but no miracle worker. You have intelligent design without an intelligent designer. Make it make sense
@@scottgodlewski306if your ‘psychology’ (by which I think you mean consciousness) is simply a product of random chemistry in your brain and there is no purpose from a designer behind the human brain, how can you trust anything that you think? How can you try to discern truth when you don’t think your brain was designed for the purpose of thought (it just happened to be able to)?
@@evanmcclure6212 What is a miracle? Is it just a highly unlikely occurrence? Those happen all the time. If something can not come from nothing, then the fact that there is something means there was never nothing. I don’t understand the need to add anything else.
The hard problem of consciousness is not solved by proclaiming “emergent property”. Yet, here we are, conscious beings thinking immaterial thoughts and communicating using rhetoric, reason, emotion - none of which are physical. What is closest to all of us is consciousness. Even our experience of the material world is an /experience/ of the material world. It seems like the added thing in reality is physical. After all, all our experiences are of mind over matter.
Cliff opening was brilliant, I wish he stuck on those points and ask Alex how meaning can come out from meaninglessness. I don’t think Alex realise he lost the debate because they was no substance in what he said. I don’t think that Alex knows that suffering doesn’t disprove the Christian God.
Every argument for God involves at least one logical fallacy, often more than one.
People often say, “I’m not hurting anyone so it’s ok to sin (lying, stealing, sexual sins, disrespecting parents etc)” The same God who said to love your neighbour first said to love Him to the best of your ability. If you carry on sinning, then you do not love God but are selfish like the devil so you will be joined to your father in hell or repent of your sins and believe in Jesus as God so Jesus adopts you as His child and you will join Him in Heaven forever.
Ehh I like to separate arguments for god from arguments for religion. Not a fan of organized religion, but I like to think one can find God without it.
@@photoniccannon2117 What you think isn't evidence. Until anyone can demonstrate their supposed god, there is no good reason to believe in him.
@@tobias4411 Respectfully, I never said my thoughts are evidence. Our thoughts are, by definition, what we do WITH evidence, and how we choose to reason with the outside world. I disagree with your assertion that there is no reason for anyone to believe in God, people make that choice for themselves.
@@photoniccannon2117 So, what's true and what's not true doesn't matter?
I know already that people make their own choices- if they want to believe in a specific god or not. If they want to believe in ghosts or not, if they want to believe in a flat earth or Bigfoot.
Does that mean it's rational to believe in such things? If not, why should anyone believe in it? How do you distinguish what people claim from truth or lies? If a Buddhist monk tells you he sometimes levitates during meditation, how do you know it actually happened? How do you know he's telling the truth?
It is sad to see the debate go this way but it is crazy how dishonest both Phil and Alex are. Their conclusions simply don’t follow from their arguments and the arrogance with which they dismiss the Bible is baffling
do you acknowledge that you were experiencing nothing for most of calculated time (billions of years), you have to be alive to observe anything that doesnt mean it wasn't improbable
I didn't realise you went to Oxford University. Which college?
What gets me about all of the "problem of suffering" arguments is: if you really believe there is no God, why do you see suffering as "bad" in the first place? What makes it "bad"? It's a nonstarter of a premise.
But it is bad in a world governed and created by a god, thats why its a problem for the religious and not for atheists or naturalists
It’s pointing to an inconsistency in the argument. Since the Christians believe in God and good and bad, you follow where that goes. I think Alex O Connor likely doesn’t believe in objective good and bad himself
That just seems like a cop-out to the question of "if your god is real. Why does it love suffering of life." It truly does love suffering. But this is deeply ingrained in human nature. Empathy helps us understand that suffering causes harm and distress, leading us to view it as undesirable. Regardless of the presence of a higher power.
Plus, what is the solution they proffer for this problem of evil?
@@lostworld4252 GOD loves suffering? Where do you get that from?
