Does Evil Prove God Exists? (Frank Turek vs Alex O'Connor)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 сер 2017
- Christian apologist Frank Turek is an author, speaker, and radio show host well known for engaging skeptical students. In this show, he dialogues with young atheist Alex O Connor who runs the popular Cosmic Skeptic UA-cam channel.
After Frank posted a video about why the existence of evil may in fact show that God exists, Alex created a response video. They discuss whether objective morality exists (Alex says ‘no’) and whether undirected evolution can account for our moral beliefs.
Get the MP3
For Frank Turek: www.crossexamined.org
For Frank’s original video: • It May Just be that Ev...
For Cosmic Skeptic’s response video and channel: • Frank Turek thinks tha...
Get Unbelievable? the book: www.unbelievablebook.co.uk
Get Unbelievable? the Conference 2017 DVD/CD & Digital Download: www.premier.org.uk/shop
For more faith debates visit www.premierchristianradio.com/...
#FrankTurek #AlexOConnor #Debates
Not only was this kid humble and respectful, but he did a far better job of staying focused and logically consistent than any of the other Atheist debaters I’ve listened to.
Hitchens, Shermer, and Dawkins almost always resort to just complaining about religion, but O’Connor actually raised a new question there at the end that I hadn’t heard before. I’d love to hear a Part 2 of this debate.
Absolutely right!
I've other debates and that's exactly what happens.
Is not that don't believe in God, is more so that they are angry with God, or with religious institutions, and then they use that anger to say: God doesn't exist.
They never actually address the core of the issue or the debate rather; Does God exist?
If you believe that he does have to make sense of it and prove it.
The same if you believe that he doesnt.
Because as Frank said; Sure you can believe whatever you want, but just cause you don't like religions that does not mean God doesn't exist.
@@carlos.daniel.santmaria5477 Yeah, and it is justified to be angry at people who take God as a given. The arrogance and delusion it takes to just assume god must be one being, or a trinity, is almost dizzying to a lover of truth. I think it is the religious who are angry at Truth, not the sincere skeptics. The skeptic is arguably the only person who cares for truth. The rest only want to wrap Truth in Jesus wrapping or Muhammad wrapping. The skeptic has no other pretense than truth.
@@keatsiannightingale2025 You are a prime example of the previous statement and just supported the case that skeptics are angry with God and ignore the truth. But to even throw the claim that it is justified to be angry at people who believe God while even that statement comes from a subjective point of view, is a whole new level lol you will never get an intelligent and rational person to take you serious with that approach. You have a ways to go.
@@keatsiannightingale2025 I dont think anyone here takes God as a given, maybe you were thinking of someone else.
The difference between them and him is the grayhair. They have tons and he has none....
Nothing is absolute for this guy. It's either subjective or evolving. I pray for him.
Such is life
I found it more than a bit comical that O'Connor effectively said that he is absolutely positive there are no absolutes.
you misunderstood
@@JoeKnows44 please elaborate
@@TadTheTinker, what he is saying is that he is certain we know of no absolutes, not that there couldn't be one.
@@JoeKnows44that comment in and of itself is self defeating as it outlines a n absolute lol😂
@@Chris-gx9yt, you're going to need a few more logic and ethics classes.
The point is that gun free zones only become dangerous when a gun enters them.
Just like areas that aren't gun free zones.
We need open and honest discussions like this. I may not agree with Alex's naturalistic outlook, but I respect his great intellect and his honesty. The very fact that we are discussing these things points to something beyond ourselves and beyond the mere material. Why do we yearn for something higher? This is purpose, hope....and love.
By beyond ourself, do you mean supernatural? The fact that we’re discussing it doesn’t necessarily point to anything supernatural, maybe just for our evolved tendency to try to find patterns or meaning in events. That, at least, we have a lot of good evidence for. We have absolutely zero evidence for anything supernatural. If you do, the Randi foundation has $1 million for you, and you’re guaranteed a Nobel Prize.
@@DJRickard2010 There is no such thing like supernatural/paranormal. Its like you would say "This thing that happened is against laws of physics". But very fact this thing happened makes it not against laws, or it wouldnt exist. Numbers, mathematics etc. is just abstract we made so we can describe world for our purpose and to make technological progress. And there is yet too much to discover and understand. Some things we will never learn.
I (and some peoples I know) experienced some things u call "supernatural". Dreams that tells future events, feeling other person on distance, oobe, visions.
I tell you man, this world is a mystery. We cant pretend that we know everything. But we can search deeper and deeper.
@@Haylash8 thanks, Haylash. I agree until your last few statements, but after saying there is no supernatural, you attribute experiences to supernatural. You have no way of knowing that what you experienced was “supernatural.” People all over the world have experiences, in response to music, nature, drugs, rituals, etc, but I would say they are mostly caused by the Brain, until someone provides evidence for another explanation.
@CJED hahahaha. Depends 100% on who you ask. In case you were asking me, no. I have seen no convincing evidence that human beings “go” anywhere after death, or that any kind of place exists called hell.
@@DJRickard2010
Respectfully, I must disagree.
I believe there is much evidence, in the Bible alone for instance, that the "supernatural," that which is beyond the natural, exists.
How about the very existence of the nation of Israel?
Basically destroyed in 70 AD, the people dispersed throughout the world, exactly as God said it would be, and then lo and behold, regathered as a nation in 1948 exactly, again, as God said it would be.
Do you know that doing a statistical analysis of just a handful of the prophesies regarding just the first advent of the Messiah reveals a number of probability greater than the "known" atoms in the universe?
What about testimonies by atheist doctors who have witnessed the hand of God doing miraculous healing to patients before their very eyes?
The greatest can be very personal.
But one must really WANT to pursue the truth over their own preconceptions and agenda.
And then be willing to say when they were wrong, in other words to be humble.
Here it is; pray, that's right, call out to the Lord Jesus and say, Jesus, I don't believe in You, but if You are real, please reveal Yourself to me.
Nooo how could he end it when he did?! That's when the whole discussion was getting to the best point 😭. Beautiful dialogue. Much respect to O'Connor.
Proverbs 12:15 The way of a fool is right in his own eyes, but a wise man heeds counsel.
And now think outside the bubble. Why? Because the reality from outside the bubble and the reality from inside the bubble are not equals. What is inside the bubble is not able to reflect actual reality (of which the bubble is but a player amongst many) while reality can explain the bubble.
I find it interesting early in the talk that Alex describes atheism as being akin to veganism, in that neither of them are true, nor can be described such.
Later, he backs this up by also agreeing a rock could be called a vegan, and an atheist.
What I find odd is that none of us hold these definitions to be actually true:
we do not call rocks vegans, no more than we call microphones, books, or planets.
Really. If you were to walk down the street and say "Is that rock vegan?" you'd probably get a "no" if anyone were to answer you.
Why?
A vegan is not "something that does not eat meat."
It's "someone who can eat meat, but chooses not to."
And they have reasons for choosing not to.
