thanks for this, have you considered debating another muslim apologist? i know last time went horribly but i would love to see a discussion/debate between you and Abdallah Al Andalusi for example
nah, he can't name 5 things without a creator with proof, and when he tries he will simply name things with a creator. Whereas I can name billions of things and show proof that do have a creator.
There is in built anesthesia. I wish nothing ever died though. we mammals especially have in built anesthesia particularly powerful when on the brink of death from blood loss and exhaustion the most common death for prey animals. I’d argue why did we need to evolve that at all? It only happens when you’ve cross the threshold of death anyway. Like without modern medicine at the point they kick in death is certain.
Alex, I'd be curious about your take on the research and hypothesis of Dr. Donald Hoffman. That we experience reality as a construct of space-time, which he says explains the difficulty in scientifically quantifying experience and consciousness as they exist outside that construct. I would say he would even make a great guest.
The S-rank is the highest grade in the Japanese school system; it comes from "shū" ("excellent", maybe?) and it is normally represented in English as "superb". It became popular in the West via scoring systems on Japanese arcade games, e.g. it's the highest performance you can get on Dance Dance Revolution
Anyone says an empty cult where this worst genretion has trapped and had to be judge by God for betrayed Gif for the nothing empty atheism gives to their lives? Lier as any Goddenier. What a cult!...
@@HENTAl69Anyone says an empty cult where this worst genretion has trapped and had to be judge by God for betrayed Gif for the nothing empty atheism gives to their lives? Lier as any Goddenier. What a cult!..
And the result of scoring 5-0 or more in the Inazuma Eleven games' competition routes... You probably have no idea what that means, do you? Never mind.
One of my favorite comments was on a 20 hour video someone said they were just going to watch one more video before bed.😂 Now I wouldn't do a 20 hour video before bed but honestly I might watch this one.
I love this guy's vocabulary and freedom of thought. The way his choice of words match up with his ideas and how simply he can explain concepts makes it clear he doesn't just say things he doesn't really understand just to sound smart. Seems like a very intellectually honest guy as well. Definitely gonna check out his channel.
Is it weird to admit that these Cosmic x Majesty videos are a sort of comfort video for me? While I'm sure Alex enjoys talking to his other guests, his conversations with Joe feel much closer to a friend banter as opposed to a debate or an interview. There's an aspect of informality here that I really appreciate.
With the greatest compliment possible, I was thinking the American had that Golden Retriever energy. Watching at 1.25 speed, he seemed to be hopped up on gallons of Red Bull. But seriously, no shade whatsoever. Clearly a brilliant person with well-formed reasoning and critical thinking.
@@billwalton4571 why would Jesus choose disciples who *have* seen him to go forth and spread his gospel, rather than electing to moreso influence people who *haven’t* seen him?
@@JimBobJoeB0b cuz the apostles were specifically trained and taught by him specifically for this mission. cuz they were witnesses of his power, cuz they werent holy people at the beginning. if im not mistaken one of them was even a thief. and they all went thru drastic changes of behavior under him. they were also the first leaders of the church and people at the time followed them cuz they knew they met Jesus personally. tons of reasons why he chose them
Pretty awful argument, because just something is hidden to the senses doesn't mean the effects of the things cannot be felt. Like you can see smoke and ascertain a fire exists despite not seeing it, feel wind and know it exists despite not seeing it, suffer radiation poisoning and know radiation exists without seeing it.
There’s only one TINY little problem with what you wrote above, Sir.☝🏼 There has never been, nor will there ever be, even the SLIGHTEST shred of evidence for the existence of the Godhead, that is, a Supreme Person, or Deity.🤓 It is high time for humanity to awaken from all INANE superstitions such as the belief in a Personal God who created the Universe, would you not agree, Slave? 😩
I think you're missing the real point of the "universe big" argument. The point is to get you to question whether your belief in a God who built a world for humans is based on a cognitive bias. Suppose you were isolated tribe of a couple thousand who didn't know about the rest of the world, and you have a whole belief system that depends on a God who created the world for your isolated tribe. When you are made aware of the rest of the world, suddenly it seems less plausible that everything was made for you. You gradually realize that you only thought it was for you because you didn't know about everyone else. Similarly, as people become more aware of the scale of the universe, of other potential worlds with life, of other belief systems about God, of the number of animals in the world, the idea that everything was for you and your community's personal conception of God becomes less and less plausible. I grew up in a Jewish community. This might be mixing some arguments together, bu their idea that there is a God who has a special relationship with the Jewish people is embraced by 0.0001% of human beings who all happen to be Jews. Of course you should question whether that's based on a cognitive bias.
I also think that when someone says that “God created the universe with us in mind”, and you look at the actual universe, it’s like seeing a parent creating a room for a baby to live in, and then making 99,9999% of the room unlivable in a way that if the baby wandered there, they’d die instantly. I’ve seen parents struggle to make a safe and beautiful room, but this is quite the level of incompetence. At some point we might have to wonder if the room is really designed for the baby, or if we accidentally wandered in his tool shed instead and we were actually not even supposed to be here.
A male gamete is like 0.006cm and is meant to scale up to something that is like 175cm. Alex's argument that current planetary beings may be meant to inhabit spaces at an interstellar or intergalactic scale is plausible. Although it is quite an egocentric counter-argument to the big universe argument, it does retain the unlikely possibility that the big universe is meant for humanity.
The Problem of Evil is not an argument for Atheism, only an argument against specific religions that promote an omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent deity (usually monotheistic religions). It cannot be used against Hinduism or Buddhism for example, and surely any argument that cannot address the 3rd and 4th most popular religions in the world cannot be considered a good argument for Atheism. Perhaps it could possibly be ranked as an S tier argument against Christianity, Islam, and similar (debatable), but as an argument for Atheism I don't understand how it could possibly be ranked S. I would put it in D, if I was being generous.
I think you're being a bit contrarian. Pretty much everything in this video is based on a monotheistic god. Of the 5 major religions in the world, three have a very omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient god, i dont really understand hinduism but im pretty sure it has a bunch of gods, and buddism doesn't have any god(s). Obviously no argument is going to work against all 5, especially not every single other religion out there. The purpose of the problem of evil is clear, and for that purpose it is s tier. not much else to say.
Okay, but what do you mean by "arguments" and "for" and "atheism" and "tier list?." And it better not have anything to do with drugs or else I'm out of here
its strange to me when people claim if god revealed himself, it would abolish free will. The original story of satan proclaims he was a whole angel, who knew god, was 2nd to god, was as close to god as you can get. and still chose to go against god. So if god revealed itself, the true sinners, those truly evil, will continue to be evil despite seeing god. the people who truly "just want to sin" will. and those who were non resistant non believers would be saved. simple.
There's also the option of knowing God exists but simply finding him unworthy of worship/obedience. Not out of a desire to 'sin' or be evil, but just like a disappointed child rejecting the authority of their parent.
Exactly, God supposedly showed himself to a bunch of different people, people who are revered by Christians. "If God showed himself to us it would limit our free will" implies that the freedom of Paul, Abraham, Job etc. was limited, which I've never seen anyone argue.
Not only did Judas Iscariot witness the power of Jesus, but was granted miraculous powers of god through Jesus (Luke 9:1-6), and yet he still had free will, choosing to betray Jesus.
@@jelledesmet7086 All the ancient philosophers who thought more deeply asserted this was an impossibility -- to not one the one you are a part of and who made you. Think deeper. You cannot not want that which to you belong.
I think the argument from the scale of the universe is typically a response to the fine tuning argument. Since clearly the majority of the observable universe is hostile to life as we know it, not fine tuned to support it.
There could have at least been a single galaxy, our own galaxy, teeming with intelligent lifeforms like in Star Wars and Star Trek. We don't even get that.
Yes I was surprised they didn’t consider this. This was precisely the way famous atheist Hitchens always used it. It’s a counter to thinking the universe is created for us or with us in mind .
The scale of the universe argument is certainly a real narcissistic one. God created the universe for His glory, not so we can go live in every part of it.
@@christsavesreadromans1096 We can't venture outside of our own solar system, let alone explore the rest if the galaxy, LET ALONE the rest of the universe. I don't see how it is "narcissistic" to want to be able to do more than we can do that way.
Okay but I have a deep philosophical question for you, if your name is capturing Christianity and your worldview is against taking captives, then how do you reconcile the inherent contradiction in your name?
Do you mean physically see God? Because there are stories in the Bible of God literally appearing to and communicating with human beings, not to mention Jesus Christ being God in the form of a man Do you mean just observing God? Because honestly seeking God and not finding it is the basis for what is generally considered an A- or S-tier atheist argument in Divine Hiddenness Either way you meant it I don’t see what is unreasonable about expecting God to manifestly exist in any way that is actually detectable beyond feelings one gets sitting listening to worship songs or visions they get when on LSD
I actually cant believe this came out the exact microsecond that i finished rewatching the arguments for god video. LIKE THE EXACT SECOND I FINISHED IT THIS JUST POPPED UP. God is real. Final verdict
Anyone says an empty cult where this worst genretion has trapped and had to be judge by God for betrayed Gif for the nothing empty atheism gives to their lives? Lier as any Goddenier. What a cult!...
After being close enough to God that the pain and suffering I went through was worse than when I was without God that I prayed to God to distance himself because I couldn’t handle his holiness I am thoroughly convinced that divine hiddenness is a blessing not only for the unbeliever but to the believer, everyone claims they want to be close to God but his holiness is so bright and pure I don’t think they realize what they’re asking. “But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.” Luke 12:48 “For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.” 1 Corinthians 13:12 KJV
@@japexican007 you prayed to God to distance himself. so.. presumably, EVERYONE in heaven will suffer just by being near god. so it's suffering in heaven and suffering in hell. I give you that it solves problem of evil.. it's just god being everywhere,causing unnecessary suffering. but now you have problem of good. how is anything good possible,when you have omnipresent god that causes suffering by proxy. maybe god is not omni in any way,it was just one of his lies,to threaten believers into submission. meh.
Hey Alex I know you likely won’t see this, however just wanted to say thank you for bringing rise to my atheism I used to be a bit unconfident in my belief or atleast didn’t know how to argue it, But your arguments as well as some others make me feel more heard and understood than my family, I genuinely want to thank you for your content and hope you have a “blessed” day lol, much love and appreciation from the Bible Belt of Florida
The idea that God has to allow 'evil' (I much prefer to say "suffering", or "badness": to me, "evil" invokes the supernatural) so that there can be such things as bravery reminds me of the idea that God had to condemn us to being born with Original Sin so that He could give us the gift of salvation. It's like a parent's saying to a child "I had to give you a bloody nose so I could 'kiss it and make it better'."
@@scottm4975it’s almost as if you wouldn’t be able know his plan, yet can still make objective statements about the inherent suffering needed for us to evolve. Do you believe slavery is immoral, why or why not, and what passage in the Bible do you use to justify your opinion? My main point being, you already hold beliefs about morality that cannot be formed by simply reading the Bible, you pick and choose what passages to follow.
The stone paradox should be way higher up. They said that the argument doesn't make much sense because it's okay for god to not be able to do something impossible, because it just can't be done. And that's the exact point of the argument, because god is supposedly omnipotent, which means all-powerful. If you restrict god's abilities to only what's possible, what's your definition of possible? Why shouldn't a triangle with 4 sides be creatable? Because geometry and math says so. But isn't god supposed to transcend all that? If you restrict god's power to only what math and science allows, then the whole god argument crumbles since it will inevitably turn out that this so called God can't be anything other than a random Joe because anything else would be impossible. And that is certainly not omnipotent.
Watched the entire thing and thoroughly enjoyed it, what a fantastic guest and conversation! Would absolutely love to see him on again to discuss more of the arguments he references.
Eh, he fell into the usual trap people arguing against the existence of God set for themselves. During the problem of evil, he had that fairly clever argument to get away from having to establish objective morality by saying he was only talking about suffering. The problem is, he's still saying suffering is bad and it is good to avoid suffering. But why? He then fell into hyperbole with "There are countless theories that establish objective morality without God." Really? Countless? Interestingly, applying the same standard applied later in the video, wouldn't the existence of numerous, sometimes contradicting theories of objective morality without God be evidence that a true theory likely doesn't exist?
@@angusmcculloch6653 He's literally about as close to a true agnostic as you can get (he regulairly says his credance for theism is somewhere between 40 and 60 percent). He's also a moral realist (believes in objective morality) however Alex (as I think is mentioned in this video) is an emotivist; so I think the reason he went the problem of suffering route is that while the two of them disagree on the existence of objective evil, they both disagree suffering is deeply unfavorable. As to grounding morality outside of God, within acedemic philosophy this is just as much a goal for the theist as it is the atheist as very few serious philosophers (again including theists) find divine command theory compelling (probably mostly due to the Euthyphro Dilemma). Moral epistomology is a masive subject (as eluded to by MoR when he said there are "countless arguments") and there's alot of arguements that attempt to ground or explain the existence of objective morality without God (MoR has a video that is like 2 hours long that introduces the biggest arguement in the field). I assure you he isn't exaggerating here, this is just a massive can of worms that would quickly fall well beyond the scope of this particular discussion. All things considered, Magesty of Reason is playing extremely fair and he doesn't believe in subjective morality as you seem to think he does. And again, hes literally as much a theist as he is an atheist so hes not favoring any atheist arguements because he favors their conclusion, but rather because he genuinely finds them convincing and well founded.