This is the problem: atheism isn't a cause, it's a conclusion. It's a reasonable conclusion given general scepticism, material monism, logical positism, cartesian dualism and other factors. Deconstruct those factors and then see whether atheism or theism is a reasonable and rational conclusion........
Then go debate him yourself, talking alone to a camera is easier than what Cliffe and Stuart did.
Thanks, also debates can be an opportunity for learning regardless of who 'wins'.
Good comment about how animals were not seen as pets in the ancient world in the way the modern world sees them today.
(/_;)/~~ This is an artistic proof of a created universe. When you paint a shadow it's the opposite color of the object that made the shadow. Nobody knew what the opposite color of white was so the artists avoided painting white on white. The opposite color of white is baby blue and baby pink. The first artist to figure it out was Norman Rockwell. I was the second artist to figure it out. I saw it in the corner of a white room. The lighting was perfect to see it. Pigments have different rules than light. It took them thousands of years to get all the pigments they have now.
We need to update the Paley analogy and replace the pocket watch with a cellphone. Something that Paley hasn't seen before and knows nothing of its function, yet he would determine that it was designed. This is a closer analogy to how we actually look at the universe........
People often say, “I’m not hurting anyone so it’s ok to sin (lying, stealing, sexual sins, disrespecting parents etc)” The same God who said to love your neighbour first said to love Him to the best of your ability. If you carry on sinning, then you do not love God but are selfish like the devil so you will be joined to your father in hell or repent of your sins and believe in Jesus as God so Jesus adopts you as His child and you will join Him in Heaven forever.
I agree with many others who say that Cliffe should focus on campus ministry, he doesn't have the high-level apologetic skillset like some of my other favorite modern apologists (Trent Horn is my personal favorite, but there are others like Gavin Ortlund, William Lane Craig, etc.). From what I did see in the Matt Dillahunty debate that Cliffe had, I thought Matt won fairly convincingly, which was a STARK contrast to when Trent Horn debated Dillahunty and pretty much steamrolled through him. Alex is one of the best atheist apologists today (he or Graham Oppy are #1), and honestly the Knechtles just aren't even close to that level.
Im really not sure why you go through so much effort to defend Cliffe and Stuart here -- why can't you just say people are wrong, their presentation and their arguments have flaws (even if you agree with their conclusions). It comes across to me as unnecessarily sectarian and insecure (especially given the "I went to Oxford" signalling and stuff too).
The controversy is that you want to use the Bible as a historical reference, yet it can’t get its own stories straight. That’s a problem for being historical record. And is this an edit selection, or simply made up. And which one is fact?
It’s a problem but can you tell me a historical record where all the sources agree on everything? It would only be a major problem if they disagreed at a core fundamental level.
@
Read Bruce Catton; Shelby Foote; Jeffry Wert. They all cover the Civil War and are very good and they agree with the start and the outcome and we have a myriad of primary resources that speak to the Civil War actually happening. That does not exist for the Bible stories.
@@andrewcadman951 Not to mention the standard for ancient texts is different since they wrote "history" differently than we do today. We would not expect them to follow modern standards. Also most modern events don't get their stories straight. You can read two articles about one event and get vastly different understandings on what occurred.
The problem is not whether the gospels are broadly historical. It’s whether you trust them enough to get the resurrection and other miracles correct. If they can’t get X detail right, it makes it less likely that you can rely on any specific claim. Plus, you have to take into account the ideas floating around at that time and the biases they would produce. Miracle claims stand out from other historical claims because they’re the most likely to be religiously motivated invention.
@
My problem is that there are no other primary resources for that period to speak about the events that occurred in the Bible. The whole Exodus story, for example, is completely made up and there is no historical record of those events whatsoever. That is my problem.