Of course, semantics comes back in: if you want to say "No, I disagree, a vegan is anything that does not consume meat", then you still have a point - but you'd be holding to an unusual corner-case definition that I doubt many people would agree with, if not for the atheism/theism dichotomy.
In a sense, attempting to define veganism (and by extension atheism, using this equivocation) in such a manner seems more like an attempt to offload the burden of proof.
Could be wrong, of course, but has anyone heard the term "vegan" and not thought of a person who chooses a specific diet, rather than just anything whatsoever that does not consume meat?
Good point! When I first heard him say that, it didn’t really make sense.
His statement was only meant to refute tureks statement That if we use the definition for atheism “one who doesn’t believe in God,” then a microphone is an atheist. Alex even said “if you want to call this book a vegan, go ahead.”
I get your drift.
Quite right!! It's basically to offload that burden of proof. Thank you.
Rocks also don't consume soy
It's really fascinating in my opinion that one of the ways God exist is the patience Frank has in these debates, it's really fascinating because we know that God is patient in our lives because the love he has for us of course and I believe he's being patient with this young man, it's very interesting to see how young and intelligent he is, you can really see God's plan and purpose in his life, see sometimes God allows some of us in this world to be blinded so that his Glory can be revealed later, and in due time, the intelligence this young man has, if fighting for the kingdom and personally seeking God's righteousness, this man is going to have an outstanding testimony that'll draw millions to Christ in these last days!
I don't know he seems far down the atheism rabbit hole
Oh no, he's totally Godforsaken! He does have patience with Frank though, so who knows? Only God knows, NOT YOU!!, you awful sinner!! You 😞, repent 😞 REPENT!!
"He'll draw millions" How DARE you say it ??!? REPENT you worm 🪱 REPENT!!😔🥺😔🥺Where you made for the Lake??!!? REPENT REPENT REPENT!!😔😔😔🥺🥺🥺🔥🪱🔥🪱🔥🪱🔥🪱🔥😩😰😫😩😰😫😩😰🤣😆🔥🔥🔥🪱🔥
Make the Most High l❤ve you again, although you 🪱 are not worth it....! REPENT and prey the Most High doesn't waste you in His 🔥Lake🔥 FEAR THE LORD FEAR THEL ORD FEAR 😱 THE LOVING GOD
JESUS BLESS!!!
"in my opinion that one of the ways God exist is the patience Frank has in these debates"
"we know that God is patient"
Yes. That is your opinion. In itself it everything but proof. Without bias one can not make such 'claims' (because that's what it really is). So someone who does not believe would never make those claims and that in itself is something to think about.
I wish all debates could be like that. It is so pleasant see two ppl who think differently having a good and respectful conversation.
This was actually a very interesting and civil discussion.
I know right, good luck trying to find a young liberal/atheist who isn’t going to get angry and storm off the show! At least in 2023! Atheists don’t come like these two Brit’s anymore! Christianity is the superior religion because Christian’s can live freely and peacefully with virtually any different rational worldview (atheism is a religion)! Why I say virtually, is because of nazism, racism!
Which is why I found it hard to dive into apologetics against atheism but rather myself focusing more on theology and refuting Islam..
Philosophy is hard :x
i agree refuting Islam is kinda easier then refuting Atheism
Have your tested your objections to Islam by giving then to Muslims?
To refute a Muslim, you have to prove that Jesus is God. To refute an atheist, ask them to define truth.
I strive to be as respectful as Alex and Frank when I have discussions like this.
Frank wasn't very respectful Lying is not respectful.
I respect Alex’s zeal, fortitude and eloquence in making the case for something that he apparently sincerely believes. The only problem however, is that he is sincerely wrong.
Well yeah, but it´s ok.
He seems to be a reasonable person, unlike many atheists.
And at least he does recognize it is right and wrong.
Or, you sincerely have no clue about what he's talking about.
Alex says at 55:20 “it does frustrate me that I’ll never know if I exist” …. Wow
Atheism is pessimism
I dont know how else to say it and dont know how ppl cant understand it. It's the only honest logical way to follow atheism. Trust me, I'm losing all.will to live, unless I believe in the lord
This reminds me of the first few pages of GK Chesterton's book "Orthodoxy" describing how unfettered human reasoning can land a person in a mental institution.
@@tamething1 I'm sorry... not knowing if you'll ever exist... is urtwe nonsense and foolishness.
That being overly "wise" and "philosophical".
If dont believe you are real or exist, then you may as well kill yourself. You arent real anyway. But then you don't. And for those who do, they do for other reasons not for this.
our guy says the same thing earlier on so ;/
@@planedecoded …. Time stamp please?
Great debate, both guys are very well spoken.
Frank definitely isn’t. Lol.
@@SubstanceP888 why do you say so?
@@sharamaelopez632 because look at his name
@@anashwarmonrajan3110 what's the connection of his name and his debate?
@Steady Flow He does bring up Isaiah 53 and he’s had people on his show talk about prophesy. I’d like to find an apologist that really delves into fulfilled prophesy more than he does though. I think there’s a lot there that people aren’t aware of.
Morality from evolution deals with how we came to know morality not how morality came into being.
If even that is the case
how we came to know morality is the human perspective of morality. That's all that matters. Rationality and evolution created humans who now work to find morality. With the absence of God, the two things you explained are one in the same.
@@cammackenzie4467 Okay? How does that dismantle my original comment?
You know what's funny though? Morality is not explained and taught without religious knowledge. So absence of God is rather a desire concept of morality rather than what humans went through to learn morality in real life, throughout history.
I totally dissagree. Morality within evolution is a product of evolution that is subject to change, primarily through our brain.
My morality as a christian was different from when I - as I percieve it - got to learn more about the religion, religion in general, myself and the world. Today I do not uphold the same morality.
You make it sound as if there was already a morality set and that we have to discover or learn what that is, which I think is truly false.
Religion is also a product of this evolution, in an attempt to set a moral code of which the believers think it is the best for the individual and the group. In evolutionary terms I'd consider this part of selfpreservation. Morality is just that, trying to see what is good for us or what is bad for us. Religion grew into defining earlier interpretations as just "good" and "evil" and contributed external forces to it like spiritual warfare and god and what not. Religion does not take into account new things that we learn about ourselves or how societies evolve. I do not believe that humans were made for religion, but religion was made to serve us at a certain place at a certain time, by humans.
I think the one lesson we can all agree we learned from both of these individuals is how to debate like adults.
Alex being so young and so patient with so dishonest a man was incredible.
I pray that Alex comes to the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. The fact of the matter is: we all think we are mightily clever and profound until we meet the Almighty God. In a sense, all humans before they know the real God are athiests/agnostics. We think we are so intelligent...the Bible says: "professing themselves to be wise, they became fools..."
You can get to know Him here on earth. “ to know him, and the power of his rising again, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being conformed to his death”,
Philippians 3:10 - Ask the Holy Spirit to reveal Himself to you and you will know God. The Holy Spirit revealed Himself to me trust me He is real.