@@Isaac_L.. Thank you for this detailed, well-thought out response. I don't know that I ever said MoR *is* an atheist, because I didn't know. That's why I worded it as "people arguing against the existence of God" instead of "other atheists," because he was presenting arguments against the existence of God and fell into the same trap others do. I can see where that wording may have been too subtle and led to misunderstanding, so I should say I wasn't calling him *an atheist* and tried to phrase my post so that I didn't call him an atheist. Maybe I'm just being pedantic, but "countless" is an exaggeration. I would prefer "a lot", but I'll concede it's a podcast format, not a paper presentation. However, the main criticism still stands that he deflects defending objective morality, but suffering is bad. Why? That's not to say he personally believes it, but it's a trap that awaits anyone trying to make that argument and he walked into it as well. And, again, the multitude of conflicting theories of objective morality should be strong evidence that no true objective morality exists. That is simply using a same argument against theism--if God is real, there should not be multiple, conflicting accounts. That is a connection I wish they had made, as that makes for an interesting discussion. Thank you again for your serious and well-reasoned response.
@angusmcculloch6653 No problem. I'm glad I was able to help. I'm assuming that he would be more than happy to argue that suffering is bad in one way or another under either a subjective or objective moral framework. One way I suspect he would defend it is by using the psychophysiological response to suffering and stress widely observed across the animal kingdom. Not only did God create an environment/system that induces immense amounts of unnecessary suffering, but he placed creatures in that system that consistently feel immense negative emotion, active panic, and displeasure in proportion to that suffering. If God was all loving and for some reason or another (usually free will if you're a theist) it's essential for suffering to exist, it seems like God would have created the vast majority of creatures to have a very high psychological tolerance to suffering. In other words, a big part of the problem of suffering is the conscious response to suffering. If God was going to make a world with so much suffering, you would think that he would make creatures that broadly have a psychological indifference to suffering as opposed to what we widely observe. I'm sure that MoR would put it more eloquently than that but I'd be willing to bet that he would use an argument along those lines to defend that particular point. As to your other point, I don't think it follows that the existence of contradictory theories about either the content or grounding of morality (I'm not entirely sure which you were referring to here but it doesn't really matter) is good evidence against the existence of objective morality in general. Another big debate within philosophy is pertains to theories of time (externalism vs presentism), but clearly time demonstrably exists. So yeah, I don't think you can use the debate surrounding (especially the grounding of) morality as evidence that it doesn't exist. (Note: to be clear I'm not arguing for moral realism, as I've yet to be convinced by arguments for it; but this is something that's an active area of interest for me since my views deviate heavily from the majority in the field here) As to your other point about moral epistemology and God, I completely agree that it's a significant (and fascinating) problem for theism. If God exists, even if he isn't the source for morality, given omniscience he would know what is morally ideal. Therefore, you'd expect that one could learn about the nature and contents of morality through communion with God yet those who claim to do so routinely make moral claims that are at odds with others that also claim to commune with God (oftentimes these disagreements persist within, not just between, religions). That said, while this is a great piece of evidence against the moral argument or the truth of some individual religions, I don't think it's nearly as strong of evidence against theism in general as the problems of evil or hiddenness or even religious confusion are.
@@Isaac_L.. apolgies that it's taken me a few days to respond. 1. You are probably right that this how he would try to respond to suffering is bad, but the response still assumes someone needs to justify suffering's existence. Why, though? It's what's called in philosophy a vicious infinite regress. Why is suffering bad? Because it hurts. Why is pain bad? Because it's unpleasant. Why is unpleasantness bad? Here you end either in tautology: "Unpleasantness is bad, because it is no pleasing" or the vicious infinite regress continues (i.e. the truth of one statement depends on the truth of the previous statement and we never reach a foundational true statement). Either way, the argument simply doesn't hold. 2. I would agree, but people who argue against the existence of God have to apply this across the board. Either confusion where one might expect unanimity is evidence of a thing's nonexistence or it's not.
You said you weren’t going to address arguments against any particular religion, like Christianity, but I feel like many of these arguments are fundamentally addressing the claims of Abrahamic religion, and particularly Christianity. And fair enough, I suppose, because western philosophy has been conversant with Judeo/Christian/Islamic faiths for centuries. But many of these issues (like the problem of evil and divine hiddenness) almost don’t exist in Vedanta, Buddhist, and Jain philosophy because of the particular metaphysical claims they make. It seems to me that many of the arguments for atheism presented here begin to look quite different when approached from a global perspective.
Yup, the arguments are rife with assumptions about God that come mostly from the Abrahamic faiths. Such as the ideas of perfection, benevolence, omnipresence, and omniscience.
@@im_aleey Indeed. But even if you accept those notions, just adding the ideas of reincarnation and karma completely change what almost all of these arguments look like. What so speak of the concept of cyclical time and the well accepted idea of multiverses in eastern philosophy. I mean, the problem of evil just doesn't have the same bite if you accept that the soul is eternal and subject to the reactions of karma. There are consequences for almost all the other arguments in this video based on those two ideas alone.
@@im_aleeywhich is also why the religious confusion argument is so bad: it's equivocating the word "God" with any very powerful, supernatural being, when really what we want to know is whether a necessary, all powerful, all good God exists.
Arguments for atheism: Prove theism. Until you do it’s not real by default. Anything else is just debunking nonsense. It’s not an argument it’s just pointing out why the claim being made, whatever the point or argument is, is not sufficient to prove theism to any reasonable evidentiary standard.
actually that's a very bad argument whenever a theist would argue that a scientific theory is wrong (theory of evolution for example), then god... that's not working at all so the reverse doesn't work either: the lack of proof or evidence for god doesn't make atheism stand and hold. science does though. science is the most reliable way to get knowledge. god isn't a scientific field of study, therefore science doesn't care about god, so do we.
Whenever Alex and Joe have a conversation, they seem to cover every box and are so easy to understand. It's so beneficial for anyone new to these arguments.
Two of the smartest guys on UA-cam. Thanks for the interview Alex. It would be awesome if you did an episode with Emerson Green, he’s amazingly intelligent too.
Seriously though. One of the best arguments against God is that He needs humans to make arguments for His existence. I think that's a subset of divine hiddenness though.
@@therongjr I was thinking more along the lines, if a triomni god exists, he wouldn’t allow people like D’Souza, Craig, Powell, Hamm, Winger, and so many others, speak for him. D’Souza’s recent performance surely deconverted as many Christians as Hitchens ever did.
For the religious confusion segment: It would cost God literally nothing to completely resolve ALL doctrinal dispites to every person, no matter how small. He is supposedly infinitely powerful. Better than resolving them all when asked, he could do it pre-emptively. Instead, he used fallible men to write a consfusing mess of a book in languages that would die shortly after with no way to verify any of its claims.
@@christsavesreadromans1096you just lied it’s not obvious which religion is true because none of them have evidence that’s why it’s called a belief and not a science because science is fact belief is ideal
@christsavesreadromans1096 no matter which religion you say here, at least 2/3rds of all people are going to disagree with you, and that's without even going into denominations and specifics.
@@Luciferthekingofpurgitory No, its very obvious which religion is the correct one. The Catholic faith has more miracles than any other faith combined. People just don't like the rules so they'd rather be a Buddhist or atheist, or anything that sounds nice and frees one from the expectation of a future judgement.
Unfortunately I don't have 2.5h time right now and the list in itself is actually a bit absurd. There's only one argument that's enough: religious nonsense is not convincing enough. (Just dropping a like and comment, possibly listening this later on, when I have time.)
Alex makes a great point about how people in Iran or other non Christian countries could be said to be more “Christian” than Christians in the west are in action and heart. He’s right.
Someone made a response to his debate with Jonathan Mclatchie, where he made that geographical argument a couple of years ago, saying essentially the same thing
It's one of a fee things that Jordan Peterson actually gets right. If us western Christians actually acted like what we believe , the world could be a magnificent place for all. Though from my perspective we , and those we know do our part
@@SeanathanCreek I wish we focused more on the 4 gospels in the west. I see a lot of Old Testament teaching. Which is fine but I rarely hear readings from the gospels. We don’t focus enough on Jesus life and his teachings from his mouth as written in the 4 gospels.
@Dgujg Agreed as some don't notice that it is greek-romsn literature and Mark was thrown in the dumpster by Luke and Mathew which considered each other to be wrong. John considered all to be totally wrong and made up his own story.
@14:07 - Alex's interpretation of "survival of the fittest" as "the death and destruction of the weak" is a simplistic and misleading view of natural selection. The phrase "survival of the fittest," originally coined by Herbert Spencer and later used by Charles Darwin, does not imply a brutal elimination of the weak but rather the differential survival and reproduction of organisms based on their traits. Firstly, the notion that natural selection "relies upon the death and destruction of the weak" is a misunderstanding. Natural selection operates through the differential reproductive success of individuals. This means that those individuals who possess advantageous traits are more likely to survive and reproduce, passing those traits on to the next generation. It does not necessitate the active destruction of the weak but rather a greater likelihood of survival and reproduction for those better adapted to their environment. Secondly, the idea of "survival of the fittest" can be seen as a tautology if interpreted as "survival of those who survive." However, this interpretation misses the key aspect of fitness in an evolutionary context. Fitness refers to an organism's reproductive success and its contribution to the gene pool of the next generation. It is about how well an organism's traits enable it to thrive in its environment, reproduce, and pass on its genes. Additionally, Alex seems to misunderstand the core argument of Richard Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene." (which is odd, as Dawkins has been a guest...I wonder if Alex has read it?) Dawkins emphasizes that the primary unit of selection is the gene, not the individual organism. Genes that are successful in promoting their own replication are those that persist over generations. This perspective shifts the focus from individual organisms to the genetic level, highlighting that traits beneficial to gene replication are those selected for over time.
If only the fit survive, the weak must die. You mention “differential survival”, this is what he is talking about. The fit survive, the weak don’t. I don’t think your objections are relevant, “the destruction of the weak” logically follows from “the survival of the fittest” (provided that you assume it means survival of ONLY the fittest, which in this context it does), in the same way that “only those who get 50% on the exam will pass the topic” means that “those who get LESS than 50% on the exam will fail the topic”
@@LukeNAndo No, that isn't correct, the premise that "only the fit survive" is simply not true. Differential survival implies that some individuals are _more likely_ to survive and reproduce than others, but this does not mean that all "weak" individuals _must die_ for evolution to occur. Moreover, it's crucial to understand that in terms of evolution, the primary unit of selection is the gene, not the individual. All individuals ultimately die; there is no survival for them. The only entities that truly survive are genes. Natural selection is about the relative reproductive success of genes, not a binary outcome of survival versus destruction of individuals. Couple this with the fact that ther are many "weak" genes that persist in populations either because they are linked to other advantageous traits or because the environment is not exerting strong selective pressure against them. The notion that natural selection necessitates the destruction of all weak individuals, or "weak" genes oversimplifies the complexity of evolutionary processes. It's about the _relative success_ and proliferation of genes, and plenty of "weak" genes continue to exist within the gene pool. Furthermore, the notions of "weakness" and "fitness" are contextual to an environment that itself is in flux. The earliest ancestors of eutherian mammals were small, rat-like creatures. Pre-KT impact, these ancestors would not have been considered the "fittest" or "best adapted" compared to the dominant dinosaurs. Yet, the massive environmental changes caused by the KT impact led to the extinction of the dinosaurs and allowed these small mammals to thrive and evolve into the diverse array of placental mammals we see today, including humans.
1:55:00 I think that islamic fellow you have had a debate with( I know him for years but forgot the name ) when he was telling you that p and q are not necessarily derived from one another I think he could use this type of an example if he was a better prepared to debate and not to pontificate :)
My favorite argument is to say: even if theism were true, one could never be justified in *believing* it is true. For whatever evidence or experience you might find convincing, you can never be sure that your experience *doesn't* actually have a natural cause. Imagine some guy appears in your room and claims to be god. Do you believe him? Why should you? How do you know he's not an advanced alien pretending to be a god? From your human perspective, you'd have no way to tell the difference.
The implied consequences of theistic claims make absolute questions like "does God exist" or "did Jesus really rise from the dead" less useful than relative ones like "how can I know what God demands of me" or "is Jesus the only way to salvation." Sure, a man might have done extraordinary things about 2,000 years ago. If that man were the ultimate messenger of the Almighty, why are we only learning about His life through fragmentary texts rather than direct experience? Why can we safely discount anyone who claims to fulfill His destiny as most likely delusional?
In a similar vein I’ve thought about how perception depends on transduction (such as photons to nerve impulses), and how we verify the external stimuli exists versus a delusion created by the brain (such as phantom limb syndrome). If “feeling god’s presence” (such as through prayer) was actually the transduction of some spiritual stimuli, how would we differentiate it from talking to ourselves? In short, we can’t. This realization was the “final straw” for me to become an atheist.
thats interesting but to me its not so much that you could never have good reason to believe it its more that you wouldnt have good reason to claim you KNOW God exists with total certainty which the religious often do
@S.D.323 To believe a proposition is to be *convinced* that it is true. If we can argue that theistic belief is unjustified, then it would follow that dogmatic claims to knowledge are unjustified too. I honestly don't know what it would take to convince me that a god exists. No matter how spectacular the evidence, I couldn't rule out all naturalistic possibilities. What if there's an explanation in 10-dimensional physics? Unless you know *everything* about the natural universe, you can't be sure that a phenomenon *doesn't* have a natural cause. Therefore seeing something super-magical and crazy looking still wouldn't be evidence for anything supernatural.
@@S.D.323 it’s much worse than not achieving certainty. There’s no grounds for granting more than some minimal credence. All one would have is some perception parsimony should have one assume it’s a hallucination as the default.