Glen, you have to do better than this banality. You can't just rely on your "posh" accent to convince the many thoughtful listeners in your audience. Neither Alex or Phil make a claim that non-existence produces existence, as Cliffe states. You, Glen, know that this is the trope of many preachers who are poorly educated in argument. As for someone like you, with a better education, I'm sure you would benefit from careful attention of the following analysis: th-cam.com/video/ivRM6-dvCBU/w-d-xo.html . Your listeners might also appreciate my modest comment on the original debate site: "I found Alex and Phil much less judgmental and more on topic most of the time. Alex's biblical training and wide reading seemed well suited for this sort of encounter. While I am sure Cliffe and Stuart wanted to be conversational partners, they are clearly trained to be preachers who seek to convert their interlocutors in these settings and do not expect their views to be challenged so thoroughly. I admire their strong opinions and sincere confidence, but don't think debate or careful argument suits them very well. It was very kind of Phil, showing no ill will, to invite Cliffe and Stuart to visit him in London. I'm not sure Cliffe and Stuart felt emotionally well enough, given their expressions of dissatisfaction with this experience, to reciprocate."
People often say, “I’m not hurting anyone so it’s ok to sin (lying, stealing, sexual sins, disrespecting parents etc)” The same God who said to love your neighbour first said to love Him to the best of your ability. If you carry on sinning, then you do not love God but are selfish like the devil so you will be joined to your father in hell or repent of your sins and believe in Jesus as God so Jesus adopts you as His child and you will join Him in Heaven forever.
Your comments to the opening statement are disingenuous because the points you make do suggest intent in the universe but does not make a case for Christianity. One reason is that Jesus may be the subject of that faith, but it was a certain Saul of Tarsus who is the initial driving force, and a whole number of literary models that were used by the Gospels to promote Christ as the better Dionysus, or the better Mithras for example.
Significant Christian apologists and authors made extensive use of Graeco-Roman mythology to create their own hostile accounts of its gods and heroes, using every technique, too, of the pagan schools of rhetoric. They were also strongly influenced by Hellenistic Jewish sources. They built on one another’s information, omitting or adding different themes and interpretations, in response to their times. The effect of Constantine’s conversion in 312 CE and his legislation was only briefly shaken by Julian’s reign; by 392, pagan cults had been banned. The Christian faith rose above the sack of Rome in 410 to refute, but not entirely to forget, Graeco-Roman mythology.
As I suggested above, I believe there is intent in the universe, but we must get used to the fact that Jesus was, in the modern sense, a tragedy, and there are numerous loopholes in what we know, suggesting that Christianity was saying that it could explain the ‘mystery of existence,’ but there are numerous examples of cultures offering another mythology. None of this is, however, proof of God.
Jesus of Nazareth crucified is definitely a tragedy. It’s also not a story we would have heard if that was the end of it.
@@SpeakLifeMedia What about the rest?
The controversy is that you want to use the Bible as a historical reference, yet it can’t get its own stories straight. That’s a problem for being historical record. And is this an edit selection, or simply made up. And which one is fact?
Using a document that you believe is a fiction, to bolster a moral argument against that very document namely the Bible is nonsensical.😂
I didn’t watch, but I had a bad feeling about it even after their respectful interview.
The atheists always conflate the djinni with the biblical God. So irritating.
I don't think the Christians lost. But your critiques for the Christians here about their set-up and so on... I agree with you. So for that reason; I give you a like!!!! God bless brother.
Why thank you
@@SpeakLifeMedia And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
No Jesus Christ, no life; Know Jesus Christ, know life.
God/Jesus Christ/Holy Spirit is mankind's only hope. This evil world, atheists and the enemy (Satan - the devil) offer no hope. No religion needed. Just faith, faith plus nothing.
The theatrics in this video from the host with breathy voice, taking a gulp loud enough to be heard the video and the confident sharing of his opinion on a certain point that he does not feel comfortable as weak sauce.
Makes complete sense, the point about a film being edited, I mean makes complete sense when your are cooking up a story, people write something without a clear understanding of things or cook up shiiite to make their protagonist seem like the devil (ask gnostics about their idea of the creator of the our Universe) but then realise that we also need to show the loving side of this devil and end up embelishing the story just a tiny bit (like virgin birht) and inconsistencies are just one step away from being harmonised by this australian genius (given the chance the host would have crushed the Atheist side by using his (dare I say) passionate theatrics and most importantly big words like "weak sauce" and "I dont see a contradiction"). makes complete sense when one or the institution of the Church is motivated enough to cook up shiiite.
