Is it God’s Fault I’m an Atheist?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 16 вер 2023
- This clip is taken from an exchange between Trent Horn and Alex O'Connor, available in full here: • Why I Am/Am Not a Chri...
To support me on Patreon (thank you): / cosmicskeptic
To donate to my PayPal (thank you): www.paypal.me/cosmicskeptic
- SPECIAL THANKS
As always, I would like to direct extra gratitude to my top-tier patrons:
John Early
Dmitry C.
Mouthy Buddha
Solaf
- CONNECT
My Website/Blog: www.cosmicskeptic.com
SOCIAL LINKS:
Twitter: / cosmicskeptic
Facebook: / cosmicskeptic
Instagram: / cosmicskeptic
Snapchat: cosmicskeptic
The Within Reason Podcast: podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast...
- CONTACT
Business email: contact@cosmicskeptic.com
Or send me something:
Alex O'Connor
Po Box 1610
OXFORD
OX4 9LL
ENGLAND
------------------------------------------
Hiddenness is only a problem when you are punished for not finding god. It's like playing hide and seek, but the seeker gets tortured if they don't win.
I don't see punishment as necessary or even reasonable for " not finding God". From my understanding, those who do find God and reject his invitation to "follow me", have freely chosen to "turn away".
Humanity reveals a life of tears. Is the afterlife any better? That's why I reject "the seeker gets tortured".
@@johnbrzykcy3076the seeker is still getting tortured but you're basically saying they deserved it for turning away
@@johnbrzykcy3076 Oh yes, if I were god, I wouldn't create Hell and then set people up to go there. That would be monstrous.
Are you freely choosing to turn from god if you don't think he exists? It seems like hiddenness necessarily eliminates freedom in this case.
@@finntastic3711 We all deserve punishment. It's justice. So if someone dies and goes to Hell, that is justice.
nobody deserves to have the most heinous torture, worse than anything ever done on Earth, inflicted on them for eternity bc they were otherwise good ppl who did not believe in God
I looked at the comments on the full discussion over on Capturing Christianity, and many of them were complimentary/appreciative of Alex's conduct. I'd like to bring that energy over here and say that Trent Horn seems very genuine and understanding. I disagree with him, but it's always useful to have a back and forth with someone like Trent, to make sure you're getting the other's points correct. He's not the type to degrade the conversation when it might suit him and I appreciate that. For a talk to be productive you need both parties on board, and this is a good example of that kind of genuine intellectual interest that allows for productivity. Thanks Trent and Alex
Agreed!
Trent is a good faith actor.
CC is one of the most dishonest christian channels you can find. He never makes a single honest point even when someone explains anything he instantly lies about it, misrepresents it or goes on some dumb rant. His gullible zealots arent that different.
@@Z4r4szHere is the generic negativity comment without substance lol. Examples? Or just braindead negativity because someone doesn't share your opinion?
@@andresdanielem Nice projecting, douchebag.
As a victim of torture, I know first hand that there is nothing that could be learned that would be worth being tortured. There is absolutely no justification.
What a silly statement!
Torture is wrong in all its forms. I 100% agree.
Sorry to hear that and I hope you are doing better now.
There is a lot of insight and things you can learn from the nature of torture. For instance I have gone through terrible toxic narscisstic relationship with my mom and my family most of my life and it made me adapt in a way that other people did not so in a sense I feel like it gave me superpower or sixth sense. I am immensly aware of people emotion. It made me a very empath. The idea here is to overcome the evil. IT is the overcoming part that sthengthen your character. If your whole life went comfortably without any issue then you will not learn nor grow.
@@noorzanayasmin7806Glad that you were able to gain Something from your suffering. But there's other cases like a child being abducted, tortured raped and killed. What could that child ever gain from that? Even If you argue the Patents would raise awareness of Kidnapping, the child suffered without redemption.
"epistemic distance" giving more freedom is nonsensical and immoral. Imagine a doctor in a clinical trial saying they will not give more information to patients so that "they have more freedom to decice on whether or not to take part in the study." I would like to see the Ethics Committee that is okay with that. More information gives you a more informed decision, hence informed consent and the possibility to keep asking further questions throughout any clinical trial.
Yeah, it's always "God can't prove he's real or it ruins free will" and yet their book is full of God walking around and speaking through tornadoes and proving his existence to people and people still choosing to rebel against him...
@@JD-wu5pf And the same theists who make that argument use their experience with god encounters to claim he is real. But somehow their free will wasnt violated. Its so absurd.
Christians making this claim are just plain dishonest. There is no way around that.
No evidence is enough in the end. It can always be countered with 'oh it was a hallucination, oh it can be explained away by natural laws, oh it happened thousands of years ago, oh it was unreliable witnesses'
Even if God were to realign the stars, made His power explicit and made everyone today believe and worshipped him, generations thousands of years later will say oh we were hallucinating, we were unreliable etc.
I believe in God because of the Catholic Church and her witness all the way from the beginning to Christ, his works, miracles and mission. Because of her martyrs, her impact on the culture thousands of years ago to today.
And it makes sense to me that God chose the Church to manifest Himself for these past 2 thousand years. As for why, all i can say is i have faith this is the best way to win humanity back in relationship to God
@@Z4r4szthat is a fantastic point. Christians who believe that it wouldn’t be right for god to just reveal himself to Alex must also believe that all instances of god revealing himself to others are fake, all religious experiences Christians have were not real.
Imagine having visions of heaven, visions of angels, and having a deeper understanding of jesus and god....spanning a few months....and coming to realize you were experiencing a bipolar manic episode. Yeah, that didn't bring me closer to god, just made realize more that god and the afterlife is a condition of the mind.
Science is where the best, objective evidence of God is found.
Are you smart enough to understand a science argument, Steve?
@@20july1944a “science argument”? And condescendingly asking if this person is smart enough to understand you? Oof, not a great start if you’re looking to convince anyone. Perhaps try showing a little Christian humility and kindness, because you didn’t start with any of that here.
Stevegovea1 Good for you for understanding this!
@@aaronmueller1560 Most people don't understand much science, and I'm being insulting to get a nonpassive response
Or take drugs as an example, LSD, mushrooms or Ketamine, this kinda Stuff. I had such ''seeing god'' kinda experiences while on them back in the days. They can be really vivid, but once you realise it would be a pretty impotent god that needs this kind of tools to get through you, rather then through real experiences or even miracles, everything falls apart. And just like you said before, it's you, your condition of mind that makes those things up, and not an omnipotent all knowing being.
Hey, I'm a Christian,but I can't get enough of your content, Alex. You're such a young guy, which really impresses me you can compete at such a high level. You're a fascinating person, and I'm learning so much from your page. I think I'm sick of bad arguments and excuses from christians. I want the most challenging person to ask these questions. You are unforgivingly inquisitive
Do you believe in heaven and hell? If you went to heaven but knew people you were close to such as, loved ones, friends etc. were in hell, how could you actually 'enjoy' heaven, it would never feel pleasurable because I would be too concerned about how what my friends were going through in hell.
Yeah those two ideals can't co-exist, you can't have your cake and eat it too by sitting on both the table of authoritarian religion that crushes questioning of it and the table that quite rightly rejects the unproven notion of it.
@@firehot006hell wasn't even a real place until Dante conceived it to be in his 14th century poem dantes inferno, before that it was never called the gates of hell but the mouth of hell as in the dangers of speaking with evil intentions, heaven is also not a real place it is the mental space that Joseph of the middle east inhabited when he consumed the smoke of the burning Bush of the acacia tree which is rich in DMT.
Ingesting this chemical rockets the users consciousness into a space where you are experiencing the "divine" which he sermonsised as being "god".
@@firehot006 Yeah, I've considered all you said, and I think either I don't care about people as much as I think, or I just don't really believe in heaven/hell, God and the afterlife. Maybe I'm in denial... Honestly, I don't want to think about it too hard anymore because I don't really reach a conclusion. I know a lot of Christians like this. That's why people like me just kind of keep to themselves when it comes to their belief in Christianity... Ultimately we define our reality and moral system based on practical notions of pain avoidance and ideals towards the greater good. So don't think most Christians are that much different than the average person who doesn't think about these things.
@@Paulstrickland01 Actually you can; it's called cognitive dissonance. It's sort of a limbo state. If you're being honest, you hold many similar belief structures, especially as a "skeptic." What is truth?
Would love to see you & Trent Horn sit down and chat again. Your discussions are always fascinating and mind-provoking!
Excellent, respectful discussion with very plausible and fair responses to each other, thoroughly enjoyed
6:32 shifting to an argument for “free will” and away from the challenge posed which was: why would God not reveal the truth to honest people earnestly seeking the truth?
If you're really searching, and wanting to be a Christian, you know you can just accept the truth of the propositions, right? And start living in accordance with them? Like, you can actually do that, you don't need a sign or an experience.
No, people say this, but there's a deeper- but no less free- will choosing to disregard the testimony of all those who came before and not wanting to die to themselves.
@@wondergolderneyes I search to know what is true. How can you know what is true without any experience or signs of what is true?
@@wondergolderneyesNot right. Apparently some people can believe whatever they want to believe but not everyone's beliefs are so easily shaped by their wants. Apparently Alex has beliefs that need more coaxing than merely wanting in order for them to shift
@@wondergolderneyesYou can also just accept the truth of the propositions of Islam too, just saying.
@@abdmznor judaism. I would like to see people of different religions explain why they chose to believe in their religion and why they wouldn't shift to another one, and discuss this same point with people who have shifted
"i feel a command to help others"
my brother in christ, thats an emotion called empathy
Its not an inherent human emotion though. If you are an atheist, which I presume you are, think about this through the lens of evolution. Humans are selfish creatures and it is not an evolutionary advantage to place others over self. You were looking at his statement in 2D.
That’s a low blow my brother in Christ. He’s saying there’s an innate feeling we have the help others without good reason, almost the opposite of Alex’s stance on his refuting of God because suffering is his opinion unjustified in some cases, the same way it may seem unjustified it exists, it’s like the ultimate red pill lol. If God real why bad thing happen? Nah if God not real why good thing happen 🤙🤙🤙 Get it bro?
Excellent job tackling the arguments and explaining your position.
Before the age of 10 at my school the nuns told us that fear of god in enough justification for us not to sin. I twigged at that age that all they were doing was justifying using corporal punishment.
Not even just "using corporal punishment" but systematically hurting and abusing children.
@@hartyewh1Yeah Martin Luther said they had problems in the 1500s.
Life gives you pain if you aren't careful. Smart people learn BEFORE life gives them pain. Average people learn AFTER life gives them pain. Stupid people never learn even after life's pain happens. Corporal punishment is for average people. That way they learn what actions are painful before life itself teaches them they're painful. A boy getting paddled by a nun after cussing her out is a much better way to learn to not cuss someone out than a young adult getting a beating from a 250 pound thug after cussing him out. Better to have a sore behind for an hour than a broken rib, broken jaw, and a large hospital bill. But it's best to just not cuss anyone out to begin with. Few people are that smart though, even after lots of verbal instruction and warning.