2:08 Alex, with his immense vocabulary and amazing intellect could think of no better description of a tier list than "it's a big sort of box" 😂 Gotta love the man! Keep up the great content Alex!
Used to be an atheist, but now I think god may exist, but it's insanity and the height if hubris to think you know ANYTHING about him or his desires. It's funny that since becoming agnostic I've actually become way more against religion. I think faith is fine but religion is evil
From a logical standpoint, there is no reason that a god must be omni- anything. Therefore, the PoE is an S-tier argument against any religion (like Christianity) that requires an omni- god, but is D-tier (C-tier at best) against deism/theism in general.
A non-omni god is just a very very strong human/creature, might as well be an alien with force powers and nothing more, by a certain point of view, such a creature has very few reasons to be called god and expecially there would be no reason to worship him.
@@TonyLambregts Because the term was not invented for the abrahamic god, look at the god of ovids creation myth, he is unknown and powerful but not omni in any way. Still he is the cause of everything but chaos and his kind(the other gods) in this myth
I disagree, as long as we're talking about creationism, because a creator of the universe logically should be omnipotent in regards to its creation, because it's necessarily all-powerful. Maybe you could argue that its control is somehow overtaken by development, or something, but it just seems clunky and certainly you would struggle to find any kind of theist that approaches the problem of evil this way.
@@luphoria Why should a creator of the universe be omnipotent? There is no logical reason why a being that can create a universe must be omnipotent. Being able to create a universe is pittance in comparison to what an omnipotent being can do. I can create a metal spring, but that doesn't mean I can control every individual atom in that spring.
Theists: God has to stay hidden, he can't be obvious to us or it would take away our free will Also Theists: Look at the trees! _Obviously_ God has to exist!
To believe in his existence he gave you reasons but he isn't visible to you all the time cuz he doesn't want to restrict your freedom I mean imagine your seeing your mother staring at you all the time since you were born you would've done nothing from what you did right?
@@nam-r1f I still know my mother exists. I have seen her. She didn't vanish after I was born and expect me to discover her existence through obscure evidence that is more reasonably explained by other things. If one believes God exists with His attributes, then God _is_ watching you all the time, and a believer thinks this: how is their freedom not restricted?
@@Rogstin first of all he didn't vanish, read more about Jesus and you determine yourself ,secondly who said that the universe and nature works supernaturally by God? Nowhere in the Bible says that not even when performing miracles beacuse i know he was using the nature he created to perform them, there's nothing wrong with that ,also God gave you reason to how everything is working so you can learn from it to develop your mind and brain and do things yourself , so God created universe and nature and added laws to how its working now, Fully understanding how a machine works doesnt make it have no creator
@@Rogstin if you know your mom is watching you all the time is different from seeing her watching you all the time ,also imagine a starfish trying to understand a human, thats a smaller example for how we are trying to understand God
@@nam-r1fdid the freedom of Joan of Arc get restricted? Did the freedom of Moses get restricted. It definitely wasn’t restricted for Adam and Eve and they watched God Create them. What exactly are you trying to argue if not an inconsistent point?
1:44:50 ‘better’, ‘great’, ‘perfection’… these terms smuggle in goodness. A being can be perfectly evil, where ‘perfect’ is a purely quantitative term like maximal
let this be a reminder to any theist who needs to hear it: Alex may be a very respectful and reasonable person, but he is still an atheist, and his opinions on god have not changed significantly over the years. I've seen some people struggling to reconcile these two facts and claiming that Alex is certainly about to convert to Christianity. This does not seem to be likely at the moment. So I ask you to please change your perspective on the matter accordingly: either Alex isn't as thoughtful and reasonable as you thought, or it is possible to be both of those things and still be an atheist. I for one hope that you'll choose the latter. I don't know if that should significantly alter your religious beliefs, but I do think it should change your beliefs about atheists, and atheism in general. Because Alex is not an outlier, and I'm getting kinda tired of him being portrayed as one. This is what atheism can and often does look like.
I agree with your main point, although i think the underlying problem is that a solid 60-70% of both atheists and christians online haven't a shred of the manners the likes of Alex. It paints both sides in a bad light
@@daanmollema6366 I pay no mind to those poeple on both sides, I don't think spending energy in engaging with them is productive for anyone. My issue is mainly with religious people who do have those manners amongst their peers, and just choose to not use them with atheists, because they seem to believe that an atheist can't share them. I'm not claiming they're a majority or anything, it's just a group of people who does exist and has a relevant presence in *my* experience in these spaces. That's why I said that mine is a reminder "to those who need it". You may very well be a theist who doesn't
@@gffkdcjwt this is my alt account by the way. UA-cam prevents me from posting that comment from my main one. That comment was also supposed to have a dot at the end, but if I put it there it gets deleted. Yeah, I really have no idea why. It's quite annoying but at this point I'm used to it. If someone else here has experience with youtube constantly deleting their comments, their help would be greatly appreciated.
@@gffkdcjwtI think it’s wise to be *careful* spending energy on such folks, but it’s not always fruitless. Some of us exreligious folk lost faith *in part because* of people spending their energy to converse with us about that stuff, despite our stubbornness.
I feel like the notion that evil is allowed by god to allow for higher order goods is ridiculous. Like hes god supposed to be all powerful and all good shouldnt god have been able to create a world where evil wasnot neccessary to achieve such high order goods? Ir is that not within gods all powerful power?
I can't help thinking of the kid who wrote in a paper for school that the Ancient Egyptians built pyramids and went on to explain that a pyramid is "a triangular cube".
Divine hiddenness is checkmate imo, maybe not in disproving Gods existence, but certainly in proving that the creator of the universe doesn’t care about having a genuine relationship with me. The more philosophical arguments for or against Gods existence miss the point imo. If you resort to philosophical arguments to prove you have a girlfriend instead of just, idk, having her just show up, people are going to doubt the existence of said girlfriend, no matter how well reasoned your arguments are
On the stone paradox: Alex said omnipotence is the ability to do what's possible. As if what's possible exists outside of and independent of God. Isn't God the maker or originator of the possible and impossible? Is God then bound by what he made impossible or does this impossibility exist independently of him?
Moreover most christians and pastors like Turek on WLC don't put any restrictions on omnipotence whatsoever, so it's more than fair to use the same rules
I think God could be omnipotent in it's own realm but not in the universe. If the universe is fine-tuned, there can be no physical interference at all. It's constrained by it's own Laws and Constants.
1:17:45 so god has to throw spaghetti at the wall - or put another way - roll a trillion dice in order to create life? That alone is an argument against omnipotence and perfection. It evokes a fumbling lab experiment, not a deliberate creation and design. "Puny god." You can't simultanously appeal to the machinery of the cell whilst also entertaining the idea that god can't directly create life to his own specifications, and must resort to this scattershot approach of playing the odds.
Just watched the whole thing basically in one sitting. Would love to see more collabs like this with Joe, be they about atheist arguments, theist arguments or any other topic in philosophy!
Material Causality for me is probably "C Tier". And this is me using my smooth brain and basic knowledge, so I'm sure there's a lot of holes in what I'm about to say. The argument that we don't see the breakdown of physics in any other location outside of the Big bang is just fundamentally untrue. We actually see such breakdowns happening in black holes. We also see those types of breakdowns at really small levels. And the idea that we don't have a unified theory of everything, for lack of a better phrase, means that the universe has already provided material evidence for strange and weird circumstances. No, they don't perfectly replicate the conditions of the early universe, however, the information that we have of the universe makes it perfectly plausible, and highly likely in my uneducated opinion, that there is a perfectly material basis for the cause of the beginning of universe. So I actually think this argument holds a lot more weight, even without the Kalam cosmological argument as A parallel for it. I think it would do perfectly well for agnostic.
My favorite response to the argument from religious diversity is polytheism. "Of course there are differing opinions on god! There are multiple and they're all different!" This also works well with how historically most religious practices have been polytheist. Also, I think the issue of material causality is best responded to by just conceding and making God an emanator instead of a creator.
Hey Alex, I’m a Christian and absolutely love your videos. You should try and do an interview with Jeffery Louder or Sean McDowell. I think it would be very interesting seeing you and Jeffery talking about the argument’s in this video or just having a dialogue on atheism and theism.
You only need one argument for atheism and it comes in the form of a question "can you prove god exists?" If the answer is "no" ( and it will be) then job done
I think what we mean by God/gods just comes down to semantics. The main takeaway here is that a being with certain maximal or unconstrained properties is fundamentally contradictory. If a theist defines God without these characteristics, it would be consistent, but kind of pointless.
Yeah I think the problem is that there are so many possible versions of God that you conceivably can’t argue against all of them. It does make sense to focus on Abrahamic religions though, which the majority of the world believe in
@@krishvids608 Indeed and the fundamental belief question ...if there is God and I subscribe to that belief ...how can I speak of attributes ...by analogy or definition. (with or without revelation in any sense)..or can I say what God s have done if there is such.?
I would like to hear more of Alex philosophically debating people that have other concepts of God. I hear you. Contrary to the above statement, it does not make sense to only argue for atheism in contrast to the Abrahamic systems of faith. Though popular, those belief systems only represent a sliver of potential concepts of God. I think it shows a particular resentment toward those particular faiths and results in less interesting and repetitive arguments. So many of which do not make sense or are incomplete when thinking in terms of other belief systems.
That last video is one of my favorites you’ve ever made. Really it’s one of my favorite videos on the topic of religion as a whole. I didn’t know if this sequel was going to happen, so the surprise of it is amazing
I'm getting a bit disappointment by the focus on a Christian "good God" (ok, maybe Zoroastrian as well) maybe mention Mesoamerican or Mesopotamian gods and their "morality" or lack there of every once in a while
@@NotIdefixchristianity is the main religion in the west and has a lot of political power, thats why western atheists tend to focus on it while atheists from the middle east tend to focus on islam.
@@Dushan-o8w taking down the Christian "good God" concept certainly makes for popular viewing in the west it would be good to remind viewers there are other creation myths out there involving god(s) and other "origin of evil" /"morals" explanations
I went off Sam Harris about five years ago - and he was the person who really introduced me to the IDW and thinking critically in the way that you do. I'm so glad to see you succeed because you really seem like the spiritual successor to the 4 horsemen of the IDW in the best way possible.
go read the sermon on the mount to see how serious God sees sin and even if I don’t explicitly find a verse that says those specific words, common sense implicitly follows if it were possible for God not to do a thing then it follows that God needn’t do x thing namely God requiring a blood sacrifice from animals. Furthermore these were foreshadowings of the ultimate sacrifice to come from Jesus Christ as per: A. “For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.” Hebrews 10:1, 4 KJV B. “For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.” Hebrews 10:4 KJV Since God is perfect as per scripture if you fail in one part of the law you fail the whole law Meaning God is so perfect he takes all sins/offenses seriously Hence what I said previously
@@BubbaF0wpenddid you just ignore the scripture that says the blood of bulls and goats doesn’t forgive sins? Or the sermon on the mount that shows the severity of how God sees sin?
The first one is a logical impossibility. I use this one as my first point whenever someone challenges. And I say “god can’t be all knowing, all powerful and all good.” And then say “why do kids need to die of starvation or cancer? Or die prematurely at all? If I was an all good and powerful god this seems like an easy correction over your current god that would make me by your definition a better god…”
God didnt create evil. evil is a direct result, direct byproduct of our sins. our own free will. the story of adam and eve explains how sin entered the world through human disobedience. its our creation. not his. and he doesnt eliminate it cuz it tests our faith in him, God wants us to choose him willingly. he gave us free will to be able to decide by ourselves to believe in him. i would recommend you to read the book of Job. it actually addresses your question.
@@ricardorivera7549 nope. It’s an excuse for an obvious impossible fix as there’s no god. Plain and simple. Good luck with your excuses and also living in reality
@@LaneBatman-c2v always found it sad how atheist always gotta be so aggressive and petty with comments such as “good luck with reality” “u live in a fairy tale”. Idk if that is what makes u feel better hope u fill that hole w something else more productive.
@@LaneBatman-c2v the fact i literally referred u to an entire book in the bible dedicated to ur question and just dismissed it shows u dont really care for dialogue or argument. Prolly just resentment
On the Stone Paradox: What is the point of constraining your definition of omnipotence to 'the ability to do anything that is possible' when dealing with a god who is claimed to be able to perform miracles - which are by definition a suspension of the natural order to achieve an impossible outcome. It seems very backwards to define omnipotence this way in order to defend god's inability to defy logical paradoxes, because you would also have to throw out miracles at the same time. The laws of logic have no special hierarchical superiority over the laws of physics to which you could appeal in order to draw a distinction between "making a triangle with 4 sides" and "turning water into wine". Further - when you define a triangle with 4 sides as simply "not a thing" and suggest that's why god can't create one - how then is the theist to defend the notion that a god created the universe, which would by the same standard be "not a thing" beforehand - because he would have had to create the very laws of physics that allowed the universe to be "a thing" to begin with. Both of these defenses are deleterious to the very ground upon which the religious apologist is trying to stand.
Totally agree! Determinism and 'free will' don't happily co-exist... Without 'free will', Christianity falls apart..... I find 'free will' a real mind f**k , when I think what 'free will' could possibly 'look' like.....every thought would have to be a 'causeless cause', a 'thought' would have to think itself into existence, with no prior cause...... 'determinism' is my 'go to' in religious discussions....
@@JonHarrington9075 There's a whole influential part of the protestant movement that is based around double predestination - which would be completely consistent with a deterministic world. Look up Calvinism.