@@honestfriend767 people can come to know God that way. But, it’s not incorrect to come to know God by discovering evidence for his existence
Alex is far a civil atheist that I know but I disagree on his argument that the laws of mathematics are human inventions themselves. As a mathematician, this is not the case.
Though I'm a Christian as well, I have great respect for Alex and of course, Frank
Can you go further in detail as to why
@@goldencalf13 I’d like to know too. I was told by my algebra 2 teacher who was still studying math in university that there is math that proves math exists and is accurate
I think math is human invention. For example if you said: 1+1= 2 is objectives absolutely truth of the universe . Because 1+1 always equal 2 even you in the moon or go to the sun or anywhere in the universe. Then you have to admit 21 is the highest point in blackjack and that is objectives truth of the universe. it is highest point even you go to the moon, or even you go to the center of the sun.
But 21 is the highest point in blackjack because we said so.
So in example of simple math: 1+1=2. It just a human concept. Which concept that predict reality better will be accept by majority. Overtime it feel like objectives truth.
Im asians and im good at math. When i was a teenagers at high school, i do feel math is objectives too. I even feel newton law of physic is objectives truth of universe. I even feel my own language is more objectives truth than English 😅.
But physic or math is human langue to predict reality. The better it predict reality the more it will be accept by science.
Right now, we know newton law fail when predict movement of big thing like galaxy.
Relative law fail to fully explain the behavior of atom or electron in quantum mechanics. It failed at some point because these law of physic or mathematic is human invention. It predict so well in some area, but bad in some area. And that how we realized we need better language, better physic, better math.
@@SenEmChannel
Blackjack is a card game though.
Saying that he is wrong without proving it to us or explaining? Ok
This is one of the best conversations I've seen on this matter and I think it cuts to the heart of the disagreement. I'm 1,000% with Alex but I love how Frank sticks with reason and logic instead of faith.
If you constantly have to jump through hoops, play semantics, and create new definitions to prove your point then your point must not be that compelling.
Alex has been contradicting himself all the time.
That’s because these are complex issues, fraught with uncertainty, unless you can just say, “God made it that way.” And Turek offers ZERO evidence, only snarky, philosophical “arguments” that he’s rehearsed and repeats ad nauseum. He’s incredibly disrespectful.
@Vladimir Puhduhduh Short answer: No.
I love this kind of users, who are quite belligerent against christians because they follow "rules", but they are unable to make a constructive critic against their self-called leaders. I love that, seriously.
@Loki anything other than old writings, man made religious doctrines or philosophical “arguments,” who’s premises don’t hold water. Can you please present some?
@Loki Thanks. I’ve not been able to find any reliable evidence for these recordings, or for the conclusion that they are created by “supernatural” factors. Can you show me to some? If you have any, contact James Randi; it’s worth $1 million.
@@DJRickard2010 RE: "And Turek offers ZERO evidence, only snarky, philosophical “arguments” that he’s rehearsed and repeats ad nauseum. He’s incredibly disrespectful."
Snarky? I don't think he's snarky at all. Maybe he pokes fun sometimes, but it never seems to be in bad faith.
Now, when you rehearse and repeat your arguments, like everyone who has strong arguments for important issues should, that says nothing about how good they are. Practicing stuff in no way is a bad attribute.
Practicing bad arguments WOULD be bad, yes, but again, you slinging around phrases like "no evidence" and sarcastically referring to his arguments with quotations (as if they aren't actual arguments) -- your behavior here is up for review.
This discussion was made 5 years ago. Alex has matured a lil bit since. Would be nice to hear his updated take on evil and suffering.
Great job Mr. Turek
42:34, Alex said that "The opposite of suffering, is no suffering or the absence of suffering.
But Frank is saying Suffering is the absence of Good. Which I think is correct.
Evil is just a lack/deviation from good. Alex said you can have evil and good independently, or like he said, "You don't really need Good to know evil."
But that's impossible, because of the logic that Good must be first so that anything that deviates or satisfies the standard is called Good/evil.
Greetings!
_GOOD LOVING BLESSINGS !_ 😄
The abortion debate infuriates me. If a woman cannot defend her own baby, I wouldn't want her anywhere near me. How can I trust someone who won't even protect her own child. Seems like she'd be the kind of l person to ditch you whenever it suits her.
I was surprised to hear Frank say "does God exist"? - Am I absolutely certain? - NO, I can't even be certain that I exist?"
I KNOW that I exist, based on accumulated memories of numerous experiences, since my childhood, and through the moment that I write this. I have also come to KNOW that The Creator God exists, based on my memory of specific facts that became absolutes, only after applying critical analysis to them, which I have not necessarily done with all points of information that I receive through research.
Nearly any "claim of fact" can become an "absolute" (absolute fact), if the essential discipline of Critical Analysis is applied thereto. "The God IS" has become an absolute fact to me, for many years, through application of said discipline to a number of facts relating thereto.
As such, I was astounded to hear Frank make such a glib statement, regarding "knowing (having certainty that) God exists".
.
But your mind can create false memories. So you can't know what memories are true.
@@daltonbrasier5491 - That has soooo little to do w/ the vast majority of memories, like 95%+ of them. You're reaching & stretching for something, likely for something that supports your fake scenarios & goofy evolutionary concepts. Ain't gonna happen oh dalty.
@@davidjames3359 I don't believe in evolution, I was just critiquing your logic. If your mind can create false memories, you can't use your memories as evidence to prove something. And you can't be sure all of your memories aren't false, just by having those memories. You need physical evidence to prove your memories are real.
@@daltonbrasier5491- Not true. We'd never advance an inch, if we were to use your claim. Out of quadrillions of memories, you're reducing them all to require provable status. I'll pass on that one. You're getting far too philosophical, which is unnecessary on this level.
I’m 14:00 minutes in and I detect a discernible categorical flaw in Alex’s claim about a book or a microphone being atheistic. Categorically, atheism is a system of beliefs, a belief in no God, as opposed to theism, a belief in God. Beliefs by nature are attributable to beings with such capacities as reasoning, awareness, recognition, morality and will. They are attributable exclusively to beings of a human essence and nature and cannot be attributed to beings of a material nature like books or plants or cats. But I think he’s a brilliant young man and, as a former atheist myself, I laud his humility.
I feel like my brain did a bunch of cartwheels in a row listening to Alex explain his side.
Mine too haha.
same.
that's called thinking
@@dialupmodem6583 That's called mental gymnastcs to make things work.
That will happen when you are confronted with ideas that conflict with your inherent bias.
Such an educated yet confused young man he is. He justifies everything by 'how he feels.'
Yes Alex needs to be more assertive like frank turek. Making unsubstantiated claims with full confidence in repetition makes anything true. Don't forget the convoluted logic and wordplay.