@@theboombody This is so stupid it's impressive. Don't have kids and I assume your parents ought to have skipped it too.
@@theboombody I think you're leaving out the fact that there are several non-violent, less severe courses of action that could potentially be taken instead of going straight to the physical violence option, like scolding someone, shaming them by making them stand outside the class, making them sit far away from their friends, detention etc.
Of course there are some stubborn kids who just don't get the point until it's been whacked into them, but that should be the last option in my view.
Whatever Alex believes ...he makes an enormous contribution to the promotion of civility and good manners ..
He has grown up surrounded by Christian values and friends, and it shows. I like him.
Like Dawkins and many others, he seems to love truth, and has been brought up to believe that it is superlative, perhaps worth more than his own life. Unfortunately the atheist system of thought cannot recreate this worldview without recourse to Christian presuppositions so it is more rare than it once was in the west.
That kind of stubbornness to truth is essentially Christian or close to it. Such attitudes were deemed troublesome and worthy of death pre-Christianity. A report from a roman leader basically said they had killed some early Christians simply for refusing to deny Christ after three opportunities because he thought such behaviour either stupid or rebellious.
"There is only one happiness: to please Him. Only one sorrow, to be
displeasing to Him, to refuse Him something, to turn away from Him, even in
the slightest thing, even in thought, in a half-willed movement of appetite: in
these things, and these alone, is sorrow, in so far as they imply separation, or
the beginning, the possibility of separation from I lim Who is our life and all
our joy. And since God is a Spirit, and infinitely above all matter and all
creation, the only complete union possible, between ourselves and Him, is in
the order of intention: a union of wills and intellects, in love, charity."
Thomas Merton "The Seven Storey Mountain"
@@joannware6228Unfortunately there is no evidence that any God exists, let alone the one that you were brought up to believe in.
His belief system is based on evidence. Atheism isn't a belief in itself, it's just a rejection of things that are asserted as truth but based on nothing but conjecture.
@@MrJ2theC No evidence. Really. Wow what a breakthrough. Where did you learn that? Atheism Kindergarten? Mickey Mouse philosophy.
Police Officer: Maam why did you let your kid walk off that cliff?
Christian Lady: I love him so much that I didn't want to violate his free will.
Actually, uhm, you don't have free will. This question has been answered already by neuroscience. The decision to do anything happens in the brain before a person is aware of it and thinks they have made a decision. Look it up. No one has free will.
Almost as if there’s more to life than mortality. Crazy idea right?
@@scottm4975you've got a lot of work to do to justify the idea that we live on after death in your specific god's afterlife. Better get started, it could take a while.
@@scottm4975
There's a cliff waiting for you, why don't you show us how strong your faith is?
@@scottm4975no there's no more living after dying. that's like the definition of dying
listening to these two, smart and fair people disagreeing and arguing but seeking truth, being fair, is a breath of fresh air. love ‘em both
I just want to applaud both parties of the conversation for letting each other finish what they are saying and staying respectgul
It’s so weird that when it’s time to tell kids that Santa isn’t real, they instantly get it, mourn about it for a day or two, and move on. But when we tell adults that god isn’t real, we go to philosophy, analogies, arguments about reason, evidence, and hours upon hours of argument, and they still don’t get it.
No one wants to hear you are a meat puppet with no free will
biggest brain atheist argument on the internet right here
This is the most braindead argument and pathetic attempt to downplay God that I've ever seen. The mere comparison between Santa and God and why we debate the existence of God is as childish as you can get. Then they ask why God doesn't reveal to them smh. Maybe the one who doesn't get it here is you mate.
@@andresdanielem It's how rational adults see you. It might hurt, but it's the truth. You genuinely sound like people who still believe in Santa, even after being repeatedly told that Santa was made up to placate you as a child. "No, no," you think to yourself. "Santa MUST exist. He punishes naughty people, and that kind of justice NEEDS to exist in this world, otherwise what was all this suffering for?"
Sorry bud. Your high school bully got presents on Christmas, too. Hitler and Gandhi ended up in the same place... the ground. Divine justice doesn't exist, and there is nothing after this life. The healthy thing to do is swallow that tough pill and make the most of your limited time on earth.
probably because there are actually good arguments for Gods existence and reasons to believe it, whereas for santa there are not. The north and south poles are both barren deserts. They are monitored with radar 24/7 by independent countries around the world, and a flying sleigh has never even once been caught on said radar. Also it is objectively a mythological story that is self admittedly completely made up. But great straw man.
Free will is not mentioned in the bible once. The fact the bible claims god knows everything before it happens and that his will will always be done cuts clearly against the notion that god wants us to have free will.
Also - around 6:14 he says that if you see police lights behind you, you slow down not because you have consideration for the other drivers, but because you don't want to get caught.
Just in that one sentence there is a lot to unpack. Reverse first: You're already caught. That's what the lights mean. You slow down because you don't want to make things worse than they already are. You want to obey the rules to limit damage. Second, by bringing this example up in relation to the idea of "divine hiddenness", he's implying that if you KNEW god was there, you'd change your behaviour.
Well, isn't that the point? If you KNEW there were consequences to your actions that you would change your actions? Christians keep saying that "God doesn't send you to hell, you send yourself." But of course that's ridiculous. Even accepting the whole christian premise is true and that God & hell do exist, God is still sending you to hell by CHOOSING to not forgive you. We don't have any evidence that he exists and he chooses not to provide any, so if we don't believe the story due to lack of evidence that HE failed to provide, that's on HIM, not US.
You can't make a correct decision unless you have the facts. If you were going to sit down to a meal, and you could choose chocolate cake or a salad, which would you choose, and why? The cake because it's delicious, or the salad because it's healthy? How about if the cake were delicious AND healthy and the salad still tasted like a salad but was now actually somehow bad for you? Would you still eat the salad?
In other words, are you deciding which to eat based on the consequences you will experience afterwards (healthy vs unhealthy) or base on the pleasure you may or may not feel now (delicious vs bleah). If the consequencs changed, would you change your choice? By hiding himself (if he exists), god is denying us the necessary information for making an informed decision, so he's literally sending us to hell because of this.
Sin can't be in heaven. It would ruin it. So you have to turn away from sin in order to enter heaven's gates. No other way. And to turn away from sin you have to be willing. If you're not willing to turn away from sin no matter what, why would you want to go to a place that won't allow it? If you think sin is like Disneyland you'll never love heaven. Might as well not go there.
It is possible to hate sin and still not believe in God. A lot of atheists really seem to hate the sin of lying.
@@theboombody The problem is that i dont know whats true, so i depend on my reasoning and evidence around me to come to what i think are logical conclusions. I have no good reason to believe in the claims of the bible because they have the same evidence most other religions do. I cant choose to believe in something im not convinced of first, so i cant turn away from heaven and choose sin if i have no idea if they even exist. Its not an open choice its a misinformed\hidden one.
@@theboombodyWhat do you mean "sin can't be in heaven"? You seem to know an awful lot about the mechanics of heaven. Heaven isn't even what you seem to think it is. First, there is no "heaven" - the "pearly gates" that everyone knows about are actually on a cubic "city" that God will supposedly lower to earth after he scorches it during Judgement Day (lol - he promised after the flood never to drown the world again, but he never said he wouldn't TORCH it! God is such a LOL troll).
So the pearly gates etc are actually in a city that will drop onto where Jerusalem is now. The city's description is pretty funny - it projects 900 miles above the atmosphere, so I hope everyone has a space suit, because it's not enclosed or pressurised.
@@kevinsanchez-fr3pg Out of curiosity, how did you come to the conclusion that the Bible has the same evidence most other religions do? What do you consider evidence?
@@Sammy-Dontpassmeby When i say same evidence as others im reffering to the idea that almost no religion is falsifiable, it cant be tested to be true or not because it has certain supernatural elements. Id say evidence needs to fit the severity of the claim. For example the claim that i own a dog is not impressive at all as many people own them and its extremely common. Now i could very well be lying however many people would trust just my word alone based on the prior experiences and history of this occuring with others. Making the claim that im keeping a dragon locked up in my garage is far far more impressive than a dog so i require incredible evidence to match the claim, most people would demand specific proof like showing you the beast itself where they didnt have the same inclination with the dog. The god claim is the highest claim any claim can possibly be. and its evidence does not match it.
9:37 Notice how his previously confident posture he had while he himself was talking, kinda falls apart when Alex's getting to the hard to talk about and moralic questions of the realtionship of humans and god?
Noticed that too.
That’s the brightest background to a set I’ve ever seen
"Humans who suffer have a dignity and a value that animals do not." weird thing to say.
Right? That incensed me.
You clearly value human life more than animals
fabulous as always
Imagine if a parent gave their child "epistemic distance" to decide whether their parents existed or not.
This doesn’t make sense
My perfectly healthy older brother died at birth because the umbilical cord strangled him to death. I can either believe in all powerful God had some special mysterious reason for that to happen. Or I could just realize it’s just part of the natural world. I choose to believe that it’s part of just natural processes that happen. no all loving Go would allow something so horrible to happen, makes no sense at all.
Maybe he was a monster in waiting -- who knows?
Think on how it has affected your life and that of your family. Also, even if I believe in God, I don't think he micromanages everything to that extreme, and accidents are a part of our reality, or maybe our medical knowledge isn't advanced enough and he could've been saved in other situations. There are lots of variables and things we can't control.
@@20july1944 Apart from this being a horrible thing to say...... then why didn't Hitler or Stalin etc die at birth? Oh...it is all part of "god's plan"? Yeah, right...
@@Dan_Capone He certainly micromanages shit in a way that you get told what parts of your body to cover in church, what food to eat and not eat and your sex life. Or at least we are told he is very, very concerned with it and if you do not adhere to these rule...off to the lake of fire you go. Plus he is apparently also omnipotent and allknowing...how can he not micromanage everything? So in short...stop giving excuses....and if you start letting him off the hook, why pray and believe at all in him?
@@20july1944 *_"Maybe he was a monster in waiting -- who knows?"_*
This from the group of people who pretend to be the only moral people in the entire cosmos... Absolutely disgusting!
I'd love to see Trent demonstrate how it is patently obvious free will exists, that should be good. No doubt there is more to it than just feelings.
Spoiler alert: it's feelings all the way down 😂
Do you have a conscience, MQ? I'd say a conscience is good evidence of a free will.
@@20july1944 Agree to disagree.
@@20july1944Even now no one fully understands what consciousness is so I wouldn't use it as justification for free will.
@@20july1944 watch Sam Harris' talk on the topic and then think again
I really like Trent Horn convos with ppl like Alex & Destiny. Idk if I’d necessarily say all his arguments are “good faith” but he’s super respectful and has a thought out train of logic that he’s willing to explain and engage with. It’s very refreshing compared to some other kinds of debates you can find online lol.
he's just another two-faced apologist, when no one is looking he's an atheist basher same as his youtube mates - never trust a christian. he's never respectful when he thinks atheists aren't listening - "new christian" subs, likes, patrons, revenue.
if you want to be a good christian, be atheist.