@@Messianic-Gentile causality didn’t, and creates the exact same problem for free will. Nor does determinism being violated even help because probabilistic interactions still create no space for free will regardless.
If you think religious confusion is a good argument, you think too highly of humans. We are the type of creatures who tend to hate the truth and look for excuses to distort or oppose it; just look at the society.
1:01:42 If God created logic, it seems that something being logically impossible makes little sense. So everything possible seems to make God subservient to logic.
In some sense this testifies to the lack of positive argument taking on the onus of disproving God, rather than dismissing its existence relativity to some other positive theistic argument. I guess
@@carlocioccavasino4888 the bargain of proof falls in the one who claims something exist, so its logical that most are counterargumets, as its hard to argue that something you dont belive doesnt exist
You know. I never accounted them as crossover. I have seen too many marvel movies to take UA-cam crossover serious but looking at it now. You are right.
I was told by a Muslim that the problem of evil is a child's argument, and so I figured it was something covered, excused and tossed aside by theists, even though it's a really good analysis of a "good" god. The argument from Divine Hiddenness is a really good argument against a god who gives a crap. So from the two arguments, there could be a god who is not good and doesn't give a crap about anyone. The stories of religions tell their adherents that the god is good and cares, and so which is more likely wrong, the religions or the good arguments against a god? The argument from religious confusion at the very least shows that god is not necessarily competent or driven to be competent. So if you combine the arguments, you could have a god who is not necessarily good, doesn't necessarily care about anyone, and is not necessarily competent at what it's doing. Again, religions tell you that the god is good, cares, and is competent at everything. Who's lying, religions or reality?
And beyond that, it seems highly unnecesary to worship any uncaring, incompetent and negligent god or its prophets. That automatically dismisses islam in every such case, not to mention mo the prophet was a kiddy fiddler.
A child's argument? Well heck i guess a child has more compassion for life than whatever a man might be to this muslim. A child has more sense it seems. Also, i suppose a child's argument has stomped the theists for ages, maybe this muslim can help his team by refuting them.
The Muslim was uncharitable. Suffering is a central theme in the Qur'an. The angels were so disturbed they actually asked God why would He create humans, knowing they would shed blood and cause corruption when He has angels who worship and devote themselves to Him.
I don't really like the problem of evil. The idea that "my values don't align with gods values, therefore he doesn't exist" seems dumb. I'd say it's a good argument against Christianity but not against a divine being alone.
For divine hiddenness, theists reply to me that God was so obvious, then we'd have no free will, and God wants us to freely choose to believe in him. As for why some people are born into other religions, they argue that people are judged based on their circumstances and by how much effort they've put into their search for God, so it is still fair. Not convincing to me, but just wanted to note those arguments.
@@idkwhatnonamemyself1951 Yes, and those that see God and choose not to worship him would rightly be called fools. So what difference does it make if God shows himself or doesn’t? People will still reject believing in him either way, but that doesn’t make them right it just makes them foolish.
@@alexanderh2345 If an omnipotent and omniscient god existed and it's existence was profoundly evident, then the problem of evil seems to be a fairly good reason not to worship that god.
@@ethanbottomley-mason8447 Then the Problem of Evil has just defeated the Divine Hiddenness premise of "non-resistant non-belief". To say that the problem of evil is a good reason to not worship that god is by definition, a "resistant non-belief". Ironically, the two biggest arguments for theistic scepticism has just cannibalized themselves. We are complicated creatures with varying thoughts and conflicting emotions. We can barely be honest with our own beliefs, let alone declare that we have "non-resistant non-belief".
Im an atheist and all, but let’s be honest, there is no such a thing as an argument for atheism or theism . Theism ones are just logical biases and mistakes (cosmological argument and “but the world is too perfect” or “but life and the universe had such a small probability of being” make me cringe all the time), but atheist ones are just incomplete. God has a different definition in every religion and is improperly defined even within the same religion . It impossible to prove the non existence of a constantly changing to convenience concept. The only real argument for atheism is that if you believe in something you must have a specific reason to believe in that, and if you want me to believe in that idea, you don’t have to prove it necessarily, but at lesta explain why I should. And since as I said no argument for god has the minimum sense, the default and most logical thing should be atheism
But does that say that logic becomes the all powerful being? When you say atheism or theism must meet the standard of human logical premises in order to be valid, doesn't that say our logic IS the Divine?
A bit reductionist to say that all theist arguments are logical biases. Unless the question that has plagued humanity for 2000 years just needed to be thought about by UA-cam user “idk imagine a cool name” in 2024 and it is all solved!!
@@alexanderh2345 the reasonable answer is that when you talk about things that by definition are outside of the comprehension of humans like god or the beginning of time, the only reasonable answer is unreasonable
Heres my argument: If a non-believer, who never had the opportunity to learn about God, is condemned to eternal damnation, then it implies that God is unjust for condemning over half of humanity to hell. Converesly, if only those who were exposed to the concept of God but still chose not to believe are condemned, then those who spread the teachings of God bear the responsibility for dooming many to eternal punishment.
In Islam, those who didn't receive the message will get a separate test on the Day of Judgement. Either way, you're going to be tested. God's Will prevails.
I'm disappointed that *none* of these are arguments against the existence of *_A_* deity; they are arguments against _specific_ interpretations of a _specific_ deity...Hence, they are strong justification against _religion,_ but *not* against _theism._ Based on the consensual usage of the term (as evidenced by multiple dictionaries and how they derive the definitions that they provide), and divorced from _religious_ context *_A_* "god" is simply an entity capable of effects beyond established laws of nature and that we cannot scientifically explain.
It is impossible to Argue against an undefined God. Without the definition given by Religions, a God’s form and capabilities and character are all completely mutable to situation at hand and thus cannot be argued against. For example, how could you use the Argument Of Evil if we don’t take God being good as a Prerequisite?
I suppose I’m confused what the arguments you were hoping for look like. Don’t you kind of have to assume an interpretation in order to evaluate the arguments? They seem to have taken a sufficiently broad interpretation so as to cover their bases but narrow enough that it still pertains to most popular interpretations
@JoeshWave "It is impossibe to argue against an undefined god." You're conflating _definition_ with *description.* The term "god" already _has_ a definition.
It is interesting how all of these arguments, despite claiming they are not attacking any particular religion but just theism as a whole, are obviously greatly influenced by abrahamic religions and their vision of God. Omnipotent, omniscient, all good. People dismiss polytheism as ludicrous, but really... almost everyone of these arguments wouldn't apply to it. There is no problem of evil if there are good and evil gods, there is no problem of confusion if various gods appears to various people in different ways. Or if you just don't claim that God is omnipotent, omniscient and all good. I am an atheist but I just like to point out how we tend to have just incredible biases to polytheism, when it in fact has its merits and works in some ways better than monotheism as a serious philosophical proposition. Theists often use the watchmaker analogy, and compare the universe to all sorts of electronic devices like cell phones or cameras. But all of them are collaborative efforts... made by a team of humans perfoming various tasks. Perhaps the universe is a collaborative effort by multiple Gods with various different tasks and ideas of what the world should be.
My guess would be that's just because the prevalence of polytheistic religions is so small that it is not worth putting in comparable effort from an atheistic point of view, as you are trying to basically convince the theistic world that they are wrong and the theistic world is majority abrahamic. I could make up some sort of unique belief structure, but it would probably not be wise for some researcher to put in effort to disprove me when they can put in effort to disprove the majority. I do agree with your statements though, and personally wonder how it was for the pagans and civilizations such as greeks and romans to open their mind to another kind of belif.
@@user-ys6ro4wi3f I fully agree that this is the explanation for why we focus on Abrahamic religions. But I think precisely giving them so much personalized attention sort of validates them as a "worthy" contender to atheism. When in reality it is as or less "worthy" than other positions like polytheism. Which is something that people in abrahamic religions hate if people point that out... They want people to consider polytheism as ridiculous. When my point is... they are all as ridiculous, they deserve all similar treatment and polytheism has its own merits. But yeah... abrahamic religion is by far the most popular and that is why we focus on them. I am just not sure this is the best strategy or the best way to argue against supernatural deities in general.
@@diegog1853 I see, what you said last is interesting, and now that I think about it I can't personally think of an argument I'd use to disprove the last statement you mentioned. This is me just speaking out of my ass, but I wonder if answering such a question is even possible because the statement "a supernatural deity exists" is a forgone conclusion that doesn't build upon any common axioms or statements, and thus sounds impossible to counter. If someone said that I'd ask them why they think that, so they create a premise to that conclusion which is pretty much what a religion does, where their [ religious reasons ] lead to the conclusion "a deity exists". On the other hand if someone said "Ghosts exist" and i asked them why they think that but they refused to elaborate, I'd have no real way to disprove their statement because the statement on its own is meaningless. Hopefully that came out somewhat understandable. Perhaps I should actually research it, as the answer is definetly out there, instead of rambling in youtube comments :)
Check out Joe’s channel: ua-cam.com/channels/vWRKmcplBTYQS49AVGsLgw.html
thanks for this, have you considered debating another muslim apologist? i know last time went horribly but i would love to see a discussion/debate between you and Abdallah Al Andalusi for example
nah, he can't name 5 things without a creator with proof, and when he tries he will simply name things with a creator. Whereas I can name billions of things and show proof that do have a creator.
There is in built anesthesia. I wish nothing ever died though. we mammals especially have in built anesthesia particularly powerful when on the brink of death from blood loss and exhaustion the most common death for prey animals. I’d argue why did we need to evolve that at all? It only happens when you’ve cross the threshold of death anyway. Like without modern medicine at the point they kick in death is certain.
Not getting molested by priests should be high up the list!
Alex, I'd be curious about your take on the research and hypothesis of Dr. Donald Hoffman.
That we experience reality as a construct of space-time, which he says explains the difficulty in scientifically quantifying experience and consciousness as they exist outside that construct. I would say he would even make a great guest.
The S-rank is the highest grade in the Japanese school system; it comes from "shū" ("excellent", maybe?) and it is normally represented in English as "superb". It became popular in the West via scoring systems on Japanese arcade games, e.g. it's the highest performance you can get on Dance Dance Revolution
I like the ironic God tier.
S STANDS FOR SPITFIRE
Anyone says an empty cult where this worst genretion has trapped and had to be judge by God for betrayed Gif for the nothing empty atheism gives to their lives? Lier as any Goddenier. What a cult!...
@@HENTAl69Anyone says an empty cult where this worst genretion has trapped and had to be judge by God for betrayed Gif for the nothing empty atheism gives to their lives? Lier as any Goddenier. What a cult!..
And the result of scoring 5-0 or more in the Inazuma Eleven games' competition routes... You probably have no idea what that means, do you? Never mind.
Skim read the notification and thought it said “Arguments For Antisemitism Tier List” and got VERY confused 😂
He should do that.
@@annanysingh9188 not until he does the racial tier list.
That would be very interesting.
Where would current events and the Talmud rank?
It would be a good one aswell
(1) Bagels? Overrated
Oh man… a 2 and a half hour video notification at 1:30am 💀I’m cooked
One of my favorite comments was on a 20 hour video someone said they were just going to watch one more video before bed.😂 Now I wouldn't do a 20 hour video before bed but honestly I might watch this one.
Go to sleep. You will thank yourself in the future :)
Adelaide
no better time! so much uninterrupted time on ur hand
@@setharnaud7869 😱
I love this guy's vocabulary and freedom of thought. The way his choice of words match up with his ideas and how simply he can explain concepts makes it clear he doesn't just say things he doesn't really understand just to sound smart. Seems like a very intellectually honest guy as well. Definitely gonna check out his channel.
Yeah, the opposite of Jordon Peterson in a way.
i love it when alex’s videos are longer than the first hunger games movie
Thank you for this 😂
Is it weird to admit that these Cosmic x Majesty videos are a sort of comfort video for me? While I'm sure Alex enjoys talking to his other guests, his conversations with Joe feel much closer to a friend banter as opposed to a debate or an interview. There's an aspect of informality here that I really appreciate.
Me too that's for sure
Totally agreed. Their energy levels also match very well in my opinion, with Joe being upbeat and high paced and Alex more calm and collected.
no, it's not weird
I love the dynamic of a laid back Brit and a high energy American in a deep philosophical discussion.
on the nose lmao !
I enjoy watching Alex's slight code switching to match the energy.
We're not laid back we're disappointed.
Depressed you mean? @@moriahgamesdev
With the greatest compliment possible, I was thinking the American had that Golden Retriever energy. Watching at 1.25 speed, he seemed to be hopped up on gallons of Red Bull. But seriously, no shade whatsoever. Clearly a brilliant person with well-formed reasoning and critical thinking.
Hiddeness is S tier for sure. If you've never heard of a god, your first questions would be "Where is he? Show it to me. Where's your proof?"
but Jesus said to believe without seeing, so he has chosen to remain invisible for now
@@billwalton4571 why would Jesus choose disciples who *have* seen him to go forth and spread his gospel, rather than electing to moreso influence people who *haven’t* seen him?
@@JimBobJoeB0b he does what he wants
@@JimBobJoeB0b cuz the apostles were specifically trained and taught by him specifically for this mission. cuz they were witnesses of his power, cuz they werent holy people at the beginning. if im not mistaken one of them was even a thief. and they all went thru drastic changes of behavior under him. they were also the first leaders of the church and people at the time followed them cuz they knew they met Jesus personally. tons of reasons why he chose them
Pretty awful argument, because just something is hidden to the senses doesn't mean the effects of the things cannot be felt. Like you can see smoke and ascertain a fire exists despite not seeing it, feel wind and know it exists despite not seeing it, suffer radiation poisoning and know radiation exists without seeing it.