Very Interesting
Man, Dr Turek is so patient yet ppl accuse christians of intolerance
Turek is not all Christians. Debunked
I wish Frank was a reformed presuppositionlist apologist because he's dealing with a consistent atheist. If he was he could've easily ripped Alex's presuppositions to shreds. He needs to attack his worldview and show how it cannot account for anything such as Reason, logic, Grammer or any other universal truths.
What do you mean? What do you think it can't take into account?
That's odd.. Classical apologist William Lane Craig does very good and he's not Reformed...WLC could have a bit more Biblical anthropology involved in his Theology and Apologetics I have to grant James White that..
It depends what you mean by "does very good", because WLC suffers from the same problems Frank has here. In both of their apologetic methods, there's this recurring underlying idea that "this is all a matter of probabilities", when in reality, the bible talks about man knowing God and rebelling against him, actively suppressing that knowledge. Therefore, it's not biblical to approach apologetics as though it's just two people neutrally looking at evidence.
I'm an atheist, and I don't see how presuppositionalism rips anything to shreds. Reason and logic are axioms. You don't ask where they came from, or else you don't really know what an axiom is. The fact that reasoning has an arbitrary absolute starting point that puts an arbitrary limit on how many times you can ask the childish question "where did THAT come from" might shock newbies, but it old hat to me. Wanna go a few rounds?
Although I am not a presuppositionalist I fully agree with you that presuppositionalism has this strength of not permitting any ground to the atheist for his argumentations because he cannot justify his objectivity for anything.
At least he's honest. Thank God. He's agnostic. He doesnt know.
The honest answer.
I love a respectful debate without insulting each other like Christopher hichens did and ken hovin does.
I find it interesting that when it comes to describing evil, figures like Alex believe you don't need good in order to know evil. Good and evil are not two opposing separate forces, they are connected from it's reference. You can't have evil without Good and you can't know good if you only know evil. Anymore you can't know light if you're in darkness.
How do you know that you need good in order to know evil. Can you define good and evil?
@@DJRickard2010 what does that have to do with Alex's position?
@@teravega I believe definitions are important. I was also responding to your statement that “You can’t have evil without good.”
@@DJRickard2010 Good and Evil are descriptions of a standard. Much like any standard you can't know one without the other. How can a judgement exist without a distinction? How can "wet" exist without knowing it's different from being "dry"? Or facts and opinions? The critique has nothing to do what we define as good and evil but the metaphysics of how a standard works.
Talk about facts, you are a master at that, can i borrow you're brain?
I enjoy thinking deep but if it gets to a point where it gets no where but a deep foolish cluster of nonsense I erase the chalk board so to speak and get back to a point before the breakoff towards nonsense. The fact is either nothing created everything or a self existing creator created everything. And the latter is the only sane logical conclusion and Im seeking Him. Truth is not complicated when one really desires it.
Amen
Good point
If Cosmicskeptic didn't interrupt his opponent every time he tried to make a point, this might have been a helpful video.
But he didn't though ._.
It’s hard for rational people to engage in discussion with professional apologists like Turek or Craig. One reason is that they go into a 10-minute preaching monologue, full of fallacies, and at the end of that, the atheist is left to unpack the BS line by line. I would much rather see a dialogue than a debate.
A quote from star wars: “Darkness rises, and the light to meet it”
@ 23:16 he agrees with Frank that evil doesn't necessarily disapproves God.
Disprove😐sorry
Of course it doesn’t. However, Alex-and most atheist-don’t have to disprove that a god exists, any more than they have to disprove ghosts, alien visitations or leprechauns. The burden of prove is on those who make active claims that a god exists.
@@DJRickard2010 I have seen you three times in a row at comments, and now you just simply don´t try to defend your commander, but to specifically proclaim the same, repetitive and incorrect fallacies about simple epistemology.
Again: If you make a positive claim (what you are defending, and Alex not, is negative atheism) you need to provide evidence. In that case, it is not the existence of God, it is the existence of contradiction between those two terms. Consequently, if you support that claim, you MUST offer logical premises to sustain it. The burde of proof is on you.
The topic about evil is clear and they both agree that Turek is right, as it is very obvious that evil does not disprove God, and no enough amount of childish fallacies of comparing metaphyisical aspects with aliens is going to succeed.
@@davidlara993 thanks, I’m not defending anything, so I don’t feel any need to get caught up in philosophical arguments. The fact is, I/we simply don’t know a lot. You can create philosophical arguments or “reasons” that there is a god, but I have no burden of proof for anything. I haven’t been presented with any evidence that there is a theistic or deistic god, any more than I’ve seen evidence for fairies.
@@DJRickard2010 So, there is a puzzle with a piece missing.
I have a piece that could fit in the hole.
I want to lay it in the puzzle but you stop me.
You say: we can't be certain the piece you're holding is the correct piece for the puzzle.
I ask: "Can you give a piece for the puzzle then?".
You say: "I don't need to have a piece which fits the puzzle".
I hope you don't buy puzzles in stores, haha
This guy want's simply doesn't want to accept God, although he states he's open to facts.
Agree, he is a smart guy but I bet he could put that intelligence in arguing logical reasonable positions for God, but he just has chosen what he wants to believe.
Your sky daddy isn't a proven fact. Never has been.
You mean allah
My favorite quote from Alex in this debate.
-Starvation is subjective.
@YP Poe how out of touch with reality do you have to be in order to say starvation is subjective. His entire world view is nothing objective exists.
@YP Poe he didn't want to take a firm stance on anything because then he would have to defend it. He wants to be able to point fingers without having any pointed back at him.
@YP Poe it's definitely something that changes with age. Kinda makes you wonder why anyone listens to someone of that age.
@YP Poe I'm sure they do. I usually say you're allowed to have an opinion once you own your own house. Renting doesn't count.
@@MadebyKourmoulis Well, that remark comes from someone who has( Most likely) never been starving. So...Of course, something might not seem that real to you, until you live through it, and sadly so...
And of course, he did not mean it ( I hope).
it was just an example.
They were both very polite when exposing their arguments.
They were also very focused on the topic at hand, none of them resorted to emotional fallacies or to changing the topic drastically to evade answering questions, which is quite refreshing to see in a debate of this nature, and their use of sophisticated vocabulary is quite impressive.
To hit the bone we must take this to the realm of the conscience. This is being debated via the intellect so everything inevitably then becomes subjective
Alex kept moving the goal posts. That's the problem with his attitude. He doesn't want proof of God. That would mean he would have to give up his emotional stake in his own wisdom. He needs to become as Paul, who, as a very educated Pharisee, had to abandon most of his hard earned training and start over again in the knowledge of Christ. Paul admitted his learning was foolish in the light of the revealed truths of the Gospel. Alex is desperately hanging on his contradictory opinion to preserve his ego.
And you are a Christian to preserve your ego. Stating others' motives is fun!
@@keatsiannightingale2025 So you doing the same you accuse me of makes you what?
This young man is very smart, but that is not necessarily wisdom. Psalms 14:1 the fool has said in his heart there is no God.