I agree, he actually brings some new interesting arguments to the table unlike vomiting the same stuff that has been debunked 10000 times.
Never seen him before but I thought his arguments in this video were pretty pathetic in all honesty.
@@fantasypgatour And OP didn't say they weren't, they just said they enjoyed his willingness to explain his train of thought.
@@fantasypgatourwatch more. Trent is pretty good. And i am no Catholic
I love this…when you questions gods motivations religious folks will say “well who am I to question gods motivations?”….who am I to question? I’m the one that god put here and I’m the one who is enduring this life of regular suffering. That’s who I am. I have some stake in this life. It’s like me saying to my child when they question my judgement “who are you to question me?” ….The child should say “who am I? I’m your child and you chose to have me and your choices and motivations matter very much to me so please explain why I have to go to school or can’t eat sugar before bed. Explain it to me. Make it make sense because I’m learning and it’s important you train me well so I don’t suffer more”…..That’s when I would stay silent and just tell them to go read the book I wrote 20 years ago, all the answers are in that book.
This makes sense under normal circumstances if the individual is talking about some random intelligent being that's extremely powerful. However the God Trent is thinking about is identical to goodness itself. When you're thinking about the perfect light or pure unlimited goodness that context to what Trent is saying. Like who am I to question God. The issue is you're not looking at the conversation in this context.
@@supermandefender where in the bible does god actually embody goodness? He's clearly a cruel, petty jerk from cover to cover - simply asserting otherwise doesn't do much to improve his characterization.
@@aosidh
It's in the New Testament. Jesus is equated with actually being the "light" on numerous occasion.
For example, John chapter 3 verse 19 it says "and this is the judgment: the light come into the world and people and people loved darkness rather than the light because their deeds were evil."
The follow verse John 3:18 specifically talks about those who believe in Jesus and those who don't so it's clearly referring to Jesus as being "the light". You will also notice it equivocates light and darkness with good and evil.
Anyway passages like these are althroughout the new testament.
@@supermandefender you can't fix a whole old testament about god murdering babies by asserting that his son/self persona is good. Actions speak louder than words, you know?
Nonsense. @@supermandefender
One thing that strikes me whenever a believer says “who are we to question the will of god” like this fellow did when arguing that only god can know his reasons for allowing suffering, as a rebuttal against Alex asking for just one experience, is this: If people who believe can point to their own anecdotal experience to say they KNOW god exists, why do atheists just have to believe without having such an experience? Simply because supposedly we can’t questions god’s will? Would the believer still believe without their experience? Or would they questions god’s will too? Faith is a funny thing. If you don’t have it, no explanation will suffice but if you do have it, no explanation is necessary.
Very well said. I never thought about that way. I guess with that in mind, anyone who claims that a personal experience with god contributed in any way to their certainty of his existence isn't truly working off of faith alone. If they don't have to work off of faith alone, why do I?
His comment on questioning god makes sense though, if he claims the god is all knowing then his knowledge would be way beyond our understanding. I don't see this as a logical problem, but say for a second that the god does not exist. Someone created the perfect manipulation system to make people do whatever they want under the excuse of "god is all knowing".
@@OmniversalInsect The establishment of most religions were achieved with persecution/control/ostracizing the people, using their illiteracy against them and forbidding dissent. No manipulation necessary. These days it persists because it became so widespread to begin with and most believers are either raised into it and told to interpret their lives through that lens (indoctrinating kids has been an effective way of inculcating strong beliefs) or by way of a person’s need to find meaning and comfort to reconcile their experiences. No manipulation necessary.
Its easier than that. Just says you are not questioning God, you're questioning the human that claims to speak for god.
@@dannielz6 Of course. Because until I have such an experience to which I can confidently ascribe to a god, the human need to understand things naturally seeks a logical explanation for the claim being made. I can accept other people believe and leave it at that. However, when I’m asked to believe because this other person believes because they had this one experience; I’m going to need more than “trust me bro” as evidence and will absolutely question their story.
If I had my own experience though, one that convinced me, I have no one to question but myself, hence why an atheist would ask to have their own experience. This is why I find it hypocritical to be told I can’t question god’s will by someone who already believes. They had an experience I didn’t have. And if god gave us free will and he does things in his own time, in his own way and he speaks to open hearts differently; all I can do is wait and keep an open mind.
Thus far though, despite my efforts to pray worship and believe; I haven’t ever felt that thing called faith. Which is why I find the parable I used earlier so compelling. “If you don’t have faith, no explanation will suffice but if you do, no explanation is necessary.”
Believers would not have me question their faith if they didn’t insist I must believe because “insert personal anecdotal experience here” and tell me I can’t question the will of the god they want me to believe in when I ask why I haven’t had my own sign like they had.
It’s so annoying when people hand wave issues away by linking them back to “the fall”
“Why do we have tonsil stones and wisdom teeth?”
The fall
“Why is god hiding and making it very difficult for innocent people to find him?”
The fall…
Science is where the best, objective evidence of God is found.
I won't refer to the fall, and I don't claim the Bible is inerrant.
Are you educated enough to discuss some science?
@@20july1944weird how science works without that hypothesis then.
@@justadude7752 Science can't explain the beginning of the universe nor the beginning of living things.
So. no it doesn't explain observable reality.
@@20july1944 So how exactly can it contain evidence for the existence of god? (the "best, objective" evidence)
@@20july1944 an assertion of: "herpy derp God done it" also is no explanation. It's simply an empty assertion that doesnt explain anything about the phenomena. Youre the same sort of people who would have said that thunder and lightning could not be explained and therefore it makes sense to say thor or zeus exist and explain them. They dont...
Id love to see Hitchens and Alex debate religion on the same "team".
They have very different ways of attacking the problem.
I think it would be interesting to see how they compliment each other.
Hitchens would come in with more of a nuclear style showing the downfalls of Religion.
Alex could come in and make mincemeat of the reply or opening statement by beautifully picking it apart.
Perhaps what is perceived as hiddeness is attributable to how amenable one is to the usage of certain terms and one's preexisting notions and biases.
Did trent forget that he believes in an omnipresent god who is already watching over everything you do even though he already knows what you will do before you do it?
No he did'nt.I'm sure you think there is self watching and choosing actions before they happen.Equally bogus
@@daviddeida that was pretty incoherent, please try again
@@nickrondinelli1402 Pretty simple,you think you exist and there is no evidence for it.
@@daviddeidaAre you talking about the belief that every action in the universe is predetermined or set down a certain path?
@@doug2555 No,predetermined or not,there is no you choosing the action,a pseudo entity claims authorship of the action.This entity we identify as ourselves,though there is no evidence for its existence.
Book of Job is kind of the go-to book for understanding pointless suffering. The dentistry analogy is very good and is making me think, but ultimately the parent-child analogy does fall short when you consider that God is a different kind of person than us. He is not a being among us, but the ultimate source of our being.
He he has asked us earnestly to love and trust him, which we should, but this is different than letting an abusive parent beat their child because “they may have good reason”. The creator and sustainer of this universe asks us to trust him despite the suffering in the world, and we get to choose what to do. If you choose to love God, you will be rewarded with perfect knowledge of and unity with him. If not, you will spend eternity in darkness and alone.
or another way : you can experience harm as a learning experiences, but you learn nothing if the harm kill you.
.. but even if you die, your population and/or its genes might still learn from the event that killed you.
@@Apollorionand forget about it in next generation. We lost 16 million people in The Great Patriotic War. You would think we learn the bitterness of war, but look where we are... Fighting for 2 years in war that make no fuking sense.
If a population's genes learn, they won't forget very quickly.
Zenkai boost philosophy??
@@whelperw what’s the great patriotic war? Is this the soviet in the eastern front?
finally, a debate thats calm and doesn't consist of two men shouting at each other
Alex O’Connor, you’re amazing. Thank you.
Agnosticism is the way.
Agnosticism is epistemic cowardice and hypocrisy.
@@albsol3478how😂😂😂😂are you sure about that
@@ShapeShifter1800 yeah, is a blatant double standard.
An atheist is someone who doesnt believe there is a god. And an agnostic is someone who doesnt know that they are atheist.
There's no such thing as agnosticism, you can't believe in God without religion, since the idea and definition of god itself are coming from religion.
so glad you finally had miles teller on
Someone else must have mentioned it. The Bible explicitly states “seek and you shall find”. As a child, I was told that God/Jesus was knocking on the door of my heart and all I had to do was open and let Him in.
None of that is remotely compatible with the experience of earnest nerdy teenage Christians who become atheists/non-believers.
Bruh they would tell you that you had “epistemic skill issues” today
They just "nuh-uh" the idea of non-resistant non-believers. They victim blame saying that every single non-believer secretly doesn't want to believe because apparently they know what's in everyone's mind better than the actual person does.
@@Nymaz i've always been atheist, if there is a god then he seems okay with me bad mouthing him cos i've had a "blessed life", all i want is the question answered so religists will stop trying to dictate their stupid laws, if there turns out to be a god then A) i don't see what difference it will make B) i'll deal with it when it happens. (if hell is real then sure, i'll sign up, same as EVERY OTHER religist does) but i really couldn't care less what the answer is, i just want the answer - and looking in the bible isn't going to help, it's not helped anyone.
@@HarryNicNicholasHah, exactly my position, I've never seriously believed in a God even if I'm not a proper atheist or nor do I do any religious stuff like praying or visiting temples (yeah, I'm Hindu, which according to many Christians means that I don't know the one true God), and I've had a blessed life. Perhaps that's why I've never needed to find God or religion? I don't know, but apart from giving me comfort, I don't think praying or believing in a higher power makes much of a difference.
What if your experience was not Him knocking, but rather a need of a nerdy child/teenager to fit in? (using your example)
This sort of experience is not Christian exclusive, nor is it even exclusive to those with religious beliefs.
It is absolutely great that you have had this experience (I mean this whole heartedly), and it reinforces your faith, but to many it's something we've seen before, and will not be received as the absolute unquestionable evidence you believe it to be.
Regardless, wishing you all the best.
If god wanted us to have true free will, god would remove the threat of damnation. If you were held at gunpoint and threatened with death if you didn't comply with their commands, it's more than likely you'd comply.
Good point. Christianity resembles coercion under duress more than free will.
to be fair though, in the christian/catholic view free will creates death/damnation not God. God isn't arbitrarily sending people to hell, He simply gives free will and we have the freedom to not choose him. Hell is just the absence of God.
@@entropy7958I’m not sure how you can simultaneously say god gives you free will, while saying an omniscient god created you. If a god knows everything, every single action you would take before he created you, then created you with those actions known to him, you have zero free will.
I mean, if god knows you will end up in heaven or hell, before he creates you, how do you change that?
If you changed your path god knew when he created you, then you’re conceding god isn’t omniscient because he would have been wrong about your future.
I also say that the most free will choice you can make is one where you have all the objective information involved in that choice. A person who wants to manipulate you would hide information, put a time limit on the choice, and threaten repercussions if you don't make the "right" choice. Sound familiar?