"1 more video before bed"
the video: 12 hours long
"Just one more spoonful of ice cream"
*Pulls out a comically large spoon*
Literallyyyyy
1 more game before bed
Said 20 more times
@@theberry6734or
*Pulls out Final Fantasy 6*
Thank God for Alex.
There’s only one TINY little problem with what you wrote above, Sir.☝🏼
There has never been, nor will there ever be, even the SLIGHTEST shred of evidence for the existence of the Godhead, that is, a Supreme Person, or Deity.🤓
It is high time for humanity to awaken from all INANE superstitions such as the belief in a Personal God who created the Universe, would you not agree, Slave? 😩
@@whatisthetruth5726he’s joking lol
@@whatisthetruth5726are you acoustic?
@@pigeh 🎸 😂
Haha. Yes. Thank God for him.
I think you're missing the real point of the "universe big" argument. The point is to get you to question whether your belief in a God who built a world for humans is based on a cognitive bias. Suppose you were isolated tribe of a couple thousand who didn't know about the rest of the world, and you have a whole belief system that depends on a God who created the world for your isolated tribe. When you are made aware of the rest of the world, suddenly it seems less plausible that everything was made for you. You gradually realize that you only thought it was for you because you didn't know about everyone else. Similarly, as people become more aware of the scale of the universe, of other potential worlds with life, of other belief systems about God, of the number of animals in the world, the idea that everything was for you and your community's personal conception of God becomes less and less plausible. I grew up in a Jewish community. This might be mixing some arguments together, bu their idea that there is a God who has a special relationship with the Jewish people is embraced by 0.0001% of human beings who all happen to be Jews. Of course you should question whether that's based on a cognitive bias.
I also think that when someone says that “God created the universe with us in mind”, and you look at the actual universe, it’s like seeing a parent creating a room for a baby to live in, and then making 99,9999% of the room unlivable in a way that if the baby wandered there, they’d die instantly.
I’ve seen parents struggle to make a safe and beautiful room, but this is quite the level of incompetence.
At some point we might have to wonder if the room is really designed for the baby, or if we accidentally wandered in his tool shed instead and we were actually not even supposed to be here.
A male gamete is like 0.006cm and is meant to scale up to something that is like 175cm. Alex's argument that current planetary beings may be meant to inhabit spaces at an interstellar or intergalactic scale is plausible. Although it is quite an egocentric counter-argument to the big universe argument, it does retain the unlikely possibility that the big universe is meant for humanity.
Almost one-third of the world are Christians and it continues to grow especially in Africa and in Asia.
Terrible argument.
@@ZoneTelevision *doesn't elaborate*
The Problem of Evil is not an argument for Atheism, only an argument against specific religions that promote an omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent deity (usually monotheistic religions). It cannot be used against Hinduism or Buddhism for example, and surely any argument that cannot address the 3rd and 4th most popular religions in the world cannot be considered a good argument for Atheism.
Perhaps it could possibly be ranked as an S tier argument against Christianity, Islam, and similar (debatable), but as an argument for Atheism I don't understand how it could possibly be ranked S. I would put it in D, if I was being generous.
He said IF God is the omni list. I'm not sure Buddhism has god/s?
certain forms of Hinduism believe in an omnipotent omnibenevolent god though
I think you're being a bit contrarian. Pretty much everything in this video is based on a monotheistic god. Of the 5 major religions in the world, three have a very omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient god, i dont really understand hinduism but im pretty sure it has a bunch of gods, and buddism doesn't have any god(s). Obviously no argument is going to work against all 5, especially not every single other religion out there.
The purpose of the problem of evil is clear, and for that purpose it is s tier. not much else to say.
Many Buddhists are atheists.
Buddhism does not have a god
Okay, but what do you mean by "arguments" and "for" and "atheism" and "tier list?." And it better not have anything to do with drugs or else I'm out of here
Did you just create the unholy abomination that is Peter Peterson?
look if you just take some crack then you will get it
Lol the Peterson effect is still comical.
alex has taken advantage of my good nature sir!
That seemed like a blend of Peterson and Hitch's brother.
its strange to me when people claim if god revealed himself, it would abolish free will. The original story of satan proclaims he was a whole angel, who knew god, was 2nd to god, was as close to god as you can get. and still chose to go against god. So if god revealed itself, the true sinners, those truly evil, will continue to be evil despite seeing god. the people who truly "just want to sin" will. and those who were non resistant non believers would be saved. simple.
There's also the option of knowing God exists but simply finding him unworthy of worship/obedience. Not out of a desire to 'sin' or be evil, but just like a disappointed child rejecting the authority of their parent.
Exactly, God supposedly showed himself to a bunch of different people, people who are revered by Christians. "If God showed himself to us it would limit our free will" implies that the freedom of Paul, Abraham, Job etc. was limited, which I've never seen anyone argue.
Not only did Judas Iscariot witness the power of Jesus, but was granted miraculous powers of god through Jesus (Luke 9:1-6), and yet he still had free will, choosing to betray Jesus.
@@jelledesmet7086 All the ancient philosophers who thought more deeply asserted this was an impossibility -- to not one the one you are a part of and who made you. Think deeper. You cannot not want that which to you belong.
He also supposedly does. Various Old Testament characters knew god personally, where did their free will go?
I think the argument from the scale of the universe is typically a response to the fine tuning argument. Since clearly the majority of the observable universe is hostile to life as we know it, not fine tuned to support it.
I've actually never seen it used in that context, but that is an interesting point.
There could have at least been a single galaxy, our own galaxy, teeming with intelligent lifeforms like in Star Wars and Star Trek. We don't even get that.
Yes I was surprised they didn’t consider this. This was precisely the way famous atheist Hitchens always used it. It’s a counter to thinking the universe is created for us or with us in mind .
The scale of the universe argument is certainly a real narcissistic one. God created the universe for His glory, not so we can go live in every part of it.
@@christsavesreadromans1096
We can't venture outside of our own solar system, let alone explore the rest if the galaxy, LET ALONE the rest of the universe. I don't see how it is "narcissistic" to want to be able to do more than we can do that way.
This was a great episode, thanks Joe and Alex!
Okay but I have a deep philosophical question for you, if your name is capturing Christianity and your worldview is against taking captives, then how do you reconcile the inherent contradiction in your name?
@@thetheatreguy9853questions aren't arguments
@@adrianheath3854 I didn't say it was an argument I said it was a question. And I was also just being cheeky LOL
@@adrianheath3854 bro is fuming 🤣
@theaterbro you cheeky bastard
Joe should stop by more often
Zendaya would dump him
No he should not
You can always watch him on his own channel.
I loved the first one and am very excited for this part 2!
Good to see you here.
Yo it's MindShift!
It’s the man himself
F Tier shoudl be: "I can't see God, therefore no God"
Do you mean physically see God? Because there are stories in the Bible of God literally appearing to and communicating with human beings, not to mention Jesus Christ being God in the form of a man
Do you mean just observing God? Because honestly seeking God and not finding it is the basis for what is generally considered an A- or S-tier atheist argument in Divine Hiddenness
Either way you meant it I don’t see what is unreasonable about expecting God to manifestly exist in any way that is actually detectable beyond feelings one gets sitting listening to worship songs or visions they get when on LSD
I actually cant believe this came out the exact microsecond that i finished rewatching the arguments for god video. LIKE THE EXACT SECOND I FINISHED IT THIS JUST POPPED UP. God is real. Final verdict
lmao
And He especially cares about you.
exact same thing happened to me lmao and that video is like 2 years old
Was that synchronicity, an argument for a metaphysics beyond materialism or merely coincidence? U decide 😅
HALLELUJAH 😮😊
Love it when joes the on the channel it like watching alex talk to his American doppleganger
please stop arguing guys
Why
LMAOO
NEVER!!
Nah, brain plagues from the desert ought to be treated.
My dads fighting; it really takes me back to childhood.
This was a fun one. More of this, please! Also, it's nice to see you laugh/smile more often, Alex.
Every Christian apologist is a walking argument for divine hiddenness.
Anyone says an empty cult where this worst genretion has trapped and had to be judge by God for betrayed Gif for the nothing empty atheism gives to their lives? Lier as any Goddenier. What a cult!...
After being close enough to God that the pain and suffering I went through was worse than when I was without God that I prayed to God to distance himself because I couldn’t handle his holiness I am thoroughly convinced that divine hiddenness is a blessing not only for the unbeliever but to the believer, everyone claims they want to be close to God but his holiness is so bright and pure I don’t think they realize what they’re asking.
“But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.”
Luke 12:48
“For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.”
1 Corinthians 13:12 KJV
Exactly. How could I ever respect a god that needed pasty white middle aged overweight men with prostate problems to do all of his fighting for him.
@@japexican007 lmao bruh
@@japexican007 you prayed to God to distance himself.
so.. presumably, EVERYONE in heaven will suffer just by being near god.
so it's suffering in heaven and suffering in hell.
I give you that it solves problem of evil.. it's just god being everywhere,causing unnecessary suffering.
but now you have problem of good.
how is anything good possible,when you have omnipresent god that causes suffering by proxy.
maybe god is not omni in any way,it was just one of his lies,to threaten believers into submission.
meh.
Hey Alex I know you likely won’t see this, however just wanted to say thank you for bringing rise to my atheism I used to be a bit unconfident in my belief or atleast didn’t know how to argue it, But your arguments as well as some others make me feel more heard and understood than my family, I genuinely want to thank you for your content and hope you have a “blessed” day lol, much love and appreciation from the Bible Belt of Florida
The idea that God has to allow 'evil' (I much prefer to say "suffering", or "badness": to me, "evil" invokes the supernatural) so that there can be such things as bravery reminds me of the idea that God had to condemn us to being born with Original Sin so that He could give us the gift of salvation. It's like a parent's saying to a child "I had to give you a bloody nose so I could 'kiss it and make it better'."
Look into Islamic worldview, it makes much more sense.
It’s almost as if you don’t understand what God has planned
Let’s at least theorize: you think if you were in Adam’s shoes you’d have made the right choice concerning the forbidden tree?
@@scottm4975it’s almost as if you wouldn’t be able know his plan, yet can still make objective statements about the inherent suffering needed for us to evolve. Do you believe slavery is immoral, why or why not, and what passage in the Bible do you use to justify your opinion? My main point being, you already hold beliefs about morality that cannot be formed by simply reading the Bible, you pick and choose what passages to follow.
“You are born sick, and commanded to be well.”
-Christopher Hitchens
The stone paradox should be way higher up. They said that the argument doesn't make much sense because it's okay for god to not be able to do something impossible, because it just can't be done. And that's the exact point of the argument, because god is supposedly omnipotent, which means all-powerful. If you restrict god's abilities to only what's possible, what's your definition of possible? Why shouldn't a triangle with 4 sides be creatable? Because geometry and math says so. But isn't god supposed to transcend all that? If you restrict god's power to only what math and science allows, then the whole god argument crumbles since it will inevitably turn out that this so called God can't be anything other than a random Joe because anything else would be impossible. And that is certainly not omnipotent.
Watched the entire thing and thoroughly enjoyed it, what a fantastic guest and conversation! Would absolutely love to see him on again to discuss more of the arguments he references.
Eh, he fell into the usual trap people arguing against the existence of God set for themselves. During the problem of evil, he had that fairly clever argument to get away from having to establish objective morality by saying he was only talking about suffering. The problem is, he's still saying suffering is bad and it is good to avoid suffering. But why?
He then fell into hyperbole with "There are countless theories that establish objective morality without God." Really? Countless? Interestingly, applying the same standard applied later in the video, wouldn't the existence of numerous, sometimes contradicting theories of objective morality without God be evidence that a true theory likely doesn't exist?
@@angusmcculloch6653 He's literally about as close to a true agnostic as you can get (he regulairly says his credance for theism is somewhere between 40 and 60 percent). He's also a moral realist (believes in objective morality) however Alex (as I think is mentioned in this video) is an emotivist; so I think the reason he went the problem of suffering route is that while the two of them disagree on the existence of objective evil, they both disagree suffering is deeply unfavorable.
As to grounding morality outside of God, within acedemic philosophy this is just as much a goal for the theist as it is the atheist as very few serious philosophers (again including theists) find divine command theory compelling (probably mostly due to the Euthyphro Dilemma). Moral epistomology is a masive subject (as eluded to by MoR when he said there are "countless arguments") and there's alot of arguements that attempt to ground or explain the existence of objective morality without God (MoR has a video that is like 2 hours long that introduces the biggest arguement in the field). I assure you he isn't exaggerating here, this is just a massive can of worms that would quickly fall well beyond the scope of this particular discussion.
All things considered, Magesty of Reason is playing extremely fair and he doesn't believe in subjective morality as you seem to think he does. And again, hes literally as much a theist as he is an atheist so hes not favoring any atheist arguements because he favors their conclusion, but rather because he genuinely finds them convincing and well founded.
@@Isaac_L.. Thank you for this detailed, well-thought out response.
I don't know that I ever said MoR *is* an atheist, because I didn't know. That's why I worded it as "people arguing against the existence of God" instead of "other atheists," because he was presenting arguments against the existence of God and fell into the same trap others do. I can see where that wording may have been too subtle and led to misunderstanding, so I should say I wasn't calling him *an atheist* and tried to phrase my post so that I didn't call him an atheist.
Maybe I'm just being pedantic, but "countless" is an exaggeration. I would prefer "a lot", but I'll concede it's a podcast format, not a paper presentation. However, the main criticism still stands that he deflects defending objective morality, but suffering is bad. Why? That's not to say he personally believes it, but it's a trap that awaits anyone trying to make that argument and he walked into it as well.