Remember the intial time spent on the statement from Phil about cats and dogs and this genius concluding that only the western Christian ideology has given rise to the idea of pets ( I guess when you live down under all you see are peoples asses and not realise that there are far ancient civilisations than this cult where they not only treated animals with respect but also dogmatically revered certain animals as members of family or in some cultures as Gods) but dont let educating yourselves get in the way of your cult.
That's why you can't hold on to Old Earth Creation because you can't explain the suffering before the Fall. Alex knew very well the buttons to push.
Some theologians hold to evolution and believe there are ways to explain animal suffering. "The problem of animal pain" by Trent Dougherty is one of many examples.
Many christians hold to modern scientific theories and harmonize them with the biblical data.
The way they define inerrancy may differ, but there are lots of books and papers about animal suffering and the relations between science and faith.
On the problem of animal pain and corruption of nature, there is an old argument that is based on the angelic or satanic fall, that is found in some church fathers, which caused the corruption of the world. I think this defense is pretty old, basic and standard.
Gavin Ortlund talked about animal pain on his channel Truth Unites, also Bertuzzi on Capturing Christianity.
( ´・_ゝ・) We need to popularize the idea of getting God married. Getting God married is a good use of someone's time. You are supposed to make the environment intelligent so no God is needed. We fixed the video and audio for the best experience possible. Cameras are supernatural and all of them captured 3D that not a gimmick. The audio loud don't make violence so has depth. Nobody has to buy anything for it to work.
The bunch of people angry at cliff and stuart in thecomment because he was pissed of at Alex and phil misrepresenting him is crazy!yall sluld chill with the tone policing and being so soft!
Stop caring less abt appearance but more abt substance
Do animals even suffer? It's true they react and assumably experience pain, but when a lion disembowels a live antelope, why doesn't the LION concern itself with being the agent of agony to another creature? Why doesn't the lion pride quickly and compassionately kill their prey before consuming it. Our concern for creature suffering is anthropomorphic projection when actual observation of the subjects seems to indicate that this is outside of their salience landscape.......
People often say, “I’m not hurting anyone so it’s ok to sin (lying, stealing, sexual sins, disrespecting parents etc)” The same God who said to love your neighbour first said to love Him to the best of your ability. If you carry on sinning, then you do not love God but are selfish like the devil so you will be joined to your father in hell or repent of your sins and believe in Jesus as God so Jesus adopts you as His child and you will join Him in Heaven forever.
great conclusion
I also think Alex arguments regarding animal suffering is childish.
Also… saying “atheism is true” doesn’t make sense because atheism isn’t a comprehensive statement or claim about reality. It’s not like a religion or a scientific theory that makes testable assertions. It’s simply the absence of belief in gods. Until you recognize this, your debates will continue to miss the point and fail to address the actual arguments atheists are making.
Wrong. Atheism is the claim that “there is no God”, and that certainly is a statement about reality. This definition is completely normal and uncontroversial in academia (eg world leading atheists such as Graham Oppy affirm this definition). It’s only in sloppy internet discourse that the “lack of belief” spin has been circulated - usually as an attempt to muddy the waters.
@Horaciojonesjr if one lacks a belief in God(s), that means one doesn't believe God exists. That is a positive belief about the nature of reality that must be supported by evidence and reason.
@ the way you’ve phrased it is ambiguous, though. “Doesn’t believe in Gods” could mean “lacks belief in Gods”, or “BELIEVES THAT that there are no Gods”. It’s critical that we be as clear as possible with our terms here, because there’s a lot of obfuscation on this issue (take Christopher Hitchens, for example, who kept evading and filibustering in his cross-examination with William Lane Craig until finally, having been asked multiple times, he admitted that he holds the positive claim that God, and I quote, “does not exist”).