Would love to see you reconnect with Destiny on some broader stuff! Also if you can manage to talk to Dennett that would be fantastic
May I ask, is this an older recording or is it quite recent? When and where was it recorded?
It is a year old recording by Capturing Christianity on UA-cam. You can get more info on their website. A brief Google search can take you there 👌
It’s good for parents to give their children distance… but you don’t question whether or not your parents ever existed.
I love my mom. I don’t necessarily want to be around her 24/7, but I’d be heartbroken if she chose to distance herself from me to the point where I never got to see her again.
I see my mom mostly every weekend… why can’t I visit god from time to time?
I 100% agree! That's where I think Trent misunderstood Alex's point. Nobody's asking god to run our lives for us, just to be the loving father he is claimed to be
@@polyurethanesealantyou see there's your problem- you don't want God to run your life. But Jesus asks us to die to ourselves and live for him wholeheartedly, without being lukewarm or double-minded. God completely reorders our priorities so that culture mocks, it always has.
God could give you the world but as long as you're scared to do that it will just be added to the reject mountain. Have a look at what you already have, have a listen to the testimony of others, both now, and through history, right down to the very people who lived and walked with Jesus.
@@wondergolderneyes
Let's structure this in the form of a logical syllogism with premises and a conclusion, then you can indicate which specific premises you disagree with that would invalidate the derived conclusion ........
*Premise one*
The Christian God is said to be morally perfect, loving, omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent.
*Premise two*
Belief in this specific god is required to prevent an eternal torture and attain salvation.
*Premises three*
The Christian God wants all to know of his existence and thus be saved.
*Premise four*
The Christian God would have both the ability and desire to demonstrate his existence to all.
*Premise five*
More that three quarters of the world population do not think the Christian God exists.
*Conclusion*
The Christian God as described does *NOT* exist
@@trumpbellend6717 this argument is the same kind as just the general deductive argument from suffering- one that no serious atheist philosopher uses anymore because it doesn't hold water. And the reason it doesn't hold is not necessarily that the premises aren't true but that the conclusion doesn't follow. God having the ability does not necessitate that he use it, he might have other reasons unknown to us at of yet for remaining hidden to at least some level. Then additionally, your specific premise 4.5? (You missed a step) could be argued to be false and that God has demonstrated his existence to everyone through creation and to many people through the person of Jesus.
@@wondergolderneyes
// "does not necessitate that he use it" //
Logically incoherent, a perfect moral omnipotent beings desire for his creation not to suffer because of a lack of belief would be irreconcilable with his creations having a lack of belief and suffering.
// "he might have some other reason as yet unknown to us" //
Lol nope if that were indeed the case then those who claim to have been atheists before having a "personal experience" or a "Road to Damascus moment" that convinced them of gods existence are lying or your perfect moral god chooses to save some but allows others to suffer eternal torture. Again irreconcilable with the attributes claimed for the biblical God who allegedly loves ALL his creations.
// "could be argued to be false and that God has demonstrated his existence to everyone through creation" //
Lol firstly contradicts your previous supposed flaw and jesus himself says "there will be non believers" Secondly if I as an atheist were actually convinced of his existence what would I gain by claiming not to know ??? 🤔 I mean I could be a sinner and be forgiven under Christian soteriology but non belief is an unforgivable criteria that dooms one to eternal torture 🤔
*John 5 24*
_"Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and _*_"BELIEVES"_*_ in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and _*_SHALL NOT COME INTO JUDGMENT,_*_ but has passed from death into life"_
Don't forget there are *"BILLIONS"* of people who ARE _"convinced through creation"_ of the existence of God but they believe it was a *DIFFERENT GOD* and reject jesus being the cause of it. They too according to Christian soteriology are doomed to eternal torture because jesus did not convinced them of his existence or divinity, irrespective of them living a good loving and moral life.
How telling that statistically in a world where an all powerful God wants all to be saved the biggest determining factor in one's eternal salvation or damnation seems to be the geographical location one is born into. If one is born in a place like Pakistan there is about a 95% chance that one will find the evidence for Christianity insufficient.
Conversely you will however more than likely be convinced there is sufficient evidence to believe Islam, thus eternal torture is assured. How does that reconcile with a supposed PERFECT omnipotent omniscient omnibenevolent loving God who wants *EVERYONE* to be saved ? 🤔
I use a similar analogy to the dentist one but more simple....
If a parent and a toddler are wanting to cross a multi lane highway on foot and the parent simply sends the toddler out to lead the way and the toddler gets run over it is 100% the fault of the parent for being a terrible parent yet God can create us, not initiate a relationship with us, nor even let us know he exists yet if we don't find him we're banished to hell for eternity.
How is God any different to the terrible parent who blamed the toddler for getting itself run over...?
Does the terrible parent sentence you to eternal torture?
@OmniversalInsect yeah that's a part of my point. God, if he exists is the worst parent possible to all of us. Even many Christians won't make it to heaven for various dogmatic reasons. Religion is hardly a trust worthy concept.
Yes, De God of de buy bowl is diss way. God said, He create Ted de righteous two bee righteous indie wicked four de they of judgment. God hardened pharaohs heart two show hisses power. God said heal have mercy own who (he won't) two show mercy. God create Ted Esau two bee wicked.
God has isle red de chosen hisses pea pole, their is know free wheel indie buy bowl.
If you're a atheist,it's knot your dew wing,God did not chose you,but it does ant mean it does ant exist.
God is eternal. Meaning knot own Lee does he seas de future,He is isle red de indie future. God is indie past, present, and future ant de same time while hue men's are trapped indie present/ time God create Ted.
Every thing is a part of Gods plan four hisses chosen. De world was made four dim.
@@iwkaoy8758 Respectfully the book has written by primitive men who had just discovered wine. Since then parts have been added and taken away including scrolls written by a woman! In those days when science and information were lacking these scrolls made sense because everybody was (SCARED) into belief of God. Nowadays there are more than enough means to know better. So, my analogy makes a "HELL" of a lot more sense than some meaningless scripture! Thanks for your comment all the same.
@@MuscleBandit Yes, De Is rail lights were primitive no buy dez,That's why God chose dim. De is rail lights were looked down own bee cause day were de own Lee pea pole width out a home land. Day was de scum of de earth,But Egyptians were de rules of de world.
Egyptians were ruling width de most advanced sciences and technology and De most powerful gods two de world,But de God of de no buy dez/ goat herders took down Egypt.
God use de Is rail lights two show hisses power. It's de same two day. Pea pole are say yin, look at hour advanced civilization and sciences,How Ken Ken goat herders know what day are talk king a bot. That's de egg zack reason God chose dim.
God said, He wheel use de thing that are foolish two diss world two confound de wise. He wheel use de weak two confound de mighty.
God lifted pharaoh up,Two bring him down. He placed de technologies inn men's hearts .Hue men's are just puns inn hisses game.
God is like a lion playing width a baby any moles. De lion lets de baby head but him and run. It's fun four de lion bee cause de baby thinks it Ken win,but de lion nose de end of de store rie.
De mighty nations think day no Moore den goat herders,But God is toying width dim. He de ultimate troll/ chess player/puppet master.
As a child I experienced inexcusable and hideous prolonged cruelty by an adult who was put in a position of authority over me (teacher). This already had me doubting if there was a god. Then, recently when I saw the suffering that my 10 year old my daughter went through after a medical operation, and her heart rendering pleas over a number of hours of "daddy, daddy, please help me!" - when I could do absolutely nothing, I became 100% convinced that there is no god - at the very least not a "good" one that I would allow myself to be associated with!
I beg you to reconsider the idea that God can only exist in a world with no pain or suffering. The Bible is filled with stories of suffering. It is not an ignored phenomenon.
I’m so sorry that you and your daughter went through that.
@@ithurtsbecauseitstrue1922Does your god need you to beg on his behalf? Your god can't talk for his self? Sounds pretty weak.
Every parents nightmare. I hope you are doing better now.
@@ithurtsbecauseitstrue1922 There is no turning back. The horse has bolted!
What happened to me as a child made me start to question and I became agnostic (I did not not believe, but I started to doubt and was unsure). Yet I continued to go through the motions, e.g. going to church and trying to understand. I stayed in this state for close to 40 years.
When my daughter pleaded incessantly for help for hours, it was the straw that broke the camel's back. I started to earnestly research what the bible says vis a vie using my training as a researcher - I am trained criminologist and have been for more than 30 years.
The (1) logical fallacies I found in the bible (both new and old testament), as well as (2) the actual provable history (both literary and archeological) made up my mind. In short you can say I started to study the bible, and found it to be utter nonsense.
Love your videos Alex! I would love to sit and have a good hour long discussion with you, bounce some ideas of you, perhaps you could help me rough out the edges of my arguments and help me understand them more. Would this be something you'd be up for? Maybe have a new playlist of videos of you discussing things with your fans?
No he wouldn’t like that
@@Ppluvr215 , you know this because? Did you hear that somewhere while your head was up your ass?
7:00 I think you would have to say that if he truly loved us he wouldn't given us free will. By giving us free will it's allowed us to have suffering. If he really loved us he would have not allowed us to have that suffering which means he should not have allowed us have free will. We, as a collective of souls, would have been better off not having free will. That would have been a better choice if he was choosing to make the best choice. Which if he's all good he would be choosing to make the best choice.
Maybe God is evil and any apparent good deeds by God are part of that greater evil.
That would make a lot more sense than what religions 🗄 preach.
Which just goes to show that theodicies do not answer or get around the Problem of Evil. Instead they run straight into it and low-key pick one of its horns without admitting it. Denial 101.
In the greater good defences' case, it seems like believers chose the Not-Omnipotent horn.
This is one of the most intelligent responses I've seen on this topic. Yes God would have to be evil if he is indeed omnipotent and omnicient. Omnicient means that God knows everything there is to know and always has. That means god knew before creating Lucifer what would happen. He did it anyway therefore God created evil. To create evil means that God can not be all good. So yes God is evil.
@@Andrea-zm1nl But from my understanding, if God is evil, then life on earth becomes even more depressing and the ultimate purpose of life becomes meaningless. Do I make any sense?
Respectfully...
I once heard the argument maybe Satan is the good one and Yaweh is evil. After all Satan did tell the truth in the garden. Adam didn't die after eating the fruit. How can you tell which one is good or not? It's a thought provoking argument and a good way to introduce subjective morality into the conversation.
So incredibly amicable of Alex to converse with this theist and politely nod along as the nonsense spills from his mouth like some sort of silly fountain. The problem of divine hiddenness is addressed with “… due to the problem of evil, we can just call it bad stuff” can we all just see the adhoc bs and call it? When theists get creative and dishonest with the argument they’re like slippery seals, you can’t grab them and hold them to a point because they’re just flailing around and slipping away with another created line of spiritual woo woo from the void.
You gotta love that British politeness😊
"Maybe X explains Y" is the very start of investigation, not the justification for believing something.
I’ll take the dentist analogy further.
The parents aren’t evil for the suffering the child will feel to perform the surgery because they’re powerless to stop the pain.