And, again, the multitude of conflicting theories of objective morality should be strong evidence that no true objective morality exists. That is simply using a same argument against theism--if God is real, there should not be multiple, conflicting accounts. That is a connection I wish they had made, as that makes for an interesting discussion.
Thank you again for your serious and well-reasoned response.
@angusmcculloch6653 No problem. I'm glad I was able to help.
I'm assuming that he would be more than happy to argue that suffering is bad in one way or another under either a subjective or objective moral framework. One way I suspect he would defend it is by using the psychophysiological response to suffering and stress widely observed across the animal kingdom. Not only did God create an environment/system that induces immense amounts of unnecessary suffering, but he placed creatures in that system that consistently feel immense negative emotion, active panic, and displeasure in proportion to that suffering. If God was all loving and for some reason or another (usually free will if you're a theist) it's essential for suffering to exist, it seems like God would have created the vast majority of creatures to have a very high psychological tolerance to suffering. In other words, a big part of the problem of suffering is the conscious response to suffering. If God was going to make a world with so much suffering, you would think that he would make creatures that broadly have a psychological indifference to suffering as opposed to what we widely observe. I'm sure that MoR would put it more eloquently than that but I'd be willing to bet that he would use an argument along those lines to defend that particular point.
As to your other point, I don't think it follows that the existence of contradictory theories about either the content or grounding of morality (I'm not entirely sure which you were referring to here but it doesn't really matter) is good evidence against the existence of objective morality in general. Another big debate within philosophy is pertains to theories of time (externalism vs presentism), but clearly time demonstrably exists. So yeah, I don't think you can use the debate surrounding (especially the grounding of) morality as evidence that it doesn't exist. (Note: to be clear I'm not arguing for moral realism, as I've yet to be convinced by arguments for it; but this is something that's an active area of interest for me since my views deviate heavily from the majority in the field here)
As to your other point about moral epistemology and God, I completely agree that it's a significant (and fascinating) problem for theism. If God exists, even if he isn't the source for morality, given omniscience he would know what is morally ideal. Therefore, you'd expect that one could learn about the nature and contents of morality through communion with God yet those who claim to do so routinely make moral claims that are at odds with others that also claim to commune with God (oftentimes these disagreements persist within, not just between, religions). That said, while this is a great piece of evidence against the moral argument or the truth of some individual religions, I don't think it's nearly as strong of evidence against theism in general as the problems of evil or hiddenness or even religious confusion are.
@@Isaac_L.. apolgies that it's taken me a few days to respond.
1. You are probably right that this how he would try to respond to suffering is bad, but the response still assumes someone needs to justify suffering's existence. Why, though? It's what's called in philosophy a vicious infinite regress. Why is suffering bad? Because it hurts. Why is pain bad? Because it's unpleasant. Why is unpleasantness bad? Here you end either in tautology: "Unpleasantness is bad, because it is no pleasing" or the vicious infinite regress continues (i.e. the truth of one statement depends on the truth of the previous statement and we never reach a foundational true statement). Either way, the argument simply doesn't hold.
2. I would agree, but people who argue against the existence of God have to apply this across the board. Either confusion where one might expect unanimity is evidence of a thing's nonexistence or it's not.
0:33 Right out the gate: "We're gonna *resurrect* it!" Nice! Very punny!!😂
The vibe in this video is so lovely
I agree 😮 and it makes sense
You said you weren’t going to address arguments against any particular religion, like Christianity, but I feel like many of these arguments are fundamentally addressing the claims of Abrahamic religion, and particularly Christianity. And fair enough, I suppose, because western philosophy has been conversant with Judeo/Christian/Islamic faiths for centuries. But many of these issues (like the problem of evil and divine hiddenness) almost don’t exist in Vedanta, Buddhist, and Jain philosophy because of the particular metaphysical claims they make. It seems to me that many of the arguments for atheism presented here begin to look quite different when approached from a global perspective.
Yup, the arguments are rife with assumptions about God that come mostly from the Abrahamic faiths.
Such as the ideas of perfection, benevolence, omnipresence, and omniscience.
@@im_aleey Indeed. But even if you accept those notions, just adding the ideas of reincarnation and karma completely change what almost all of these arguments look like. What so speak of the concept of cyclical time and the well accepted idea of multiverses in eastern philosophy. I mean, the problem of evil just doesn't have the same bite if you accept that the soul is eternal and subject to the reactions of karma. There are consequences for almost all the other arguments in this video based on those two ideas alone.
@@im_aleeywhich is also why the religious confusion argument is so bad: it's equivocating the word "God" with any very powerful, supernatural being, when really what we want to know is whether a necessary, all powerful, all good God exists.
Arguments for atheism:
Prove theism. Until you do it’s not real by default.
Anything else is just debunking nonsense. It’s not an argument it’s just pointing out why the claim being made, whatever the point or argument is, is not sufficient to prove theism to any reasonable evidentiary standard.
What?
@@antinumchrum9440burden of proof is on the theist
actually that's a very bad argument
whenever a theist would argue that a scientific theory is wrong (theory of evolution for example), then god...
that's not working at all
so the reverse doesn't work either: the lack of proof or evidence for god doesn't make atheism stand and hold.
science does though.
science is the most reliable way to get knowledge.
god isn't a scientific field of study, therefore science doesn't care about god, so do we.
@@josephgorodnitskiy4461 I must have been sleep deprived, I didn't understand what he was saying.
Whenever Alex and Joe have a conversation, they seem to cover every box and are so easy to understand. It's so beneficial for anyone new to these arguments.
Alex x Joe content is by far my favorite! I find I learn so much from these types of videos! Hope you two continue to make great content
Two of the smartest guys on UA-cam. Thanks for the interview Alex. It would be awesome if you did an episode with Emerson Green, he’s amazingly intelligent too.
There ought to be only one item in the S-Tier: Religious Apologists.
There is only one argument in the S-Tier. Therefor we ought to always use that argument.
Seriously though. One of the best arguments against God is that He needs humans to make arguments for His existence. I think that's a subset of divine hiddenness though.
@@therongjr I was thinking more along the lines, if a triomni god exists, he wouldn’t allow people like D’Souza, Craig, Powell, Hamm, Winger, and so many others, speak for him. D’Souza’s recent performance surely deconverted as many Christians as Hitchens ever did.
@@basildrawsas a Christian I think this is genuinely a good point 😂
Every religious person you disagree with is an agent of satan, there, problem solved.
For the religious confusion segment:
It would cost God literally nothing to completely resolve ALL doctrinal dispites to every person, no matter how small. He is supposedly infinitely powerful. Better than resolving them all when asked, he could do it pre-emptively. Instead, he used fallible men to write a consfusing mess of a book in languages that would die shortly after with no way to verify any of its claims.
It's obvious which religion is the correct one already, people just don't like it because they dislike the what God commands.
@@christsavesreadromans1096you just lied it’s not obvious which religion is true because none of them have evidence that’s why it’s called a belief and not a science because science is fact belief is ideal
@christsavesreadromans1096 no matter which religion you say here, at least 2/3rds of all people are going to disagree with you, and that's without even going into denominations and specifics.
@@Luciferthekingofpurgitory No, its very obvious which religion is the correct one. The Catholic faith has more miracles than any other faith combined. People just don't like the rules so they'd rather be a Buddhist or atheist, or anything that sounds nice and frees one from the expectation of a future judgement.
@@rmtsapphire0 Ok? and their denominations are false and were founded by men. Whereas the catholic church has been here since the time of Christ.
Joe is Awesome! Amazing guest! I've learned a ton from the Majesty of Reason.
Unfortunately I don't have 2.5h time right now and the list in itself is actually a bit absurd. There's only one argument that's enough: religious nonsense is not convincing enough.
(Just dropping a like and comment, possibly listening this later on, when I have time.)
Alex makes a great point about how people in Iran or other non Christian countries could be said to be more “Christian” than Christians in the west are in action and heart. He’s right.
Someone made a response to his debate with Jonathan Mclatchie, where he made that geographical argument a couple of years ago, saying essentially the same thing
It's one of a fee things that Jordan Peterson actually gets right. If us western Christians actually acted like what we believe , the world could be a magnificent place for all. Though from my perspective we , and those we know do our part
@@SeanathanCreek I wish we focused more on the 4 gospels in the west. I see a lot of Old Testament teaching. Which is fine but I rarely hear readings from the gospels. We don’t focus enough on Jesus life and his teachings from his mouth as written in the 4 gospels.
@Dgujg Agreed as some don't notice that it is greek-romsn literature and Mark was thrown in the dumpster by Luke and Mathew which considered each other to be wrong. John considered all to be totally wrong and made up his own story.
One of my friends has become Chritian but does not admit since it is dangerous for him.
Good conversation, but Joe's so cute it's hard to focus.
Joe? Joe? Come on. They are both adorable.
@14:07 - Alex's interpretation of "survival of the fittest" as "the death and destruction of the weak" is a simplistic and misleading view of natural selection. The phrase "survival of the fittest," originally coined by Herbert Spencer and later used by Charles Darwin, does not imply a brutal elimination of the weak but rather the differential survival and reproduction of organisms based on their traits.
Firstly, the notion that natural selection "relies upon the death and destruction of the weak" is a misunderstanding. Natural selection operates through the differential reproductive success of individuals. This means that those individuals who possess advantageous traits are more likely to survive and reproduce, passing those traits on to the next generation. It does not necessitate the active destruction of the weak but rather a greater likelihood of survival and reproduction for those better adapted to their environment.
Secondly, the idea of "survival of the fittest" can be seen as a tautology if interpreted as "survival of those who survive." However, this interpretation misses the key aspect of fitness in an evolutionary context. Fitness refers to an organism's reproductive success and its contribution to the gene pool of the next generation. It is about how well an organism's traits enable it to thrive in its environment, reproduce, and pass on its genes.
Additionally, Alex seems to misunderstand the core argument of Richard Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene." (which is odd, as Dawkins has been a guest...I wonder if Alex has read it?) Dawkins emphasizes that the primary unit of selection is the gene, not the individual organism. Genes that are successful in promoting their own replication are those that persist over generations. This perspective shifts the focus from individual organisms to the genetic level, highlighting that traits beneficial to gene replication are those selected for over time.
If only the fit survive, the weak must die. You mention “differential survival”, this is what he is talking about. The fit survive, the weak don’t.
I don’t think your objections are relevant, “the destruction of the weak” logically follows from “the survival of the fittest” (provided that you assume it means survival of ONLY the fittest, which in this context it does), in the same way that “only those who get 50% on the exam will pass the topic” means that “those who get LESS than 50% on the exam will fail the topic”
@@LukeNAndo No, that isn't correct, the premise that "only the fit survive" is simply not true. Differential survival implies that some individuals are _more likely_ to survive and reproduce than others, but this does not mean that all "weak" individuals _must die_ for evolution to occur. Moreover, it's crucial to understand that in terms of evolution, the primary unit of selection is the gene, not the individual. All individuals ultimately die; there is no survival for them. The only entities that truly survive are genes.
Natural selection is about the relative reproductive success of genes, not a binary outcome of survival versus destruction of individuals.
Couple this with the fact that ther are many "weak" genes that persist in populations either because they are linked to other advantageous traits or because the environment is not exerting strong selective pressure against them. The notion that natural selection necessitates the destruction of all weak individuals, or "weak" genes oversimplifies the complexity of evolutionary processes. It's about the _relative success_ and proliferation of genes, and plenty of "weak" genes continue to exist within the gene pool.
Furthermore, the notions of "weakness" and "fitness" are contextual to an environment that itself is in flux. The earliest ancestors of eutherian mammals were small, rat-like creatures. Pre-KT impact, these ancestors would not have been considered the "fittest" or "best adapted" compared to the dominant dinosaurs. Yet, the massive environmental changes caused by the KT impact led to the extinction of the dinosaurs and allowed these small mammals to thrive and evolve into the diverse array of placental mammals we see today, including humans.
I mean it doesnt really impact his point either wah
1:55:00 I think that islamic fellow you have had a debate with( I know him for years but forgot the name ) when he was telling you that p and q are not necessarily derived from one another I think he could use this type of an example if he was a better prepared to debate and not to pontificate :)
My favorite argument is to say: even if theism were true, one could never be justified in *believing* it is true. For whatever evidence or experience you might find convincing, you can never be sure that your experience *doesn't* actually have a natural cause.
Imagine some guy appears in your room and claims to be god. Do you believe him? Why should you? How do you know he's not an advanced alien pretending to be a god? From your human perspective, you'd have no way to tell the difference.
The implied consequences of theistic claims make absolute questions like "does God exist" or "did Jesus really rise from the dead" less useful than relative ones like "how can I know what God demands of me" or "is Jesus the only way to salvation." Sure, a man might have done extraordinary things about 2,000 years ago. If that man were the ultimate messenger of the Almighty, why are we only learning about His life through fragmentary texts rather than direct experience? Why can we safely discount anyone who claims to fulfill His destiny as most likely delusional?
In a similar vein I’ve thought about how perception depends on transduction (such as photons to nerve impulses), and how we verify the external stimuli exists versus a delusion created by the brain (such as phantom limb syndrome). If “feeling god’s presence” (such as through prayer) was actually the transduction of some spiritual stimuli, how would we differentiate it from talking to ourselves? In short, we can’t. This realization was the “final straw” for me to become an atheist.
thats interesting but to me its not so much that you could never have good reason to believe it its more that you wouldnt have good reason to claim you KNOW God exists with total certainty which the religious often do
@S.D.323 To believe a proposition is to be *convinced* that it is true. If we can argue that theistic belief is unjustified, then it would follow that dogmatic claims to knowledge are unjustified too.