1 Corinthians 3:19&20 the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
Best thing for this young man is to study the word of God, the Bible.
It is so beautiful giving us hope. Atheism has no hope, how depressing and bereft of life it is. We all need to be saved because of own actions, our own sins. God gave his on, Jesus Christ, to die for us, so we won't be punished for our sins. Obey Jesus, believe he was resurrected for us, believe he is the Son of God, repent your sins and confess Jesus as the son of God. Be baptized into Jesus Christ, putting him on, and live for him and then with him in eternity. What a beautiful thing is this gift God offers to us all. Please accept the gift, obey.
The repenting of the sins gospel is unbiblical… it’s works based. It blurs the distinction between religions that are works based. It’s only based on faith and faith alone. Sad
“It will forever frustrate me not to know if I really exist or not”-atheist 😳
“Then who’s asking the question?”- Frank 👍
Wouldn’t you have to exist to be frustrated in the first place? This is one confused guy.
I'd love to see a new meeting between Frank Turek and Alex O Connor, since we're now 6 years later.
When you start overanalyzing 2 + 2 = 4 to the point that it may not be true without people, perhaps he is overanalyzing higher and deeper levels of thought...Frank does a great job pointing that out with his arguments against O'Connor.
I wish I could have debates like this one. The people who argue with me that I meet are usually the people who go on R/Atheism on Reddit to vent about how religion is evil. I would love to have just an intellectual conversation about religion.
I’m always curious to know why religious people believe what they believe, no matter what the religion.
@@DJRickard2010 …. I wonder if you would be up for reading a booklet entitled “The Case For Christ” by Lee Strobell. Lee was a lawyer, an investigative journalist, and an atheist, when his wife became a Christian. This angered Lee so much he determined to prove Christianity wrong. His journey is well worth reading, and yes, he did become a true blue believer.
@@DJRickard2010 Well, I started believing when God answered my question audibly during one of my darkest hours.
@@honestfriend767 nice, I hope what you heard was helpful. I would say there are more likely explanations than that attributing it to a supernatural being. Also, which god did you determine it came from, and how did you know which one?
I think you might have better conversations with individuals outside of the computer. People can use the mask of the computer to be very hostile and may not be looking for a conversation.
I think I just witnessed an actual debate between a Biblical Christian and a sceptic. O'Connor exposes Shermer, Dawkins, Dillahunty, Hitchins for being the bottom rung village atheists that they are
11:58
Alex: That can be true or false...
.
.
Not objectively...
Frank looking at the host: "This kid knows the game".
I have a lot of respect for Alex, I like to see debates where both sides are open to discussion without petty jabs
hoping he finds the lord.
Very interesting stuff. It was going a bit over my head but I feel like frank did a better job of explaining his point.
However, the last thing they talked about, as for as how reason is involved. I wish they could go more into that.
I see frank is saying that on naturalism, reason is predetermined and based on past physical events. Therefore, trusting it becomes difficult.
Then Alex says that theists do the same thing by saying their reason comes from God and they use that reason to prove God. I'm not seeing how these parallel.
The kid reasoning is this: My reason comes from evolution and i use reason to prove evolution is true. And Frank's reason comes from God and Frank uses reason to prove God exists. But that's not the issue., we all use reason to validate reason, there is no other way around no matter what your beliefs are. What Frank is saying is that his reason is given to him by an intelligent mind with a purpose to find truth, we are wired to find truth. In evolution we are wired to survive, not truth. The way naturalists goes around this is by playing word games: " _what is truth?_ "
STREEEEEET Ho boy, that made my head spin. I think I am understanding what you are saying though. One one side, reason comes from an intelligent being. On the other side, reason comes from an urge to pass on genes.
Alex said that our ability to reason arose out of evolution. Take a look at cognitive science’a research on biases, and you’ll see that reason cannot be trusted. It’s why we now use the scientific method. Reason said that the Earth was flat, that it was the center of the solar system, and that there’s a god.
@@DJRickard2010 Wouldn't you need reason to make sense of the scientific method?
@@DJRickard2010 sabías q había filosófos como Sócrates creo q fue el q creía q la tierra era redonda hasta en la biblia dice q la tierra era redonda
@25:00 Regarding objective versus subjective morality-objective morality, although open to individual interpretation, is akin to analyzing a data-driven report rather than experiencing art. Individual interpretations, while varied, do not alter the underlying moral truths, similar to how different readings of a report do not change the data itself. Subjective interpretations do not affect the objective truths of a moral statement any more than a miscalculation affects the accuracy of a mathematical formula. Therefore, while stating "my favorite flavor of ice cream is chocolate" reflects an objective truth about my preference, it is a declaration of a subjective taste.
I would love to see a debate between dr. Frank Turek versus Matt Dillahunty.
Absolutely, Matt would make Dr. Turek look like a fool.
Come on. "Depends what you mean by two." Reality escapes these people.
😁😅😅
He is so stuck in this worldview he can't even admit that logic is real.
Frank can shred apart the opinions of Alex in lesser amount of time but he was being respectful of his age.👍🙏
_"Frank can shred apart the opinions of Alex in lesser amount of time "_
At what point in the video did the do that?
@@markh1011 for example torturing children will not be considered bad or evil it would only be considered as an opinion by alex. But since there is a god above us who gave us moral judgement to think about it and make decisions according to his moral concience. And secondly all the laws of physics and maths were discovered not invented and it was believed by the scientists who discovered it. And universe had a beginning even the scientists studying about multiverse say this.
@@rafaellucky8377
_"for example torturing children will not be considered bad or evil it would only be considered as an opinion by alex."_
But that's a complete misrepresentation. It is far more than mere opinion. If you watched a child tortured it would severe psychological and even physical effects on your body. Short term and long term. You may never even live a full life because of it. Does this sound like just an opinion? That's something a little more than just deciding which ice cream flavor you prefer.
While our morality has a subjective beginning, to refer to this as mere opinion is something of an intentional mischaracterisation.
But if morality doesn't have this subjective foundation isn't it still mere opinion? It's the mere opinion of the creator of the universe.
Claiming there is an objective moral standard opens up all sorts of problems:
1. How do you know this?
2. Can you prove this?
3. How do you know what the standard is?
4. If you said "the bible" to 3 then you have new issues.
_" And universe had a beginning even the scientists studying about multiverse say this."_
Not quite. Scientists agree there was a rapid expansion (the big bang) but they know nothing about what was before it. There are models of the universe without a beginning.
@@markh1011 the example of torturing children was written by me as if i was atheist. I pretended to be an atheist before giving that example. So that example was subjective and the ones who believe in god can say directly that this is a wrong doing. But the fact that the atheist cannot say that. Because he follows none above him for which he was given morality and self judgement of conciencness. Then i dont think it would be more than a opinion. Also if you take a closer look then the atheists can wake up next morning and can also say that torturing children is a good thing. What would you say to that ?