However, if these parents were all powerful and could do literally anything they desired and they still choose to go with the put my child in excruciating pain to fix the problem route then I would deem them not only evil but disgusting sadists as well
Well, didn't God give us knowledge for knowing (1) what is wrong with the child and (2) how to heal the child, versus not giving us knowledge and not giving us any tools to heal the child?
What if the parents had a hand in giving knowledge to the dentist for how to perform the surgery? What if the parents had a hand in providing the plants and natural resources necessary to create painkillers, so the child wouldn't be in excruciating pain?
Even in the olden days of the Old Testament, many of the ritual laws God passed down were shockingly modern. Stuff like washing your hands, quarantine for sick people, avoiding foods like pigs which are scientifically proven to have a very high rate of parasites & diseases compared with other meats. That is stuff no one knew back then, yet the Jews had knowledge through God of these things! Isn't that a sign of God taking care of people?
@@Sammy-Dontpassmeby well your first paragraph finds itself more inline with Zoroastrian doctrine than biblical doctrine.
And yes there was great hygienics practiced in Jewish law but that’s hardly proof of gods influence on the book.
If God truly influenced the Bible, he would have mentioned slavery is disgustingly evil and should not even be remotely practiced. But again, that’s also more of a Zoroastrian religious belief and not a Jewish/Christian/Biblical one.
The whole washing the hands thing is more proof that a broken clock is right twice a day than anything else
I don't care. Islam will rule your nation someday.
@@ufpride83 eh? How does my first paragraph find itself more with Zoroastrian doctrine than biblical doctrine?
Funny enough, I was just reading about this like the day you posted your message. There’s a part in 1 Corinthians 7:21-23 talking about people who become Christians: “Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you-although if you can gain your freedom, do so. For the one who was a slave when called to faith in the Lord is the Lord’s freed person; similarly, the one who was free when called is Christ’s slave. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of human beings.”
so slaves were to gain their freedom if they could, and no one was to become a slave of other human beings. (being Christ’s slave would be following the words of Christ)
but back then, if a person was poor and had nothing to help him live, they had the option of selling themselves into slavery so they wouldn’t die. So the Bible is permissive to an extent of humane slavery-slave masters were strictly told to treat their slaves well, as God judges all equally (including how the master treats the slave). Jesus taught to treat everyone with love, to “love your neighbor as yourself”, so cruelty was strictly taught against. This cruelty also includes kidnapping someone and forcing them into slavery (which was a capital offense punishable by death in the Old Testament).
Also, the word in Hebrew for slave is the same as servant. So slavery as described was really more like being an indentured servant with rights, again often to help live in poverty, or pay off a debt, etc. There’s nothing in the Bible to allow for cruel, kidnapped slavery like the atrocious Slave Trade in America
@@Sammy-Dontpassmeby your first paragraph is more in line with Zoroastrian doctrine because Zoroastrian doctrine teaches us to find knowledge and use it for good wherever it is found.
Nowhere in the Bible does it encourage anyone to learn how to perform dental surgery and make the world a better place through scientific exploration and research.
In fact the Bible is very much the opposite of that and that is why Christianity spent centuries oppressing people of science.
And I’m glad you brought up slavery.
In Zoroastrianism there is NO acceptable forms of slavery.
And you can cherry pick all the different verses on slavery you want but the Bible condones it, e Bible commanded foreigners to be taken as slaves and also allowed those slaves children to be slaves as well.
Not even Jesus who is suppose to be god could even be bothered to say “absolutely slavery is evil”
But the prophet Zarathustra did thousands of years before Jesus existed.
And luckily for the people of Judah that Zarathustra did preach than anti slavery and anti bondage message because a thousand years after Zarathustra preached that message, a follower of Zarathustra and Ahura Mazda named Cyrus The Great conquered Babylon and freed the people of Judah and returned them to their homes and rebuilt their temple.
If Ahura Mazda was like Yahweh, then Cyrus the Great would have destroyed both the Babylonian and Judah’s religion at that time and then force people to choose between conversion, enslavement, or death.
I still can’t understand how you can believe you have free will and simultaneously believe that a god created you knowing every single decision and event that will happen to you, before your conception and after your death. I mean, do they not understand that if god knows everything that will happen, there’s obviously a path laid out? Do they think they can actually “freely will” anything outside of what god knows will happen?
I guess the only way is to have a certain definition of free will. My question always is “what is the will free from” (the will being one’s faculty of intention/desire). If the will must only be free from ongoing intervention of other sentients then I guess you’re dilemma can be reconciled..if we ignore the fixed way everything was set up by god. I say “other sentients” because things like gut bacteria, immediate circumstances, what your mom ate during pregnancy etc. can affect the development/state of your thinking-feeling-behaving modality. I don’t think anyone can avoid the dilemma of god “winding the clock” with how we develop which indeed seems to fix our modalities, but what if someone simply defines free will to be the ability to act in accordance to one’s desires? Not a very deep definition at all..but at least it’s not nonsense I guess. If one’s will is only free if more than one sequence of intentions are possible given a single, fixed sequence of external conditions then…I think this is logical and indeed a property we posses so long as “external condition” denoted anything besides ourselves. The problem with this though is that, to me, it’s also not very meaningful; if we define any activity outside of our nervous system to “external” then ya of course we can have multiple possible intentions or wills given “external conditions”…if this wasn’t true then everyone would act the same under identical conditions. But you can probably see how cheaty it is to ignore the “internal” conditions of the nervous system as these seem just as out of our control as external ones and even antecedents like genetics. To be honest I don’t know where I’m going with this at all, free will is weird
@@Hursimear free will can be weird, however I am strictly speaking in the context referring to Christian belief. Typically their of free will would simply be the colloquial and oxford dictionary definition of free will. That being “The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.”
Using the definition, you can obviously see where this would be a problem, if a god has not only set up a world with you in mind, but that god has also created you knowing exactly what you’d do for every second of your existence. He has created the conditions surrounding your existence. That would be the “path” or “fate” people speak of when referring to the “path god created”. In the end, if you’re telling me there’s a path god created, and then created you knowing everything you’d do on that path, I cease to understand how you’d have “free will” in that scenario
Hi, as a former Christian I think I have a good analogy for it. So imagine that you are taking a test. When your teacher is grading the test they already know all the answers and they will know which kid passes or fails. Even though you know the teacher knows the answers you will still try your best to get the right answers so that you can pass the test. The teacher can instruct and guide you before they grade the test but if you have bad attendance then it will be much harder to pass the test.
🤣 Love the catch title!!!!!
I like this conversation
And among those bad things, to give more teeth to this argument, is his ultimately choosing to send people to hell. God created hell for the fallen, and though no one would ever truly choose it, we are repeatedly given the patsy that "we ultimately choose it.' Rubbish. God made it, is said to be omniscient, and ultimately has known for all eternity who would go there (ie, could intervene and show himself incontrovertibly to those souls to steer them to him)
Yeah, as someone who has brought this up to countless theists, they have no good response to this.
All you'll get in return is victim blaming. They'll spout shit like "the gates of hell are closed from the inside" and it's like...no? Nobody would choose eternal suffering over eternal paradise. It's just nonsense.
Indeed, the entire construction of the Universe (with all attendant physical constants, logical outcomes like the need for 'free will', etc.) were, if God is as big and powerful as claimed, be completely arbitrary decisions made with no reasoning whatsoever - God doesn't need to allow free will, suffering (in this existence or in Hell) or any other complications to have a perfect Universe. To say a perfect Universe can't exist because of the need for free will or anything else limits God, which they and their Big Book of Fables already preclude, so there is literally NO reason any of this has to happen. And given all this could be avoided but is arbitrarily not through God's supposed decisions, how is that good or worthy of worship? We would never accept that a person is good or without moral culpability if, in their limited existence, they arbitrarily created suffering or issues for other people or living things, so why would an infinite being get a pass?
I never understood the defense of "god created hell for the devil" but at the same time condemns humans to it and knows where every human ends up after death before they are even born. But he really loves everyone unconditionally (with conditions) but his son (which was him disguised as a human) told his followers to hate everyone except him which isnt what I consider loving at all.
Christianity just doesnt make any sense and is always the opposite of what christians preach.
I think the only way to reconcile the problem of evil, and other such conundrums of moral wrong which would include atheism in the Christian worldview is simply to shift the definition of good to mean god, and suddenly god being all good does not mean much at all, for all it means is that god is all himself.
This just feels like a very petulant and adolescent way of looking at things. "Bad stuff happens so I hate God!!! NYUHHH!" Like, okay? Bad things are necessary for good things to exist. We must cull deer in the Highlands - by killing them - in order to prevent them from destroying the ecosystem. "But why can't there be zero suffering or death or scarcity!!!" Because there's no system you could design that would work that way?
@@jordane5150 "bad things are necessary for good things" - source, I made it up
@@JD-wu5pf my source is any given ecosystem kek - did you not understand the original example? I thought atheists were supposed to be enlightened but you can’t grasp a simple analogy?
@@jordane5150 Your last pathetic comment must have gotten deleted, but you're missing the point.
In our cold, uncaring universe, humans find good that comes out of evil acts. We are incredibly adept at finding silver linings, probably as a coping mechanism. But that doesn't mean that evil is somehow necessary for good to exist. It also doesn't mean the good that's brought about by evil is worth the evil existing in the first place. And it definitely doesn't mean that some omnipotent god HAD to create an evil, uncaring universe for us. He could have created a perfect, loving universe, where all life isn't built upon killing weaker life forms for survival.
You're an absolute loon and you haven't spent enough time critically thinking about your position.
@@jordane5150
lol what utter piffle, what has freewill or "choice" got to do with BONE CANCER that causes untold suffering and death to millions of innocent children and their families. ? Just what "purpose" does it serve ? Did God not have a "choice" to create a world without bone cancer?
How about the multitude of other Diseases, Tsunamis, Viruses, birth defects, Earthquakes, Floods, Famines, ect ect. ??
I think Epicurus put it much better than I ever could........
_"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able_ ? _Then he is not omnipotent_
_Is he able, but not willing_ ? _Then he is malevolent_
_Is he both able and willing_ ? _Then whence cometh evil_ ?
_Is he neither able nor willing_ ? _Then why call him God"_ ?
Epicurus
Secondly, is heaven not supposed to be a place of perfection ?? a place where there is NO EVIL and sin is not possible !! So tell me dear is there no " freewill" in heaven ??
So you see it is entirely possible for an all powerfully all knowing "God" to create a state of affairs where there is no EVIL. If you think heaven has no "freewill" then clearly freewill is not important for us in a perfect environment.
So which is it cupcake, does heaven have evil ? or does it have no freewill?
Saying that we cannot know the mind of god and his reasons for allowing suffering therefore we shouldn’t question him or suffering takes the religious down a dangerous path of learning not to question authority. And what frequently follows is the belief that you shouldn’t question faith or a persons religious convictions either. Questioning reality or anything for that matter is paramount to finding understanding.
Shooting from the hip a bit here, but there's some limitations with the divine hiddenness that come to mind for me:
The argument can be framed as such:
1. Let A be the set of prepositions that be that we have some final cause which is to know God, and that God, who governs the world by his providence and wishes for all men to know him, moves men by his grace to seek him and in seeking, find him.