Cliffe is like a motivational speaker for people wanting to believe something is in control. Maybe try street preaching to the homeless or drunk people on the street.
@@PedroCarcamo101 He spends his time yelling at college kids.
I don't understand the use of the so called "development" model in atheist apologetics. Not only does it rely on you starting with the conclusion that "this is the order because it develops" before then showing the developments, but the developments aren't even consistent. You have to cherry pick to get the result you want.
Mark starts his Gospel by applying 2 prophecies about Yahweh to Jesus. If you read a different section of the crucifixtion account you get John having nothing of note happening, and Mark having the earthquake, darkness, and curtain ripping. If you take this section you would have to flip the order of development.
So it requires a bunch of apriori assumptions, and then cherry picking.
Not only that but Alex and atheist apologists like him argue that we don't know who the authors are and that the Gospels are full of contradictions. If you grant this aspect for the sake of argument it makes even less sense. Now you don't know if maybe Mark was first but was wrong and so John came in to correct mistakes. We see a little bit of John doing that in a sense where he corrects the misunderstanding people are getting from Matthew and Luke about him living forever.
This argument makes no sense. If the wholistic argument against the Gospels has to contain multiple things that don't work together and in fact are contradictory, then we should reject the argument and ignore atheist apologists when they make it.
The way Alex speaks just surgically cuts to the quick. Not emotional, no raised voice, comes across like a sniper's bullet. Cliffe and Stuart, loud, angry, smug, firing shotguns in all directions hoping for a hit somewhere, but usually getting themselves in the foot!
Cliffe's opening argument was pathetic! Just wild assertions without anything to back them up, most of the false dichotomies.
You seem to confuse atheism with a thing, it isn't, it's simply a term for people who do not have a belief in a god or gods.
We live in a world with all 7 things you mention, but they are not dependant on the biblical god! That's nonsense!
Even taken individually, those 7 realities are very unlikely on atheism (especially fine tuning and consciousness). If you don’t see the cumulative force of such arguments I’m not sure you’re fairly weighing the evidence.
@@SpeakLifeMedia About 2.3 billion Christians on a planet of 8,2 billion.
Where do the other 5.9 billion fit into this Christian myth?
Consciousness is an evolved trait. Or do you believe 1.2 billion Hindu get theirs from Vishnu? (Or maybe Brahma or Ganesh or Krishna or whomever)
We are here as a consequence of the universe being the way it is. We are not the reason it is like it is.
For me, intelligent design as an argument is defeated by Douglas Adams’s puddle.
@@scottgodlewski306 Absolutely!
@@mirandahotspring4019 I know he was addressing climate change but he ended up giving us a twofer.
The difficult passages of the OT, and they can be challenging, have nothing to do with whether God exists
Man, that is weak sauce by Alex. It’s like he just put on the village atheist hat with literalist nitpicking
I would have to Alex, after his opening statement, I would have to confirm we are talking about the God of the Bible
What a strange false dichotomy to set up notions of animals as either ‘pets’ or resources, completely overlooking the notion of animals as conscious beings that Phil is obviously working with.
13:15 arguably Confucius has been more followed than Jesus
Stuart and Cliff are telling the truth! God will win this battle! Cliff and Stuart are on the right side! God created this world and humans are his creation but we are fallen creatures and we need Gods salvation given by his Son Jesus Christ!
You clearly have more confidence in God than Cliff and Stuart do.
I wonder how Phil feels about abortion.
Merry Christmas Glen, I hope you had a happy winter solstice.
Whatever you do, don’t sit out on the ground in a field near Bethlehem tonight as it’s near freezing at midnight there and you’ll catch pneumonia.
It is mid winter after all. Only a drongo would be out in the fields there with a flock of sheep at midnight tonight and shepherds are not drongoes.
At least we know today that the days are getting shorter (me) or longer (you).
The water is warming up here and is good for swimming though the local prawn catch is right down.