Then you would directly declare him as a criminal for thinking such a disguting thing. Because there is someone above us who hesitates about this kinds of things happen. Also there are just rules of eating chicken,pork and various other animals. If you are fine eating pork and i am not fine then it would be my opinion which would differ from yours. And it is acceptable completely. That some might eat that or some will not. It is just a opinion because the lord never created a divide just by eating different kinds of things. Certainly the ruoes were made to eat some and not to eat others because some animals may have some problems which can cause problems if humans intake them. For example in old testament it was written not to eat bat or birds like them. But most of the scientists believe that corona virus occured because of bats. And why we cannot hear certain things about a child getting tortured or something else because the lord says that he has made us according to his concience. And he didnt made emotions for us it was his emotions which were given to the humans. A book was written in 2006 by a scientist and he says that multiverse also doesnt explain the beginning of the world. If you ask me i will write the name of him and the book written by him. And i had read about the big bang about long ago. So i dont remember it quiet remember about it but i had read it in 1001 days and it was written in that the scientists told something unbelievable in 1960 but seemed wrong but people had no choice in believing in it because till date no scientist has counter it according to the book of 1001 days. So what i am trying to tell here that till date not a perfect manner was found by humans to bring the ocurrence of big bang.
@@rafaellucky8377
_"But the fact that the atheist cannot say that."_
Of course they can say it is wrong.
_"Because he follows none above him for which he was given morality and self judgement of conciencness. T"_
You don't get your morality from a god. You don't need a magical man in space for morality.
_" Also if you take a closer look then the atheists can wake up next morning and can also say that torturing children is a good thing"_
No more than we will wake up tomorrow and god will decide that torturing children is a good thing.
_" If you are fine eating pork and i am not fine then it would be my opinion which would differ from yours. "_
I'm talking about morality and you're talking about eating pork? You need to think about better arguments.
So you didn't answer the questions from my previous post.
But if morality doesn't have this subjective foundation isn't it still mere opinion? It's the mere opinion of the creator of the universe.
Claiming there is an objective moral standard opens up all sorts of problems:
1. How do you know this?
2. Can you prove this?
3. How do you know what the standard is?
4. If you said "the bible" to 3 then you have new issues.
I appreciate this respectful exchange from two decent humans. That said, Alex knocked this one out of the park. Frank's reasoning is almost entirely circular and it becomes painfully obvious throughout this discussion.
How so? I actually think that’s true for Alex
@@radonaccount4454 I agree. It seems that some people can't see where Frank showed how it wasn't actually circular reasoning.
Both agree that they are using reason but Alex wasn't getting Frank's point that reason won't come through material evolutionary processes.
The reasoning they are using is best explained if there is an intelligence capable of reason who gives us that capacity to reason.
After that, it's a separate argument to make a case that points to the likeliness of that intelligent source.
But it's rational to conclude that both reason and evil are non-existent illusions of biochemistry if the material realm is all that exists.
I need a part 2
You know what its easier to believe in GOD, than proving GOD does not exist.
That is the lesson from this video. ✌️
beautifully typed BG! amen to that
@@ruthadiscipleofjesuschrist1788 hey thanks and GOD bless you!
@@baldygaming2226 God bless you and yours too brother BG!
We don't have to prove that he doesn't exist. YOU must prove that he DOES beyond all reasonable doubt. The burden of proof is, has, and always will be on those who make the positive claim.
People would argue that's not enough evidence to support the belief but I would argue that if God does not exist then they must explain the reason for our existence which no atheist is able to answer.
My question would be if you get your morality through revolutionary process saying that human flourishing is good but how do you explain homosexuality being good since it ends human flourishing because two men cannot have a child, if we got our morality through revolutionary process then homosexuality would be the most outrageous act
Homosexuality has evolutionary functions.
And it doesn't go against human flourishing.
However if you turned every peraon homosexual, you would have done something immoral.
@@marco_mate5181 if homosexuality does not go against human flourishing what is the outcome of two men(or women) in bed?
No one wants to turn anyone into an homosexual. It'll be a sad and lonely place to live cause there won't be anyone to live with. It just ends with the two.
Were the parents of an homosexual homosexuals?
We need Jesus....
@@ibelongtojesus0316 just because two man in bed don't make a baby doesn't mean it goes against human flourishing.
When we used to live in tribes and large families, in order to save resources nature made some people not attracted to the opposite sex to reduce the number of births, so that they would help raise the children of the community.
If it went against human flourishing in any relevant way, homosexuality would have been naturally selected, or at least it woupd be rare as some genetic defects.
@@marco_mate5181 If a enough of the population decided to engage in homosexual relationships for an extended period of time, would that bring about the extinction of humanity? That behavior in the long term would not bring about human flourishing.
@@beadoll8025 which is why we have evolved not to be able to decide our sexual orientation, so that the majority would stay heterosexual. I even saif that if you forced a change to homosexuality, that would be immoral, if the consequences was extinction.
I haven’t read the book I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be Atheist yet but man…I really don’t have enough faith to be atheist..if I had to agree that enslaving my ancestors wasn’t objectively wrong..I couldn’t do it. Why would I argue for a worldview despite Alex saying it isn’t..why would I view the world where I couldn’t objectively say sexually abusing children is wrong…that’s sad. I would be denying not only the real world..but also even what most atheist would personally adhere to.
The debate is essentially:
Theism vs Evolutionism
On the topic of Morality
But if you equate Atheism with Evolutionism, saying it is part of the Atheistic worldview, they vehemently deny it.
because it isn't. There are atheists who don't believe in evolution.
Evil can't exist by itself, their must be Good, and good can't exist without a standard(God) therefore, Evil helps That GOD EXIST.
explain why good cant exist without god?? that makes no sense and there is no evidence to back such a claim
@@stephanerivest3166 Well if there is good there has to be an absolute because if there isn't whatever u call good is just ur opinion. It might be different for some1 else and whatever U think is good might not be good for the other person. The reason to that is bcuz if there ain't some intelligent being above us that defines morality for us then we define it ourselves meaning there is no such thing as good is just ur taste, u either like it or not but without God is not absolute.
@@lehderblight810 we decide what is good, we as a society...I was raised with certain values that I uphold, it has absolutely nothing to do with a god, your argumentakes no sense, we inherently know what is good or evil, unless suffering from some form of mental illness
A quote from star wars: “Darkness rises, and the light to meet it”
@@stephanerivest3166 “we decide what is good” is what adam and eve did in the garden of eden. The point was that in The Judeo-Christian belief, there is a moral standard established.
Alex is smart but he doesn't want anyone to pin him down or label him as anything to avoid obvious conclusions. Facts are facts, it's not subject. We may not understand how gravity works, but it's constant and it's a fact that is accepted. Yes we can have multiple formulas to achieve the same math answer, but they prove what is a fact. It's not personal opinion, otherwise I aced every math test just because they think I had the wrong answer. It's self defeating at every turn.