2. Let B be the preposition that there are "non resistant non believers", i.e. there exist those who have been moved to seek God and have not found him.
3. A and B are incompatible.
4. B is clearly true and evident to our senses
5. Therefore A is wrong
There's a lack of precision and distinction (common in modern philosophy, which is more concerned with persuasion than distinction) that I see in the second preposition. I think we need to consider, as a scholastic would, these two attributes of being non resistant and being a non believer. I'm not sure that any composite being could be non-resistant, simply, towards some end which its species has a manifest inclination towards and aversion to. Humans are simply fascinated with God. I think what "non resistant" is probably trying to imply is "not obstinately averse to."
The second is "non believer", which is a complex attribute that is used as though it were simple in modern discourse. What prepositions are not being believed in? It doesn't appear that Alex (who seems to be the kind of good faith "non resistant" non theist the argument references) disbelieves in God simply and absolutely, only that he disbelieves certain divine attributes which Christians attribute to God. For instance, everyone believes in an uncaused first efficient cause (some people believe that the first efficient cause is an infinite regress of intermediary causes, but everyone believes that SOMETHING is uncaused). Everyone believes that something is non contingent. Alex would not debate anyone if he didn't believe in Truth, and as Scripture and Aquinas attest truth is the divine essence.
There's another issue which arises here as to whether these non resistant non believers will ultimately remain non believers. Christians believe that God in his providence has provided for us an entirely life which he uses to move us to knowledge of him. Is it not possible that he foresees that some individuals may actually be better off in a kind of implicit natural theism until the very end of their lives, and in his providence order things such that they do not receive a fullness of revelation until the very end?
The very existence of atheists, the very existence of thousands of religions, should make it abundantly clear (if you ever doubted) that there are nog gods.
Nog gods rule!
That doesn't make any sense. And at best you would be arguing against some particular religion, because the idea of God as an omnipresent creator of the Universe can be defended with the same arguments by different religions like Christianity, Islam or Judaism. So even if they cancel each other out and they can't all be right, that doesn't mean none of them are, and it also doesn't mean that God doesn't exist.
@@Dan_Capone The fact that theists still argue for their gods with every fallacy instead of presenting any evidence and no gods appearing in reality is all we need to say those gods dont exist. If those gods existed they would be visible by now. But they arent.
@@Dan_Capone To push his point further, doing a historical, philosophical and evidence based analysis of the beginning, spread, and success of different religions, it can be reasonably said that no religions(that have had the chance to do those things) have the marking of a true religion. Thereby, old religions are seemingly false, just on that pretense.
@@Dan_Capone Non-believers aren't obligated to prove that a supernatural God or "higher power" of some kind *doesn't* exist. That said, we are certainly more than justified in dismissing the patently absurd and massively contradictory claims of competing religions, all of which erroneously purport to be true.
Trent seems to think he's on equal footing with with non-believers. He's not. He's assuming his conclusion, then figuring out what evidence fits his conclusion. Alex starts from a position of neutrality and says show me the evidence. As anyone normally would, except when it comes to religion.
There is zero evidence that you can present that you exist.Nothing but a construct with no free will or thought you can call your own
True, but at least he is respectful and actually discusses (or attempts to discuss).
@@OmniversalInsect Being polite should be expected, no matter the position. Nothing he has to offer is new, so being nice is all he has.
Neutrality? No he does not lol
@@axderka So what position does he start from? Considering he can be swayed by evidence either way, it appears he's nothing but neutral.
Thank you, Alex.
Your channel has been instrumental in dispelling the lingering threads of fear that hung on after I separated from my previous faith. I appreciate your dedication and honesty.
It can't be said there is 'nothing' or no 'you'
There is just everything which is as complete and whole as it always was and it's the search for that which covers that over and makes it seem otherwise.
So ultimately no individual that is making the distinctions between everything and so there is just everything as a whole or wholeness - and that isn’t necessarily referring to energy it's referring to the absolute which includes energy or anything that arises. But it can't be ruled out that the energy that arose is due to ‘something’ or ‘something’ is the energy which can be referred to as life or God.
So while ‘everything’ or ‘the absolute’ are nothing because they are just the concepts or words being used to refer to the totality of all that is, which is always just as it is, and this distinction between the absolute and what is arising in this case energy only occurs now as we are doing so otherwise it is not happening and there is just everything as it is, whole and complete, but on the other hand it depends on what is being pointed to by ‘this’ because while yes ultimately there isn’t an individual as the individual arises and subsides but even though it subsides there is still energy or life, it is just not dependent on individuality or located exclusively within any one individual and so is formless or non-local and so it can’t be said that ‘this’ is nothing, just as probability waves are formless but can’t be considered ‘nothing’, and so the absence of an individual can't be said as being synonymous with no ‘you’ or no ‘self’.
In humans life has evolved to an extent to where it is self-referential and the reason we can make the distinction is because we are that life and so we are the ones deciding or are responsible for that distinction, so yes the distinction is subjective in that sense as in we create that distinction between the absolute and energy which is energies existence. But again that identification or defining life as ’we’ is only happening now as we do so otherwise it is not being defined and there is just life; whole, complete and free.
The arising and subsiding or movement of energy creates the impression of before and after: at 12o’clock it was here now at 1o’clock it is there… everything as a whole/ wholeness has not changed, a cloud has no effect on the sky, and so no time has passed, there is just movement in timelessness. Because there is no past there is no ‘happened’ as well no future ‘happen’ - with no time there is just ‘happening’. Energy rather than a movement that is on its way or going somewhere is instead a type of movement in the sense of vibration: movement that is not going or on its way anywhere and it’s the frequency to which it vibrates which decides the way in which it appears.
Energy before being observed exists in a state of superposition meaning it only becomes specific as of when it is observed other wise it is everything it can possibly be, for example when a die is thrown in the air it is 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, it is not until it lands (is observed) on a particular number is when it becomes specific. Before observation the possibilities of what can collapse exist equally/ every possible way that energy can be configured is equally happening. We perceive a single possible configuration but the potential is already equally everything that can possibly appear which is anything however the likelihood of how energy collapses into something and therefore what we specifically perceive is determined by factors such as the laws of universe and human biology. The Copenhagen interpretation says that the potential doesn’t actually collapse to become specific and remains as every possibility, and therefore everything simultaneously happening.
Because there is only happening and therefore no ‘happened’, that therefore includes the ‘past’. For instance if you imagine everyone that has ever walked down a certain road, you can’t see them walking down the road right now but that potential to collapse into those configurations is always happening, and again what is possible is as equally happening as what appears, and so they are still walking down the road but on that ‘dimension’ or in a state of not being collapsed but solely as potential, furthermore if you were to have filmed them walking down the road you would be able to see that ‘dimension’ which would be being watched in ‘real time’ - the ‘past’ is happening now and is always happening, just too as all potential that is also always equally happening.
"The observer is the observed." J. Krishnamurti
My biggest obstacle in believing in God is that it’s being conveyed to me through other humans and one thing I know about humans is: they lie.
Love the conversation. You two give a wonderful example of dialog and deep consideration of reality.
Alex: Without chemicals I get low grade mystical religious types of experiences on and off pretty regularly. Spiritual practice makes it more profound and far more metaphysical with echoes of agape ecstasy. Rushes of insight and eternal love. I'm studying Buddhism and meditating. It's inducing nice feelings of all reality being a self-aware infinity, which is fundamentally consciousness on literally unimaginable levels. An interdependent co-arising beyond comprehension.
Psychedelics pretty reliably induce religious or metaphysical experiences with the correct set and setting, as well.
The implication is that religious experiences are incredibly common throughout the history of the species.
Considering the religious experiences I have had, I have profound belief I experienced divinity. From a materialistic standpoint I believe that the religious experience is a result of neurochemistry. Scientists know which neurochemicals interact with which areas of our brain which make religious experiences pretty routine.
Whether or not having the neurochemical hardware and software for religious experiences is God's way of communicating with us, or if it simply is a quirk of evolution or is something completely else entirely is a tantalizing mystery to me.
I don't expect I will ever unravel the mystery of consciousness or divinity. From my religious experiences I have complete faith that they are existentially real. I believe these states of consciousness are greater than just chemistry 100%. Rationally I deduce that non-ordinary experiences are most likely a quirk of neurochemistry. I believe both proposition because they speak to different realms of consciousness.
So be prepared just in case you do have an unexpected non-ordinary ecstatic experience. It might be God and neurochemistry, or it is just neurochemistry.
Catholic here, and I sort of agree with you, but would like to point out that we really have no idea what consciousness is, let alone how the brain can generate it through chemical reactions, and that such a explanation doesn’t account for things like post death experiences where people Who did not have brain activity experienced observing the world around them and great detail, as far as I can tell the best explanation is that the brain is the hardware and has a copy of the software on it, but is not the origin of the software itself.
@allthenewsordeath5772 we actually have no verification as to the EEG tracing going on during NDEs. I suspect that the brain is basically having a specialized psychedelic experience. What we have is the heart stopping. We have a great idea of what is going on with the cardiopulmonary system.
Brain waves are very faint. It requires lots of sensors and almost perfect stillness to get an EEG. The impulses of the skeletal muscles are overwhelmingly louder than those of both the heart and brain. The heart has louder impulses than the brain.
In Code Blue, we are focusing on a lot of things. First is high-quality chest compressions. The chest compressions completely obliterate any telemetry or EEG data.
You do, however, make excellent points. I agree that consciousness is still a mystery. We don't know the relationship between consciousness and the biological hardware and software.
I'm a nurse. Before being a seasoned nurse, I believed NDEs to be absolute evidence for God. Now, I believe it is probably a quirk of neurochemistry. This quirk of neurochemistry may be the origin of much of religion. It may be a psychedelic trip.
At the same time, the notion of a metaphysical divine first cause is a possibility I can neither prove nor disprove. There may be a divine ocean upon which human reality is but a ripple. I don't rule out the divine. I just find no convincing evidence.
The thing that Christians are wrong about our understanding of what is going on biologically during NDEs isn't anything like they claim. The mistake is that they assume that if the heart stops biologically, the brain has stopped. This is extremely unlikely. The brain is being flooded with profound levels of chemicals. We have no clear way to know nature because CPR makes the investigation impossible. What is certain is that we have no reports from people we knew were brain dead as to what is out there.
We haven't come close to even figuring out how to probe this mystery.
@@davidrichardson7466
I think actual scientific investigation of the subject runs into the wall of being completely unethical, in the sense that you can’t really conduct a study, where you stop the hearts of 20 people and see how many of them report a near death experience, there is also of course the chicken or the egg problem here in that we can see what part of the brain lights up when you think about a chicken, but does that mean that you thinking about a chicken was caused by that part of your brain lighting up?
With how near death experiences seem to generally go, I think chemical reactions was doing a lot of legwork as an explanation, from the papers I’ve read on the subject, which is once again our best guesswork because any experiments regarding this are profoundly unethical for obvious reasons, Some explanations for individual aspects of near death experiences have been proposed, but are not exactly verifiable and much like the experience of consciousness, completely incapable of explaining the whole of it.