I honestly don't know what it would take to convince me that a god exists. No matter how spectacular the evidence, I couldn't rule out all naturalistic possibilities. What if there's an explanation in 10-dimensional physics? Unless you know *everything* about the natural universe, you can't be sure that a phenomenon *doesn't* have a natural cause. Therefore seeing something super-magical and crazy looking still wouldn't be evidence for anything supernatural.
@@S.D.323 it’s much worse than not achieving certainty. There’s no grounds for granting more than some minimal credence. All one would have is some perception parsimony should have one assume it’s a hallucination as the default.
love this long form philosophy bro content alex bring joe back for more !
2:08 Alex, with his immense vocabulary and amazing intellect could think of no better description of a tier list than "it's a big sort of box" 😂
Gotta love the man! Keep up the great content Alex!
Four sided triangle....pyramid .
Used to be an atheist, but now I think god may exist, but it's insanity and the height if hubris to think you know ANYTHING about him or his desires. It's funny that since becoming agnostic I've actually become way more against religion. I think faith is fine but religion is evil
That's not hubris at all, we can know with certainty certain things about God, namely His eternal nature, His justice, etc.
@@christsavesreadromans1096
How is that, exactly? I want a detailed answer.
From a logical standpoint, there is no reason that a god must be omni- anything. Therefore, the PoE is an S-tier argument against any religion (like Christianity) that requires an omni- god, but is D-tier (C-tier at best) against deism/theism in general.
But why then call it God? Perhaps its a polytheist argument that limit the ability of individual gods.
A non-omni god is just a very very strong human/creature, might as well be an alien with force powers and nothing more, by a certain point of view, such a creature has very few reasons to be called god and expecially there would be no reason to worship him.
@@TonyLambregts Because the term was not invented for the abrahamic god, look at the god of ovids creation myth, he is unknown and powerful but not omni in any way. Still he is the cause of everything but chaos and his kind(the other gods) in this myth
I disagree, as long as we're talking about creationism, because a creator of the universe logically should be omnipotent in regards to its creation, because it's necessarily all-powerful. Maybe you could argue that its control is somehow overtaken by development, or something, but it just seems clunky and certainly you would struggle to find any kind of theist that approaches the problem of evil this way.
@@luphoria Why should a creator of the universe be omnipotent? There is no logical reason why a being that can create a universe must be omnipotent. Being able to create a universe is pittance in comparison to what an omnipotent being can do. I can create a metal spring, but that doesn't mean I can control every individual atom in that spring.
Theists: God has to stay hidden, he can't be obvious to us or it would take away our free will
Also Theists: Look at the trees! _Obviously_ God has to exist!
To believe in his existence he gave you reasons but he isn't visible to you all the time cuz he doesn't want to restrict your freedom I mean imagine your seeing your mother staring at you all the time since you were born you would've done nothing from what you did right?
@@nam-r1f I still know my mother exists. I have seen her. She didn't vanish after I was born and expect me to discover her existence through obscure evidence that is more reasonably explained by other things.
If one believes God exists with His attributes, then God _is_ watching you all the time, and a believer thinks this: how is their freedom not restricted?
@@Rogstin first of all he didn't vanish, read more about Jesus and you determine yourself ,secondly who said that the universe and nature works supernaturally by God? Nowhere in the Bible says that not even when performing miracles beacuse i know he was using the nature he created to perform them, there's nothing wrong with that ,also God gave you reason to how everything is working so you can learn from it to develop your mind and brain and do things yourself , so God created universe and nature and added laws to how its working now,
Fully understanding how a machine works doesnt make it have no creator
@@Rogstin if you know your mom is watching you all the time is different from seeing her watching you all the time ,also imagine a starfish trying to understand a human, thats a smaller example for how we are trying to understand God
@@nam-r1fdid the freedom of Joan of Arc get restricted? Did the freedom of Moses get restricted. It definitely wasn’t restricted for Adam and Eve and they watched God Create them. What exactly are you trying to argue if not an inconsistent point?
1:44:50 ‘better’, ‘great’, ‘perfection’… these terms smuggle in goodness. A being can be perfectly evil, where ‘perfect’ is a purely quantitative term like maximal
let this be a reminder to any theist who needs to hear it: Alex may be a very respectful and reasonable person, but he is still an atheist, and his opinions on god have not changed significantly over the years. I've seen some people struggling to reconcile these two facts and claiming that Alex is certainly about to convert to Christianity. This does not seem to be likely at the moment. So I ask you to please change your perspective on the matter accordingly: either Alex isn't as thoughtful and reasonable as you thought, or it is possible to be both of those things and still be an atheist. I for one hope that you'll choose the latter. I don't know if that should significantly alter your religious beliefs, but I do think it should change your beliefs about atheists, and atheism in general. Because Alex is not an outlier, and I'm getting kinda tired of him being portrayed as one. This is what atheism can and often does look like.
I agree with your main point, although i think the underlying problem is that a solid 60-70% of both atheists and christians online haven't a shred of the manners the likes of Alex. It paints both sides in a bad light
@@daanmollema6366 I pay no mind to those poeple on both sides, I don't think spending energy in engaging with them is productive for anyone. My issue is mainly with religious people who do have those manners amongst their peers, and just choose to not use them with atheists, because they seem to believe that an atheist can't share them. I'm not claiming they're a majority or anything, it's just a group of people who does exist and has a relevant presence in *my* experience in these spaces. That's why I said that mine is a reminder "to those who need it". You may very well be a theist who doesn't
@@gffkdcjwt this is my alt account by the way. UA-cam prevents me from posting that comment from my main one. That comment was also supposed to have a dot at the end, but if I put it there it gets deleted. Yeah, I really have no idea why. It's quite annoying but at this point I'm used to it. If someone else here has experience with youtube constantly deleting their comments, their help would be greatly appreciated.
@@sanstheblaster2626 yeah i know right! Super annoying
@@gffkdcjwtI think it’s wise to be *careful* spending energy on such folks, but it’s not always fruitless. Some of us exreligious folk lost faith *in part because* of people spending their energy to converse with us about that stuff, despite our stubbornness.
I watched all 12 hours of joes video, I think he does an excellent job.
Alex said: “I hope it was fun, and I hope people enjoyed it“
Answer: was fun, did enjoy it.
I feel like the notion that evil is allowed by god to allow for higher order goods is ridiculous. Like hes god supposed to be all powerful and all good shouldnt god have been able to create a world where evil wasnot neccessary to achieve such high order goods?
Ir is that not within gods all powerful power?
I can't help thinking of the kid who wrote in a paper for school that the Ancient Egyptians built pyramids and went on to explain that a pyramid is "a triangular cube".
A cone with more edges?
Alex should spend a bit more time with physicists to hone his physics-based arguments
fortunately, the theists he debates know even less about physics
Divine hiddenness is checkmate imo, maybe not in disproving Gods existence, but certainly in proving that the creator of the universe doesn’t care about having a genuine relationship with me. The more philosophical arguments for or against Gods existence miss the point imo. If you resort to philosophical arguments to prove you have a girlfriend instead of just, idk, having her just show up, people are going to doubt the existence of said girlfriend, no matter how well reasoned your arguments are
On the stone paradox: Alex said omnipotence is the ability to do what's possible. As if what's possible exists outside of and independent of God. Isn't God the maker or originator of the possible and impossible? Is God then bound by what he made impossible or does this impossibility exist independently of him?
It works two ways. If God can lift that rock then it's be possible by definition.
The only way to be sure is to ask God for a demonstration.
Moreover most christians and pastors like Turek on WLC don't put any restrictions on omnipotence whatsoever, so it's more than fair to use the same rules
I think God could be omnipotent in it's own realm but not in the universe. If the universe is fine-tuned, there can be no physical interference at all. It's constrained by it's own Laws and Constants.
@@briansmith3791
You'd rather invent a new realm than admit the God claim is inconsistent.
1:17:45 so god has to throw spaghetti at the wall - or put another way - roll a trillion dice in order to create life? That alone is an argument against omnipotence and perfection. It evokes a fumbling lab experiment, not a deliberate creation and design. "Puny god."
You can't simultanously appeal to the machinery of the cell whilst also entertaining the idea that god can't directly create life to his own specifications, and must resort to this scattershot approach of playing the odds.
Yes! This collab is what I needed, thanks
@@greentheam629 Yep. It's really interesting.
I was wondering if Majesty of reason would become a guest at some point in your podcast; guess this answers it.
I love learning well known arguments like this, thank you!
Just watched the whole thing basically in one sitting. Would love to see more collabs like this with Joe, be they about atheist arguments, theist arguments or any other topic in philosophy!
Material Causality for me is probably "C Tier". And this is me using my smooth brain and basic knowledge, so I'm sure there's a lot of holes in what I'm about to say. The argument that we don't see the breakdown of physics in any other location outside of the Big bang is just fundamentally untrue. We actually see such breakdowns happening in black holes. We also see those types of breakdowns at really small levels. And the idea that we don't have a unified theory of everything, for lack of a better phrase, means that the universe has already provided material evidence for strange and weird circumstances. No, they don't perfectly replicate the conditions of the early universe, however, the information that we have of the universe makes it perfectly plausible, and highly likely in my uneducated opinion, that there is a perfectly material basis for the cause of the beginning of universe. So I actually think this argument holds a lot more weight, even without the Kalam cosmological argument as A parallel for it. I think it would do perfectly well for agnostic.
Isn't the best argument a lack of evidence
My favorite response to the argument from religious diversity is polytheism. "Of course there are differing opinions on god! There are multiple and they're all different!" This also works well with how historically most religious practices have been polytheist.
Also, I think the issue of material causality is best responded to by just conceding and making God an emanator instead of a creator.
My understanding of this is God doesn't care who is right but that they are worshipping him/her/them
@@of9490 I don't see how this is a reply to my comment.
Hey Alex, I’m a Christian and absolutely love your videos. You should try and do an interview with Jeffery Louder or Sean McDowell. I think it would be very interesting seeing you and Jeffery talking about the argument’s in this video or just having a dialogue on atheism and theism.
You only need one argument for atheism and it comes in the form of a question "can you prove god exists?"
If the answer is "no" ( and it will be) then job done
Common sense and basic logic is above S tier in atheism. It’s literally god tier 😂😂😂
The worst part is that I can already imagine Trinity Radio, Mike Winger, and Redeemed Zoomer preparing an awful response to this 🤦♀️
I really hope that Joe makes a response video if that happens, just like when he annihilated Mike Winger the last time.
I don't expect any of them to though Inspiring Philosophy might.
Why is that a bad thing? You just want the discussion to be 'i'm right, here's why and that's the end of it'?
Nah, if im correct, Inspiring philosophy already has videos addressing those arguments. IP doesn't really have to react to a tier list video.
Who?
I don't think these arguments are an argument for atheism; it's arguments against a particular concept of a god.
I think what we mean by God/gods just comes down to semantics. The main takeaway here is that a being with certain maximal or unconstrained properties is fundamentally contradictory. If a theist defines God without these characteristics, it would be consistent, but kind of pointless.
My favourite atheist is Graham Oppy..
Yeah I think the problem is that there are so many possible versions of God that you conceivably can’t argue against all of them. It does make sense to focus on Abrahamic religions though, which the majority of the world believe in
@@krishvids608 Indeed and the fundamental belief question ...if there is God and I subscribe to that belief ...how can I speak of attributes ...by analogy or definition. (with or without revelation in any sense)..or can I say what God s have done if there is such.?
I would like to hear more of Alex philosophically debating people that have other concepts of God. I hear you. Contrary to the above statement, it does not make sense to only argue for atheism in contrast to the Abrahamic systems of faith. Though popular, those belief systems only represent a sliver of potential concepts of God. I think it shows a particular resentment toward those particular faiths and results in less interesting and repetitive arguments. So many of which do not make sense or are incomplete when thinking in terms of other belief systems.
Two of my favourite youtubers together 😍. This is going to be awesome.
On the list you missed * why was the bible a book and not a blueray DVD
That last video is one of my favorites you’ve ever made. Really it’s one of my favorite videos on the topic of religion as a whole. I didn’t know if this sequel was going to happen, so the surprise of it is amazing
I love tier lists. I don't care if they're overdone. It's a fun format!
I'm getting a bit disappointment by the focus on a Christian "good God" (ok, maybe Zoroastrian as well)
maybe mention Mesoamerican or Mesopotamian gods and their "morality" or lack there of every once in a while
@@NotIdefixchristianity is the main religion in the west and has a lot of political power, thats why western atheists tend to focus on it while atheists from the middle east tend to focus on islam.
@@Dushan-o8w taking down the Christian "good God" concept certainly makes for popular viewing in the west
it would be good to remind viewers there are other creation myths out there involving god(s) and other "origin of evil" /"morals" explanations
In never saw a tier list in my life and I haven't been living under a rock
@@bengeurden1272 nah... you've definitely been living under a rock
I went off Sam Harris about five years ago - and he was the person who really introduced me to the IDW and thinking critically in the way that you do. I'm so glad to see you succeed because you really seem like the spiritual successor to the 4 horsemen of the IDW in the best way possible.
Why does god need blood from a sacrificed animal to forgive?
He doesn’t, it was meant to show the severity of the wages of sin
@@japexican007where does the bible say that?
go read the sermon on the mount to see how serious God sees sin and even if I don’t explicitly find a verse that says those specific words, common sense implicitly follows if it were possible for God not to do a thing then it follows that God needn’t do x thing namely God requiring a blood sacrifice from animals.