You guys remember how two people could converse without, without one party getting pissed off and walking off. I love debates where both parties completely disagree, yet have a civil conversation. I’m from 2023 and this is a very very rare phenomenon at the moment. If you go to a progressive college that encourages “free” speech today, people will try to shut them up!
Whew!
That was deeeep. And very cordial and I appreciated that. But @ 41:ish, in talking about standards, it seems to me that you do have to have a "best". That is the definition of a standard. Except that in human terms, the standard will change as new ways to quantify it come about. Without a true "best" you could only ever say that something is better and then call it the current best. But you don't know with any certainty that it truly is best. Potential future bests, TBD.
In the case of moral law, the best has been defined by God, the moral lawgiver. God said it is the "best" and it must be because we can't seem to get there right? It is still out of our reach and we are getting further from it instead of closer.
Think about it, people are not getting better (as far as morality is concerned) and we certainly haven't achieved anything like a "best". What has happened is that we have devolved into chaos where we think that any subjective personal view can be called objective if we yell loud enough. And I despise yelling.
When Frank asks why do you trust your reason and you provide an argument for it he says that youre not allowed to use arguments because they asume your reason is valid. So you ask him "can i use non logical arguments?" and he will say no. And since the set of all possible answers is made out of all logical arguments and all non logical arguments and nothing else it means that Frank's question cant be answered regardless of your worldview because the set of non banned answers is empty.
But the point is that an illogical argument is, by definition, false. Ergo, without logic you cannot answer the question without a properly basic belief in logic which cannot be grounded in a Godless universe without being self refuting because it begs the question - where did the logic come from?
This kid thinks so much (in general) that he confused himself that's what i see from this debate.
Welcome to atheism aka nonsense
I like their voices
These debates whilst fascinating, they all boil down to one thing... either God exists and creation, or that God doesn't exists and naturalism.
Frank hit on this the best in my opinion when he mentioned probability!
In other words, if I was a betting man, I would bet on God as apposed to us all existing out of random processes.
It's a risk analysis as well... Are you willing to go with the evolution camp and run the risk of the terrifying prospect that your wrong and live for eternity without God after you leave this world!
Except that evolution is a scientific theory.
It’s a fact that it happens.
"For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only son so that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life." John 3:16
Jesus is the only way to eternal life in heaven. John 14:6
So don't trust in your own goodness to save you. Transfer your trust to the savior and you will receive God's free gift of eternal life. And with His help repent of your sins. However, we do not and cannot earn salvation by our good works, so Jesus paid the fine for our sins for us. God loves you so much and showed that through Jesus Christ! Romans 5:8
Hopefully this inspired and encouraged you today. God bless.
Inspired and encouraged? No, I don’t find the Christians’ veiled (and not so veiled) threats of eternal damnation, or the “solution” of worshiping a petty god who endorsed slavery, rape and mysogeny, to be inspiring or encouraging. I’m grateful for those who helped me to recover from religion. This religion is a major cause of the decline of the USA, with the fundamental right wing bigotry and ignorance (e.g. “Intelligent” Design), all based on a mollycoddled collection of forged, obscure ancient writings and fairy tales.
@@DJRickard2010 exactly, if he is so good, where is he?
Frank's book sounds like it might be very similar to a presuppositional approach.
That's what you presuppose.
If I do not know if I exist what good am to those who do exist?
40 minutes in and still waiting for them to cover the "Does evil prove God exists" subject.
Atheism will always be on the loosing side, why? Because:
A. If Christianity is wrong and there's no hell, we just cease to exist, we all enjoyed our lives on earth the way we wanted to, but
B. if Christianity is right and there is a hell, then there will be sure punishment waiting for me because I failed in the standard of God.
We all enjoyed our lives on earth? Worshiping and dedicating your whole life to a being that doesn t exist means enjoying life for you? Maybe some people would have otherwise enjoyed their lives in ways that their religion doesn t permit it.
Your like tally actually says a lot about how gullible people are.
@@jogabenito8291 your statement doesn't prove anything. You are assuming that you are right without showing any evidence. Very weak argument.
I don't see how A. disproves atheism.
When we die, we die. We become food for the other organisms.
If any religion is real, than so be it.
But for all I know none are supported by observable reality.
Alex is definitely more reasonable than most Atheists in that he actually engages the argument. The kid is so well spoken, especially for an 18 yr old. However, when the discussion reaches its pinnacle and the point is made that both of their arguments are circular is when the bankruptcy of Alex’s position shines through. They both agree that materialistic evolution would be random lacking immaterial objective truths and that theism would be designed and therefore containing immaterial objective truths. And Alex argues that a sense of ought tos have evolved out of this randomness to gives us the idea that we ought live by certain standards for the betterment of society. Frank rightly protests that the very nature of material randomness contradicts the idea that betterment exists let alone any immaterial reason/rationality for anything. The very fact that Alex can even make such an argument depends on the fact that he is a being tethered to immaterial reason or truth. Otherwise he is just a meat machine of molecules bouncing and chemicals fizzing with no particular reason. Reason directly contradicts randomness.
lol. That's a nice bit of fan fic you wrote there. lol
@@JoeKnows44 Ironically you are the typical exhibit A (atheist) of my opening argument. The irony is that I don’t think that you are even aware of being one of those stereotypical “debate avoiding” materialist atheist. In other words, you facetiously mock my argument without presenting an argument yourself. Aka- the Typical UA-cam atheist. Where as Alex is the exception to the rule among atheists actually engaging the argument in an intelligent and respectful way. My expectation is for you to come back with some other redundant ad hominem “lol. You’re a dumb poop poo pants teller of fairy tales. lol.” assertion. Or maybe you’ll surprise me with an actual rational argument, which would be welcoming and refreshing. But I won’t hold my breath.
Whenever atheists talk about evolution, my first thought is to ask them, "where did the first cell come from?" Cause you can't evolve unless you have cells. So how did they come into being? Thats one of the things that keeps me believing. Cause if the first cells sprung out of nowhere then that will give me reasons to believe that it was God who made it so.
Who made god? If life is to complex for it to begin to exist on it's own, why isn't subject to being created because God is far more complex than life on Earth according to beleivers.
@@jameslay1489 God is not a created being. If he was a created being then he wouldn't be eternal and all powerful.
@@avivastudios2311 if god isn't a created being then the universe and life in it don't have to be created. All I know is that all life is made up of nonliving material.
@@jameslay1489 Something that is finite must have a beginning and therefore must have a cause. Where does this non-living material come from?
@@avivastudios2311 you haven't demonstrated that a god exists let alone that it's infinite. You also haven't demonstrated that the universe if finite. Where does non-living material come from, more non-living material.
No one would entertain O’Connor saying what he said if he didn’t have that British accent. I’ll go further and say they would call him dumb if he had a southern accent. “I don’t believe what I believe”.
You’re probably just not as smart as you think you are
As logical and careful as Alex is, he's sadly (perhaps inevitably) had to divert to semantic tap dancing in thinly veiled attempts to avoid the burden of proof for things he tacitly holds to be true.