On a sidenote though, as previously mentioned I’m a Catholic so near death experiences are not really something I pin my theology on, more so I work from the idea that there have been, currently are, and will continue to be people who are far wiser and more knowledgeable than me, but if I do my damnedest to be a saint Things will probably work out OK.
Theist here. Great conversation Alex.
Alex. When you say that we can see the whole debate "on the link below", please actually include the link. I cannot find "Is it God’s Fault I’m an Atheist?" on any of the links you give. This applies to your other podcasts too. Thanks
The title of the full conversation isn't the same as this one. You can find the link to the full conversation in the description of this video!
when he said "yeah i just want the truth" blew my mind, a faith based truth, weird
Don't we all just want to know the truth about the world? :>
What is your view of what the truth may be, if I may so ask?
Whenever I hear a Christian apologist assert that the “self” and free will are just obvious, it seems a dead giveaway to someone who has already accepted their faith as true and is unwilling to really grapple with these philosophical issues. It’s lazy handwaving.
I do think that most people intuit both of those.
Idk, it sounds pretty obvious to me. I freely wrote this comment afterall
@@tonywallens217 Prove it. Prove you somehow could have done otherwise. Prove it was free will and your comment wasn't predetermined.
@@JD-wu5pf it’s called choices. We all make them. It’s on the basis of free will and that morality is based on, and therefore the whole justice system with its penal law. If you’re willing to reject free will then you should also be willing to reject the need for law and punishment.
@@tonywallens217 I can admit that pretending like we have free will is important for society, but that's different than admitting we have free will.
Prove we're making choices. Prove we aren't just following a script and we only BELIEVE we have choices.
The clear example missed in this clip (i haven't seen the full interview) is the ten commandments
The "explicit" list given directly by god which MUST be followed
Number four is remember the Sabbath and keep it holy
And yet god hasn't intervened to get all denominations back on the same track... Is it Saturday or Sunday?
I would love you antend at new debates instead of relouding old ones
I've consumed Alex for 6 years straight...❤ from Kenya
Are you an atheist?
Keep on fingering my comments
Thats a long time for a meal :D
@@Z4r4sz wish you got it in my dialect 😁😁😁
@yourstruly9170 what is your dialect?
I always have a hard time taking people like Trent seriously. I know he believes crazy things all his positions are tailored to support his dogma.
he's just another dishonest apologist, how anyone can confess (!) to being catholic surprises me, organised crime is what it is.
@@HarryNicNicholas You believe that the Catholic Church plans out and controls crimes? Such as?
Exactly. They are Chimpanzees wearing suits. They have no intellectual value whatsoever, merely the trappings of philosophy. They wield ten dollar words like monocles, more to disguise than to explain.
I feel sorry for your hubristic closed mindedness.
@@HarryNicNicholas Just when I thought that religious intolerance was a thing of the past...!
As a Christian, I really enjoy watching Alex's videos, that challenge my faith, and give me something to philosophically think about. As opposed to other famous atheists, I believe Alex is the best one to listen to because he allows the opposing side to give their thoughts and ideas, while Alex responds with his logic, instead of resorting to narrative and other silly things
Why are you Christian and not Hindu?
Great conversation and getting close.. it is all about the knowledge of good and evil.
Where do you get it from? Directly from god wich makes you feel bad when you observe injustice(evil) or do you replace it with an indirect source such as a book.
If you are not capable of feeling that stoning a human to death is just plain evil, then you do not listen to God directly but have an alternative knowledge of good and evil.
Unfortunately we do not learn how to deal with evil, those that get to observe unjustice alot in their childhood often get stuck with the bad feeling.
They either turn criminal or join a religion to deal with that feeling, ciminality only makes it worse, religion takes the feeling away.
Maybe it is time to remove the reasons for the bad feeling instead of removing the bad feeling...
Christians often claim some form of this *_"God has planted his moral law on the hearts of all people"_* but there are several rather obvious problems with this assertion. Firstly if that were indeed the case then we would all regard the *SAME* "God" to be moral and regard the *SAME* scriptures and the laws they contain to be "moral," this is most certainly NOT the case.
Most people do NOT think it immoral for a female to show her hair in public or to not face a specific landmark and pray five times a day. Most people in the world are just fine with eating bacon, wearing clothing of mixed fabrics and even picking up sticks on any day of the week.
We do NOT think that our unruly rebellious children who disobey their parents ( sounds like most teenagers to me ) are deserving of the death penalty and we recognise that an instruction to _"Buy your slaves from the heathen nations that surround you"_ could never represent guidance from a perfect omnibenevolent unifying moral standard.
We do however all have commonly held values found the world over irrespective of which religion or NO religion. These value all conform with our ideas about human wellbeing. As previously stated they are the basis for our ethical and legal systems the world over and for the most part it is only the concept of SIN ( perceived transgressions against the whims of subjective invisible beings ) that the disagreement occurs.
Im not speculating here or just giving you my "opinion" the above is all *FACT* regardless of the existence or non existence of ANY "God". Given this, should humanity adhere and aspire to the common values that unite us all and have real impacts on real people here in the real world. ?
Alternatively should we continue on trying to impose the perceived whims of our own subjectively determined invisible "one true God" that divide humanity and have no positive impact on wellbeing that can't also be attained via secular morality ??
Come on surely we are better than this, the sooner the world throws out like old furniture these gods and their barbaric religious ideological baggage the better.
// "It's is all about the knowledge of good and evil" //
"Good" and "Evil" are words used to describe movement or points on a reference standard or scale conceptualised by man that is based upon our shared values like human wellbeing, empathy and equality. Whilst "God" is also a man made concept, the percieved whims of the Christian "God" do not reflect these shared values and thus are irrelevant in any discussion of morality.
How could Adam or indeed mankind make moral choices without being able to differentiate good from evil ?? Without knowledge of right and wrong every moral "choice becomes meaningless, choice *A* no more valid than the diametrically opposed choice *B*
And yet ...... dispite Gods foreknowledge of this he still decided to deny Adam and Eve this knowledge and to punish not only them for gaining this knowledge but also their descendants ?? 🤪 how utterly absurd and immoral!!
We have names for people who do not know how to differentiate right from wrong and we lock such people up in concrete boxes or execute them. Yet this is how the Christian "God" wanted mankind to be (and we would still be if not for the Serpent) and they think him a perfect moral reference standard 😂😅🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@trumpbellend6717 Abrahamic religions are abusing the name of the Creator for their own benefit, so i see them being based on Truth, but that Truth is protected with lies.
If you ever had 1 moment in your life that you realized that you knew the future, then that can only come from a differnt source then the material one.
In my understanding the Eternal Creator exists outside of space and time and that is why He knows the future.
Inside the realm of time choices can only be made based on the knowledge of the past and maybe for a few exception that were given glimpses of the future.
If you know the future life becomes very easy, as you can make the best choices based on their outcome.
So then that Creator is the only entity that can justify all suffering as He can oversee what it is good for for the Creation as a whole... not just the individuals.
And if Judgement needs to take place for the Creation to be a succes then there must be something to judge, so He is also the only one that has a reason for suffering to exist.
Who are we to think we know better?
And if it is that He is the only one that exists but is seperated into the illusion of individuals through space and time then He knows that He is only doing it to Himself and not hurting anyone else.
So it would be clear that way that His knowledge of Good and Evil is completely different then we understand it to be. We only define it from our limited individual point of view.
This indicates that all religions are false as they are based upon individual understandings and choices.
Yet ALL religions are based on the 1 Truth that exists but all misunderstood/manipulated in different ways.
As we could not break the wheel of karma either with current understandings..
@@johnvanmanen3149
Wow so many words to say so little 🙄 you certainly made no attempt to address the actual points I raised. This alone more than adequately demonstrates both your dishonesty and the fragility of your position for all to see dear.
Instead you engaged in the usual apologetic Godsplaining tactics of obfuscation evasion and missdirection facilitated in this case by spouting baseless assertions as if they actually constitute some form of rational argument, plus the usual arguments from ignorance of course.
But don't be to hard on yourself for although you clearly struggle with this whole "logic thing" there can be no disputing your linguistic abilities. Seldom have I encountered someone fluent in SO many dialects of *GIBBERISH* 🤣😅
Regardless I will respond in detail to the content of your response as my time permits ( work wife kids life) but please don't bother with anymore replies I think it's clear you have no interest in an honest discourse so I don't want to waste more of my time than necessary.
@@johnvanmanen3149
Okay let's begin by pointing out that your comment was so contradictory and logically incoherent that at times it almost seemed as if you were having an argument with yourself. For example you asserted .....
_"in MY UNDERSTANDING the eternal creator exists outside of space and time thats why he knows the future"_
Only to go on to talk of _"the illusion of individuals through space and time"_ and how religions are false because .... _"they are based upon INDIVIDUAL UNDERSTANDINGS"_
Now I hate to break this to you dear but YOU are an "individual" that makes your _"understandings"_ the understandings of an individual ie... _"individual understandings"_ and thus by your own definition necessarily "false" 🤭🤣🤣🤣
You assert that the Abrahamic religions are _"based on truth but that truth is protected with lies"_
"Truth" is that which best conforms with reality and has nothing whatsoever to do with "faith." Knowledge of FACTS, also called "propositional knowledge", is defined as true belief that is distinct from opinion or guesswork by virtue of justification.
A "FACT" is a point of data that is objectively verifiable ( demonstrable ) Absent "Facts" one has only the opinion or guesswork and no justification to claim such knowledge as this would be intellectually no better than "LIES."
Science has all the FACTS yet claims nothing as "absolute" truth. Christianity conversely claims absolute truth in everything yet has no FACTS 😜
Much more to come later
I noticed that he also did not answer...
" But I want to be a Christian, Christians don't want to be atheists"....
He's ignoring the willing non-believer as being there at all.
Once again he's just putting it off on us, because there's no good reason to believe and they can't come up with one.
The subtle hint that our intellect may be wanting because we just don't understand... Or we can't connect....
Or we just don't believe because we're not convinced....
No that couldn't be it.
Of course there are. Of course it’s more subconscious.
For example, many Christian’s despise the concept of hell and in many cases people find the concept unbearable so atheism could be a better position than to just die then hell to be true.
@@BackToOrthodoxy
Personally, I have never met an atheist who was an atheist simply because the thought of hell was something they couldn't deal with.
Hell is one more thing the atheist has no belief in. Belief in hell only affects the believer.
If you still believe in hell and you still believe a god can send you there for not believing, you're not an atheist.
Or did I misunderstand you in some way?
An atheist is someone who is not convinced when they believer says "God exists".
It would be the same for the believer saying "hell exists", we don't believe that either.
What does the subconscious have to do with being open and willing/wanting to believe something and being unable to find convincing evidence?
Are you saying that subconsciously we actually believe things, but we're just lying about it somehow?
Please clarify.
@@ChixieMary Are you a willing atheist?