Be positive with your Christmas sermon to your congregation. Go woke social justice and maybe use the sermon on the mount as your theme. Social justice is still needed, particularly as Christian nationalism is on the rise, and they really don’t like all that woke socialist baggage in the mount sermon. There’s an Anglican church I’ve gone past many times that has a “JUSTICE FOR REFUGEES” banner across its front fence. Woke social justice is alive and active in parts of Anglicanism.
Cheers Alan
PS I look forward to you having a discussion with Alex O’Connor in 2025. I’m sure Justin would moderate one. My philosophy chat group would like to have such a discussion as a topic for one of our meetings.
Why do you keep framing your argument with phrases like “if atheism is true” or suggesting that certain things “wouldn’t be expected if atheism is true”? These questions fundamentally misunderstand atheism and rest on a flawed premise.
Atheism isn’t a truth claim. It doesn’t assert any specific worldview or set of expectations about reality. Humans assert their person worldview. For example, Alex as an atheist has his individual view, so Alex speaks for Alex, not atheists. Some atheists believe in sprits, ancestors, which craft and all kinds of other things.
atheism is simply a position of not being convinced that a god or gods exist. That’s it. It’s not a comprehensive belief system, ideology, or explanatory framework-it’s the absence of belief in a deity, not a competing claim to theistic truth.
Once you set aside this misconception, it becomes clear that your approach to this discussion is problematic. You’re imposing expectations and assumptions on atheism that it doesn’t inherently entail. For instance, you argue that “if atheism is true, we wouldn’t expect (blank),” but atheism doesn’t prescribe what anyone should or shouldn’t expect about the universe. Atheists are individuals with diverse beliefs, philosophies, and perspectives, and the only thing we all have in common is a shared lack of belief in gods. Beyond that, there’s no unified “atheist worldview” or consensus on what the universe should look like.
Your argument conflates atheism with a worldview or philosophical system, which it isn’t. Once you address this misunderstanding, you may find the foundation of this video’s claims doesn’t hold up as neatly as you’ve framed it. Atheism is not a competing “truth” to theism-it’s a lack of belief in one specific type of claim, leaving everything else to be interpreted individually.
I suggest reconsidering how you frame atheism and atheists before building further arguments based on such assumptions.
In academic philosophy atheism is the belief that god or gods do not exist. And this remains the primary definition of the word in the overwhelming majority of English language dictionaries. Yes atheism isn't a comprehensive worldview. But it is a belief. And that belief that does have some logical consequences (such as that the universe is not deliberately designed).
And at least one of the two atheists in this debate (Alex O'Connor) has definitely moved away from using the lack of belief definition of atheism towards using the belief in non-existence.
@@fletcherchristian6522 No, you do not. I have no idea about any order of the universe. I still firmly state: evidence for christian god is not convicing. Maybe other supernatural beings actually exist? Well, it seems possible. I just don't know
@@fletcherchristian6522 i try not to use those words because they are confusing. I replied to your statements that:
"If there is no supernatural order, then there is only the natural order."
and
"The minute you deny God, you tacitly assert a vast array of things, whether you like it or not."
I disagree with both of them. Whether you want to call me atheist or agnostic (I use term atheist :))
@@fletcherchristian6522 I can't see my problem.
I deny existance of Christian god. I think there are very good arguments indicating that he does not and cannot exist. But i do not positivly claim that naturalism is true.
You: "No, no you don't... there may be other supernatural beings..."
And? They might or might not. I do not know.
But I would be happy to know what is "my problem" :)
@@fletcherchristian6522 "ou can't deny the supernatural order"
That's the thing: i don't do that.
I love cliff and stewart and frankly alex as well. I watch both their stuff frequently and this was very disappointing. I when people start asserting things as alex and cliff both do at times it gets hard to agree with their point.
@@timothytrudelle9245 I’m sorry you love the Knechtles.
10:18 how do you know we've seen everything, that's quite presumptuous
Reliance on rhetoric is listening to the same bad joke over and over.