Furthermore these were foreshadowings of the ultimate sacrifice to come from Jesus Christ as per:
A. “For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.”
Hebrews 10:1, 4 KJV
B. “For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.”
Hebrews 10:4 KJV
Since God is perfect as per scripture if you fail in one part of the law you fail the whole law
Meaning God is so perfect he takes all sins/offenses seriously
Hence what I said previously
@@japexican007 "it doesn't say it but but but common sense"
Thanks, this can be ignored.
@@BubbaF0wpenddid you just ignore the scripture that says the blood of bulls and goats doesn’t forgive sins? Or the sermon on the mount that shows the severity of how God sees sin?
As a theist and a Tottenham supporter, I am Joe's natural enemy! Joking aside, great video and great discussion!
hahaha bringing the YT style into the podcast, love this
Good to see you guys back together for this! Thanks for the content.
The first one is a logical impossibility. I use this one as my first point whenever someone challenges. And I say “god can’t be all knowing, all powerful and all good.” And then say “why do kids need to die of starvation or cancer? Or die prematurely at all? If I was an all good and powerful god this seems like an easy correction over your current god that would make me by your definition a better god…”
God didnt create evil. evil is a direct result, direct byproduct of our sins. our own free will. the story of adam and eve explains how sin entered the world through human disobedience. its our creation. not his. and he doesnt eliminate it cuz it tests our faith in him, God wants us to choose him willingly. he gave us free will to be able to decide by ourselves to believe in him. i would recommend you to read the book of Job. it actually addresses your question.
@@ricardorivera7549 nope. It’s an excuse for an obvious impossible fix as there’s no god. Plain and simple. Good luck with your excuses and also living in reality
@@LaneBatman-c2v always found it sad how atheist always gotta be so aggressive and petty with comments such as “good luck with reality” “u live in a fairy tale”. Idk if that is what makes u feel better hope u fill that hole w something else more productive.
@@LaneBatman-c2v the fact i literally referred u to an entire book in the bible dedicated to ur question and just dismissed it shows u dont really care for dialogue or argument. Prolly just resentment
@@ricardorivera7549 the irony
On the Stone Paradox:
What is the point of constraining your definition of omnipotence to 'the ability to do anything that is possible' when dealing with a god who is claimed to be able to perform miracles - which are by definition a suspension of the natural order to achieve an impossible outcome.
It seems very backwards to define omnipotence this way in order to defend god's inability to defy logical paradoxes, because you would also have to throw out miracles at the same time. The laws of logic have no special hierarchical superiority over the laws of physics to which you could appeal in order to draw a distinction between "making a triangle with 4 sides" and "turning water into wine".
Further - when you define a triangle with 4 sides as simply "not a thing" and suggest that's why god can't create one - how then is the theist to defend the notion that a god created the universe, which would by the same standard be "not a thing" beforehand - because he would have had to create the very laws of physics that allowed the universe to be "a thing" to begin with.
Both of these defenses are deleterious to the very ground upon which the religious apologist is trying to stand.
I never needed an argument for atheism. It was always obvious that religion was nonsense. ;-)
kinda disappointed determinism didn’t even make the list. my boy determinism is underrated af
Totally agree!
Determinism and 'free will' don't happily co-exist...
Without 'free will', Christianity falls apart.....
I find 'free will' a real mind f**k , when I think what 'free will' could possibly 'look' like.....every thought would have to be a 'causeless cause', a 'thought' would have to think itself into existence, with no prior cause......
'determinism' is my 'go to' in religious discussions....
Determinism lost all credibility when we discovered the quantum realm
@@JonHarrington9075 There's a whole influential part of the protestant movement that is based around double predestination - which would be completely consistent with a deterministic world. Look up Calvinism.
@@Messianic-Gentile causality didn’t, and creates the exact same problem for free will.
Nor does determinism being violated even help because probabilistic interactions still create no space for free will regardless.
@@Emperorhirohito19272 the mind acts before physical causality. Before the paint goes on the canvas, the painting exists as an idea.
If you think religious confusion is a good argument, you think too highly of humans. We are the type of creatures who tend to hate the truth and look for excuses to distort or oppose it; just look at the society.
1:01:42 If God created logic, it seems that something being logically impossible makes little sense. So everything possible seems to make God subservient to logic.
TBH a lot of these aren't arguments, they're counterarguments and taking them out of their contexts weakens them unnecessarily.
In some sense this testifies to the lack of positive argument taking on the onus of disproving God, rather than dismissing its existence relativity to some other positive theistic argument. I guess
@@carlocioccavasino4888 the bargain of proof falls in the one who claims something exist, so its logical that most are counterargumets, as its hard to argue that something you dont belive doesnt exist
I love crossover episodes 😁
You know. I never accounted them as crossover. I have seen too many marvel movies to take UA-cam crossover serious but looking at it now. You are right.
@@Jaymastia I mean it's basically the same as Doctor Strange and Punisher 🤷
I was told by a Muslim that the problem of evil is a child's argument, and so I figured it was something covered, excused and tossed aside by theists, even though it's a really good analysis of a "good" god. The argument from Divine Hiddenness is a really good argument against a god who gives a crap. So from the two arguments, there could be a god who is not good and doesn't give a crap about anyone. The stories of religions tell their adherents that the god is good and cares, and so which is more likely wrong, the religions or the good arguments against a god? The argument from religious confusion at the very least shows that god is not necessarily competent or driven to be competent. So if you combine the arguments, you could have a god who is not necessarily good, doesn't necessarily care about anyone, and is not necessarily competent at what it's doing. Again, religions tell you that the god is good, cares, and is competent at everything. Who's lying, religions or reality?
And beyond that, it seems highly unnecesary to worship any uncaring, incompetent and negligent god or its prophets. That automatically dismisses islam in every such case, not to mention mo the prophet was a kiddy fiddler.
A child's argument? Well heck i guess a child has more compassion for life than whatever a man might be to this muslim. A child has more sense it seems. Also, i suppose a child's argument has stomped the theists for ages, maybe this muslim can help his team by refuting them.
The Muslim was uncharitable. Suffering is a central theme in the Qur'an. The angels were so disturbed they actually asked God why would He create humans, knowing they would shed blood and cause corruption when He has angels who worship and devote themselves to Him.
I don't really like the problem of evil. The idea that "my values don't align with gods values, therefore he doesn't exist" seems dumb. I'd say it's a good argument against Christianity but not against a divine being alone.
For divine hiddenness, theists reply to me that God was so obvious, then we'd have no free will, and God wants us to freely choose to believe in him. As for why some people are born into other religions, they argue that people are judged based on their circumstances and by how much effort they've put into their search for God, so it is still fair. Not convincing to me, but just wanted to note those arguments.
Id say the free will one isnt really that valid as one could see god, but still choose not to worship him.
And then they say that universe is obviously designed.
They just don't say it at the same time.
@@idkwhatnonamemyself1951 Yes, and those that see God and choose not to worship him would rightly be called fools. So what difference does it make if God shows himself or doesn’t? People will still reject believing in him either way, but that doesn’t make them right it just makes them foolish.
@@alexanderh2345 If an omnipotent and omniscient god existed and it's existence was profoundly evident, then the problem of evil seems to be a fairly good reason not to worship that god.
@@ethanbottomley-mason8447 Then the Problem of Evil has just defeated the Divine Hiddenness premise of "non-resistant non-belief". To say that the problem of evil is a good reason to not worship that god is by definition, a "resistant non-belief". Ironically, the two biggest arguments for theistic scepticism has just cannibalized themselves.
We are complicated creatures with varying thoughts and conflicting emotions. We can barely be honest with our own beliefs, let alone declare that we have "non-resistant non-belief".
Im an atheist and all, but let’s be honest, there is no such a thing as an argument for atheism or theism . Theism ones are just logical biases and mistakes (cosmological argument and “but the world is too perfect” or “but life and the universe had such a small probability of being” make me cringe all the time), but atheist ones are just incomplete. God has a different definition in every religion and is improperly defined even within the same religion . It impossible to prove the non existence of a constantly changing to convenience concept.
The only real argument for atheism is that if you believe in something you must have a specific reason to believe in that, and if you want me to believe in that idea, you don’t have to prove it necessarily, but at lesta explain why I should. And since as I said no argument for god has the minimum sense, the default and most logical thing should be atheism
But does that say that logic becomes the all powerful being? When you say atheism or theism must meet the standard of human logical premises in order to be valid, doesn't that say our logic IS the Divine?
A bit reductionist to say that all theist arguments are logical biases.
Unless the question that has plagued humanity for 2000 years just needed to be thought about by UA-cam user “idk imagine a cool name” in 2024 and it is all solved!!
So you cringe at the cosmological argument, yet I get the feeling you don’t have a reasonable explanation for it.
@@alexanderh2345 the reasonable answer is that when you talk about things that by definition are outside of the comprehension of humans like god or the beginning of time, the only reasonable answer is unreasonable
@@clearancecustoms that’s the exact reason I believe god arguments (theist and non) are all fluff
its the greatest video of all time we have reached peak youtube
Heres my argument:
If a non-believer, who never had the opportunity to learn about God, is condemned to eternal damnation, then it implies that God is unjust for condemning over half of humanity to hell.
Converesly, if only those who were exposed to the concept of God but still chose not to believe are condemned, then those who spread the teachings of God bear the responsibility for dooming many to eternal punishment.
In Islam, those who didn't receive the message will get a separate test on the Day of Judgement. Either way, you're going to be tested. God's Will prevails.
I'm disappointed that *none* of these are arguments against the existence of *_A_* deity; they are arguments against _specific_ interpretations of a _specific_ deity...Hence, they are strong justification against _religion,_ but *not* against _theism._
Based on the consensual usage of the term (as evidenced by multiple dictionaries and how they derive the definitions that they provide), and divorced from _religious_ context *_A_* "god" is simply an entity capable of effects beyond established laws of nature and that we cannot scientifically explain.
That's how it usually is.
It is impossible to Argue against an undefined God.
Without the definition given by Religions, a God’s form and capabilities and character are all completely mutable to situation at hand and thus cannot be argued against.
For example, how could you use the Argument Of Evil if we don’t take God being good as a Prerequisite?
I suppose I’m confused what the arguments you were hoping for look like. Don’t you kind of have to assume an interpretation in order to evaluate the arguments? They seem to have taken a sufficiently broad interpretation so as to cover their bases but narrow enough that it still pertains to most popular interpretations
@JoeshWave
"It is impossibe to argue against an undefined god."
You're conflating _definition_ with *description.* The term "god" already _has_ a definition.
@@Capt.Fail.
Again, false equivocation of _description_ with _definition._
Can’t wait for this one, Alex!
Joe is my favorite guest of yours, thank you!
It is interesting how all of these arguments, despite claiming they are not attacking any particular religion but just theism as a whole, are obviously greatly influenced by abrahamic religions and their vision of God. Omnipotent, omniscient, all good.
People dismiss polytheism as ludicrous, but really... almost everyone of these arguments wouldn't apply to it. There is no problem of evil if there are good and evil gods, there is no problem of confusion if various gods appears to various people in different ways.
Or if you just don't claim that God is omnipotent, omniscient and all good.
I am an atheist but I just like to point out how we tend to have just incredible biases to polytheism, when it in fact has its merits and works in some ways better than monotheism as a serious philosophical proposition.
Theists often use the watchmaker analogy, and compare the universe to all sorts of electronic devices like cell phones or cameras. But all of them are collaborative efforts... made by a team of humans perfoming various tasks. Perhaps the universe is a collaborative effort by multiple Gods with various different tasks and ideas of what the world should be.
My guess would be that's just because the prevalence of polytheistic religions is so small that it is not worth putting in comparable effort from an atheistic point of view, as you are trying to basically convince the theistic world that they are wrong and the theistic world is majority abrahamic. I could make up some sort of unique belief structure, but it would probably not be wise for some researcher to put in effort to disprove me when they can put in effort to disprove the majority. I do agree with your statements though, and personally wonder how it was for the pagans and civilizations such as greeks and romans to open their mind to another kind of belif.
@@user-ys6ro4wi3f I fully agree that this is the explanation for why we focus on Abrahamic religions.
But I think precisely giving them so much personalized attention sort of validates them as a "worthy" contender to atheism.
When in reality it is as or less "worthy" than other positions like polytheism.
Which is something that people in abrahamic religions hate if people point that out... They want people to consider polytheism as ridiculous.
When my point is... they are all as ridiculous, they deserve all similar treatment and polytheism has its own merits.
But yeah... abrahamic religion is by far the most popular and that is why we focus on them. I am just not sure this is the best strategy or the best way to argue against supernatural deities in general.
@@diegog1853 I see, what you said last is interesting, and now that I think about it I can't personally think of an argument I'd use to disprove the last statement you mentioned. This is me just speaking out of my ass, but I wonder if answering such a question is even possible because the statement "a supernatural deity exists" is a forgone conclusion that doesn't build upon any common axioms or statements, and thus sounds impossible to counter. If someone said that I'd ask them why they think that, so they create a premise to that conclusion which is pretty much what a religion does, where their [ religious reasons ] lead to the conclusion "a deity exists". On the other hand if someone said "Ghosts exist" and i asked them why they think that but they refused to elaborate, I'd have no real way to disprove their statement because the statement on its own is meaningless. Hopefully that came out somewhat understandable. Perhaps I should actually research it, as the answer is definetly out there, instead of rambling in youtube comments :)
I just love how Alex is blushing on joe the entire time ☺️
I ship it!