@@20july1944willing in what sense? If I'm not convinced by something, then I'm not convinced. I cant just force myself to truly believe in something I find unconvincing.
@@BackToOrthodoxywrong, if you are really that scared of hell, you believe in god. I don’t not believe in heaven or hell, full stop . Neither makes sense, let alone telling me where these places exist. I just don’t believe the bible, that don’t mean there isn’t a god, just not the one , your telling me exists.
I heard him start a sentence with “I THINK GOD WANTS…”🤦🏾♂️. And that my friends is the whole entire ball game
Very tough to interpret what nature's intent is or even if it has an intent, but if it doesn't, we can do anything we want, which can be a really good thing or a really bad thing. Don't automatically assume it's a really good thing. A lot of people want some REALLY bad stuff, and if you're not strong enough to stop them, they will. And when there's no ultimate justice, if they act bad their entire lives because that's what they want and no one can stop them, then I guess they won the game of life. They got what they wanted.
That was a brilliant way Alex pointed out the conflict of interest part way through, about how he’s an atheist that wants to be a Christian, but he’s a Christian that doesn’t want to be an atheist.
Alex simply wants the feeling of being a Christian because nihilism is the product of Atheism and the reality is even atheists know Christianity has something nothing else has. However Alex says he want to yet can’t accept the fact God lives in mystery, and it takes humility to have faith in a God. To accept you know nothing is the start of a relationship with God. Atheism is a deflection of the mystery of God, not a refutation of the existence but a mere stance that says I can’t accept the fact the world is this way and I can’t understand it therefore God is evil and doesn’t exist.
@@carlosz.5460 nihilism is the product of atheism? Your whole post reads as projecting what’s wrong with Christianity onto atheism. You can reject religion and still hold moral principles and a meaning to life. Historically, Christianity is rife with amoral acts, violence committed in the name of and in condoning from religion. How many people have committed atrocities in the name of atheism?
You don’t need religion to be a moral person. There’s heinous laws within the bible which Christian’s ignore, because they know them to be immoral because (like atheists) they were imbued with a moral compass. All Alex means is that the thought of a heaven is appealing to atheists and Christians alike, that’s why the conflict of interest for non-belief is on the side of Christianity.
To accept you know nothing is the beginning of a rejection of god. The humility comes from accepting we don’t know and likely will never know why (if there’s even a reason) we’re here or what happens when we die. God is a deflection of the mysteries of the universe. Not a logical assertion, but a mere stance that says I can’t accept the fact the world is this way and I don’t know these mysteries that surround my existence, therefore I will cling to a panacea, ie God.
@@carlosz.5460 Nope, nihilism is in Ecclesiastes and Christianity is just another failed apocalyptic religion.
Love the video, but the s sounds are really piercing and loud for me, not sure if it’s a video or headphone problem
Why do people refuse to give themselves credit when they should, but give themselves all the credit when they deserve none?
This man describes how he's a good person, but he refuses to see how that's a reflection of him. Instead, he gives all the credit for that to some unseen being he can't even prove actually exists.
Why!?
Objective truth defines the possibility of a good person,otherwise its just your opinion man
@@daviddeida
I never said anything about "objective truth". Nothing here mentioned "objective" morality or anything.
I don't think morality is objective. There's literally nothing wrong with morality being our opinions. Morality and truth are NOT the same thing btw.
That deflates your entire argument. And with this clarity, re-read my OP... Got anything else?
But they never blamed him for shits happened to them
Right?
@@Richard_Nickerson You seem to be under the impression there is an entity to claim authorship regarding action and then subjectively form an opinion as it is good.There is no evidence such an entity exist.Action happens in spite of you,not because of you.That destroys your OP.
Right they take 100% responsibility and not blame anyone.@@rasool-0007
We don’t appreciate Alex enough.
That last bit... wow
Seems somebody did something weird with the audio 🤔 somekind of abused "automix preset" ?
Studying some biochemistry & physics taught me that all mass is made up of elements, made up of molecules, made up of atoms. And every living organism is made up of the same elements, in similar proportions. That makes all life related, all made of the same material
I love that my life force is similar to the life force that grows a tree or a mushroom. When I see a picture of a rare flower blossoming in the dessert, I feel a kinship with that life struggling to grow & live & die.
If human have souls which go to other plains or get reincarnated, it would make humans absolutely separate from the rest of life on Earth. That leaves me cold. I don’t want to be different, I like knowing I’m intrinsically linked to all other life.
Like the dessert flower, I just want my chance to struggle, to live, thrive, reproduce, and ultimately die. Like all my brethren living organisms.
It’s human hubris that imagines an eternal soul which sets us apart and make us unique in the animal kingdom. They say there is nothing more common then the desire to be unique.
That is a beautiful ideology.
Loved that!
OK. How did the atoms arise? Are they infinitely old?
@@20july1944 Google it and cry!
@@20july1944 Why do yo ask random people on a UA-cam comment section?
Why don't you use a peer reviewed article?
Would you find any rando on the internet a reliable source of information?
I thought you have more common sense than that!
Disappointed.
@@dorkception2012 Asshole, I'm not asking for information, I'm asking to start a conversation.
this debate looks as if it took place in heaven
lol
Little Weed....
If you know, you know
Let's say that you don't have explanation for why he would allow suffering wouldn't that lead to the conclusion of that he is a great mind and there are things about him we don't fully know which obviously we would expect if he is a transcendal being.
It is an interesting takeaway by Trent discussing the reason (and I am paraphrasing) he does not speed is because of the threat of getting caught. I think this points to a fundamental difference in how some people's brains are wired. As someone who is not bound by the fear of punishment, I tend to be more concerned with the well being of other drivers and how my recklessness could have an impact their well being. I'm not trying to say it is more noble or that the threat of punishment has no effect on judgement, but it shows that religion makes a definite impact on your thought processes.
Having empathy is not a requirement for being non-religious. Many selfish and evil people can be non-religious if they want.
We firmly believed our children didn't belong to us, and were her to be the best themselves they could be. We gave them a great deal of freedom, but we're always there for them when needed - at least as far as we knew. They had no doubt about our presence and love for them.
The epistemic distance arguments made by Christians cannot be held in conjunction with an omnipresent god. You can’t say “God keeps his distance” and yet believe that god is quite literally listening to your every thought and watching your every action from birth to death lol
😂. Well it must be rationalized through language to make the narrative fit the conclusion
"The Church refuses to explain sin away or make excuses for it or call it by another name. " Bishop Robert Barron
As a hitch fan (and i didnt agree with him on everything) i mean this as a massive compliment - but i find alex to be the voice of reason for this next generation, like hitch was for me.
I hope he stays the course. His command of language is 2nd only to hitch ;-)
Being a Christian makes you morally blind.
One you allow that “bad” things … are in fact good.
Then your not in a position to say that anything is good or bad.
Yeah, it seems like a terrible idea to cross the line of "anything ordained by God is good", because that's how the fucking crusades were approved. God ordains murder and genocide and slavery all over the place.
And let's not forget that it's not like God is yelling us his wants through a megaphone. He's doing it invisibly and silently and in such a way that it's impossible to discern between his legitimate wants and someone simply lying about hearing his message.
Remember how in the Bible, God used to smite the shit out of people for pretending to be his prophets? Crazy how nobody gets turned into salt pillars anymore now that we have video cameras on us 24/7...
When police and investigators have to search for someone that committed a crime, and they don't find them. The case goes cold. This is just life, their are other crimes, events and things to occupy a humans time. I dont defend my inability to find something that others claim to have found. There are over 42,000 christian denominations on earth. That means also that there are 42,000 opinions on "what it means to find god", who jesus is, what god and jesus expect from you, and how to interpret a book with more than 40 different authors who might not even be the true authors.
I think one think that Alex perhaps should consider that, much like with the case of famous atheist Antony Flew, God's desire to bring about the maximum good for Alex and also His creation means keeping him on his search for the ultimate truth of all reality for some time longer. It took even Saint Augustine over 30 years to finally accept Christianity as true. If and when he himself does finally become a believer, he will also probably better understand the reason God had for that conversion not happening earlier in his life.
3:44 the "ah crap that's a good point" face
(it's an old hitchens argument - humans created sick and ordered to be well - it doesn't make any sense - if god created every faucet of us, then it's patently absurd for him to condemn us) *and by condemn i mean torture for all eternity
You cannot say:
- "I want the truth and atheism is not it"
(Atheism) is where you land if the evidence for the God you believe in doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
But is there meaning to life "where you land" ( Atheism )?
Respectfully..
@@johnbrzykcy3076
Yes of course, but what if there wasn´t.
Would you have meaning still believing something you knew was false?
For those who are civil and earnest in this comment section, thank you. Everyone is benefited from as many discussions of this type as possible, Atheists, Christians, cheers! ❤😊
" I think you're right that divine hiddenness is a subset, really of the problem of evil".
That's interesting. Although i myself struggle with "divine hiddenness", i had never considered it as a type of "evil".
Could this be true?
It would be so long as we are talking about punisher gods. It is, because these people are (without purgatory) condemned to hell
There’s a term called “Holy” in the Bible. I think that is where Trent would peg that belief and idea. Holy means to be set apart, since evil sets man apart from a holy god and the reason is circular in that god can’t be evil therefore cannot be in the presence of evil therefore it’s holy, this does allow logical that divine hiddenness becomes a mechanic of evil. Of course because this is all made up, you can also say that divine hiddenness is a subset of faith and not evil. God hides himself to test people’s faith in him, but you can see how I can justify any belief in the Bible because it at the end deals in epistemic circular reasoning.
@@henrytep8884I appreciate your comments because I'm not sure what the answer is. I prefer to think that divine hiddenness is indeed "a subset of faith".
But that concept brings more questions ( at least for me ). Peace to you...
It is because it is only a problem for the all knowing, all powerful, all loving God. If you imagine a powerless, or unkowninf, or evil god then there is no real problem of divine hiddenness
I agree with Alex in that like him, I want to believe but I can't get to a caring God without a clear personal sign as the environment is not conducive to belief in a caring God ( opposed to a Deist God which is much more believable). The personal sign is crucial.
Alex believes in nothing. If one followed his ethics, They would rape murder and kill because it's fun. All assuming they couldn't get caught. "Suffering, moralism, animal suffering". All moral preferences. The military has thought me one thing. People default to evil. You might not believe it, you don't want to. but people rape, kill and murder, and believe it to be just and good. Alex is a sheltered sissy boy, one of the many reasons I regret serving in the US military and agree with what happened on 911. Alex needs to see what non-Christian society looks like.
As always trents word salads sound absolutely wonderful and dripping with conviction..........to the convicted. To any thinking person listening to his content its shallow , watery piffle. Epistemic distance...? How convenient
“Philosophical Terminology” how convenient.
@@withlessAsbestos you're aware that it was Trent that used the term you're referencing, right ?
of course you didn't know. you're a theist. you dont read or listen to any works. you just cherry pick and react to buzz words! and it all stems from there. Trent used the term epistemic distance mate as a convenient cover/ dodge. clearly it works on the likes of you. snap out of it bro. its your life.