Only an inconceivably tiny fraction of planets in the observable universe are suit to sustain life. Yet we are on such a planet! Is that not a crazy coincidence? - Obviously it's not, because we could only have evolved on such a planet. It could not have been otherwise.
Similarly, the universe needed to be set up in such a way that it could sustain sentient, or rather sapient life - otherwise intelligent beings wondering how they came about could not exist. In that sense, sapient life is in a sense inevitable, more inevitable even than an unstable universe, because an unstable universe would never know it existed.
Both as theists and atheists we can agree on this and stop misrepresenting each other for good.
( ﾟ_ゝﾟ)ﾉ Consciousness is the particle and wave double slit experiment. The cones and rods of your eyes preserve the particle and wave duality so your vision don't look like a flat screen television. It's supposed to be a violation of physics but it is the only exception in the whole universe.
It shouldn't be a dichotomy between atheism and the 'biblical God'. There is more to God than is contained in the Bible. The Bible only points the way as the way was perceived at the time.
@@michel-jeantailleur But isn’t the claim that contents aren’t perceived, that they’re inspired by God? I take that to mean revelation but I could be mistaken.
I held this revised view for a long time. I hate to say it though, but the inerrantists have a point. Given the stakes and the loving, powerful nature of God, we would expect Him to reveal His nature correctly the first time. Instead, people’s understanding of God is remarkably susceptible to the ideas of the times, exactly like the progression of any other religion.
Alex won't hit on islam but will hit on Christianity.
Good strategy to garner viewers?
Supernatural believers ALWAYS lose.
Why wouldn’t we expect to see a Universe? How do you know we are on the Earth for a purpose? Where’s your evidence?
Where's your evidence for the contrary?
@
I don’t need evidence for the contrary, but I’ll try one: The universe is, in fact, here. Nothing that I see, or experience, talks me that some entity created the universe, rather the laws of physics demonstrate how the universe was created and it exists in connection with those laws. No creator needed.
@@docsmith9915 Well, in fairness, you could understand why people look for a source for the universe, since our own experience of the world tells us that all things have an origin. And even naturalistic explanations that try to replace God (e.g. multiverse, eternal universe, etc.) are theories that drift into the abstract and feel like they require as much 'faith' (not fundamentally a religious word, but we can use trust instead if need be) as belief in God does; at present these theories have just as much confirming evidence (that a naturalist may accept) as God does.
@@docsmith9915expect has the meaning of "This is my model and those are the expected results based on my model."
If you see the solution and just assume your model is correct, because the solution exists, then that is bad philosophical reasoning.
Of course it is always possible to say: "For the sake of the argument, let's grant A and B an only look at my model after those are present." But if you do that then your model cannot cover all the facts. And if you do that then you are hypocritical, if you don't allow your opponent to do the same.
@
Except there absolutely is no evidence for a God, but one can mathematically duplicate models of the multiverse and string theory. There is no model or mathematical proof for a god.
Clever Title.. But this video is just damage control. Easy to put forth confident sounding apologetics when nobody is sitting across from you.
(* ´ ▽ ` *)ﾉ The human body is burly, gnarly and surly like a fractal.
( ･ω･)ﾉ It's intelligently designed that if you master evolution it just makes you a baby doctor.
At the end of the day what we have are different perceptions. As you are a Christian your perception of the world falls in line with Christianity being true. But same goes for people of other religions - their perception falls in line with their respective religion. And you expect differently if atheism is true. And I expect differently if Christianity was true. I expected a contemporary account of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection, especially if that was the most important event in the history of mankind. And I expect that textual account to be protected forever. Yes, excuses can be constructed as to why there are other religions, or why we are still debating this 2000 years later.
So, everything you said in the first 15 mins or so about the way you'd perceive the world if atheism were true, I disagree with. A lot of incredulity.
But the idea that God created us for his own entertainment and to be amused at us when he baits and manipulates us, is not off the table.