The burden of proof isn't on the skeptic, it's on the person making the claim. In a court of law, it's not up to the defense to demonstrate their client isn't guilty, it's up to the prosecutor to demonstrate the defendant is guilty. If I have a pink dragon in my backyard, is the burden of proof on you who might be skeptical of my claim or is it on me who is making the claim?
His attempt wasn't veiled at all, he openly said that there's no burden of proof for him.
Turek's the one making the claim, Alex just doesn't really believe his claim.
@@jameslay1489yes it is. You have to provide proof that explains why you disagree with the other person 🤣
@@knxcholx no it isn't. You need to look up the who has the "burden of proof" when someone makes a claim.
@@knxcholx If I told you there was a pink purple polka dotted dragon in my back yard, it isn't up to you to demonstrate that I don't have one, it's up to me to demonstrate that I do. That's how the "Burden of Proof" works.
I would be interested to hear from an atheist what type of evidence would prove to him or her that God exists.
I'm an atheist. My answer is I don't know. But if any god exists, it would know, and yet fails to prove its existence to me. Either the god doesn't exist, or it doesn't want to prove it's existence to me.
@@steveaikey8429 hello Sir. There are some atheists who challenged God to show Himself. And He did. I mean if you sincerely prayed and asked Him to. He might just do.
@@steveaikey8429 God don't want you to love and believe in him because you see all his glory. He wants you to love him with free choice. Go seek him and he will show himself to you
I find it interesting that Alex states that morality is subjective but its become an evolutionary straight in a sense since we have lived in societies for so long, we see things as right or wrong. Or could it be that the law was written on our hearts since there is a reason we view things as good or bad?
Akex used the statement. " I don't know that GOD exit " So his understanding of GOD is his limitation of his understanding of what. He always used his own defination about everything.
Can you prove that lies are morally wrong using the evolution argument? It has served us to to see how things being untrue or hidden are wrong.. However, it has helped many human beings get out of tough situations thus being useful. What to do about deception then?
I can prove lies are wrong based on human experience. Any action that is unnecessary and does intentional harm is wrong. It means we know it's wrong, but we do it anyway.
@@JoeKnows44 Thanks for the contribution, man. My point was how would someone justify lies being wrong only through the evolution lens. With evolution that would be a deceptive but winning strategy in many cases.
@@lapin0307, you don't need evolution or God. Lot's of people who have never heard or conceived of either still still have a sense of right and wrong based around doing harm.
This morality may take on different versions depending on the society or order one lives in, but it's always present regardless of if God or evolution are.
@@lapin0307altruism is something that is observed in many species. We are empathetic and at some times self sacrificial not because it benefits us but because it is beneficial for the species. While lying might be beneficial for an individual, it can harm a group, explaining why would evolve to feel bad about doing it. Tons of journal articles out there on the evolution of both altruistic and selfish behaviors in social species (different insects, wolves, great apes, etc.)if you’re interested.
The atheist knows so much about absolutely nothing.
Choose Jesus
Didn't Alex say that there was no such thing as objective morality. That would mean that no change would be beneficial anyway.
"In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference." - Richard Dawkins
If our complexity implies we were intelligently designed, why doesn't God's own complexity imply HE was intelligently designed?
Or do you agree with atheists that complexity doesn't always imply intelligent design?
@Harry Waddington Ok, so you disagree with ALL public proponents of the Christian version of Intelligent Design...who are forever insisting that the complexity of DNA, human eye, "fine tuning", etc, demands the inference of an intelligent designer and makes the atheist explanation untenable.
Again with Sam Harris and setup for others to disparage him. Alex does not understand what Harris's position is...nor do the others.
This is simply a philosophical debate
Watched all of it 57:16
The young man doesn't see the LACK of correlation between Random and Meaninglessness, and the Hands of a Creative Mind such as at the Potter's Wheel.
How could random spins of the Bingo Barrel (with even a full alphabet) spit out the properly sequential lettering to spell out a single sentence composed after scientific study by Alfred Einstein?
FACT: In TRILLIONS of LIGHT YEARS, the Bingo Barrel NEVER COULD.
.
"Everyone is a genius. But if you judge a fish on its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing it is stupid."
- Albert Einstein
I don’t understand your bingo barrel example. Are you trying to use the watchmaker argument to “prove” the existence of a god?
@@DJRickard2010 I wrote this 2 yrs ago. My best take is that when you have a barrel cage for the Bingo balls, which they spin prior to each pick of a piece that has a Card location on it, the Row, and the Number, if you have that on your card, you put a marker on it and work to having a straight line, one side of the card to the other, up and down, right to left or back, or diagonals.
Random can SEEM to mean "MEANINGLESS" to a lot of people - but it's "rarity" does NOT mean it has no importance or meaning - any more than a "random" spring of good water in a desert, that you didn't know was there til you fell into it.
If you got 2 or 3 Letters you needed in the correct places for those letters as they appear in the Sentence, that is prolly "RANDOM", but if you get the entire string, in order, in their PROPER PLACE in the SEQUENCE - you can "CALL " That MEANINGLESS, but it isn't, no matter how you feel about it.
Alex is in an alternate reality
He’s equally skilled as Turek at discussing philosophy, and infinitely more knowledgeable about science. The problem is that some of you can’t stand the cognitive dissonance created by his pointing out the lack of evidence for your god, or an other for that matter.
@@DJRickard2010 Pitt, you are very belligerent about defending your leader, which I can´t care less... However, the only one who seems unable to understand where the flaws at philosophy (and I don´t really know what has science to do with any concept related with the philosophical conception of God, but he has not shown any skills or sophisticated knowledge about it neither, as, for example, against Lane Craig), it is a question of blind faith to your loving debater. The mere fact that top apologists or philosophers waste their time with youtubers, is a very interesing pointer towards their aim, but instead of being grateful, you consider him smarter or better versed than they. Here is the only problem and, of course, absolutely blind following to him, which is almost irrational.
By the way, if you use expressions that you don´t understand, your message tends to happen. Please, see the debate. It is the minimun you might be asked for.
David Lara99 huh?
@@davidlara993 whew, that was long, but I’m trying to find a valid point. My leader?
34:54 wow!
Wow wow, I had to replay it
Ask the Atheist if there's evidence for Evil and Good?
This interview is boring for turek. Alex sounded like me when I was his age, he's not experienced enough on life to understand God aspect. He's pulling his ideas from videogames and quotes from people who he think are smart. He's lacking that knowledge of real life experiences.
It's like say dating a girl, an average guy will make a lot of assumptions , over thinking which will contradict himself which will make him awkward on actual date. Compare to an experienced guy who will not think so much but believes in himself that he will succeed.
Alex has a lot to say, but mostly confusing... He benefits from social media where even confused person has followers. Be cautioned... There is God and after life.
Sorry Alex but you said good and evil feels ingrained in us then you say it’s made up?🤔
I like this. It's like watching a dad, his brother and his son all have a conversation