After reflecting on the format more, I really like this formal flow. I’ve noticed that in some discussions, a single, sometimes unrelated, issue will hog most of the time. This allowed each person to get out their thoughts without being sidetracked with questions. No form of communication is perfect. All formats have advantages and disadvantages. Also, I agree with many of the commenters that both CS and IP did really well! They each made strong points. I thoroughly enjoyed hosting this!

@dohpam1ne

4 жыл бұрын

A solution might be to have a discussion period, but with the period partitioned into short segments each dedicated to one specific issue.

@ElficGuy

4 жыл бұрын

I liked this, but debates with measurements and cross examination are always better.

@trevoradams3702

4 жыл бұрын

Cross Examination is a must. Most important part of a debate by my estimation!

@adamj8099

4 жыл бұрын

As a visiting athiest I want to say I'm inclined to agree. What I would like to see is a continuation of the series. Start with a topic as you have then have the same speakers agreeing on the next video being a point raised in the debate to get into more detail and maybe have more cross examination/discussion in the next video. Really enjoyed this video. I'm always blown away by Alex. Makes me excited for the state of the world that we have such articulate young people like him.

@christisking1316

4 жыл бұрын

Agreed, this was a good thought provoking discussion!

IP went up against a real wall here, and he climbed up and overcame it. I love Alex, I think he's a good bloke to go out and have a beer with, but Michael was able counter every objection of Alexs' with ease, and beauty, and logic.

@youtubesucks3811

9 ай бұрын

Michael knows his stuff, and was prepared. Both did very well

@theperson4yearsago565

8 ай бұрын

W.

@johnsmithers958

5 ай бұрын

Micheal did horrible cope cuck lmao

@akuma1552

4 ай бұрын

As a Christian Alex is one of my favorite skeptics to watch, and incredibly respectful as well!

@user-yr3dl5on7q

4 ай бұрын

​@@akuma1552Yeah I agree it's realiveing to see that some people are capable of having respectful and loving conversations and debates instead of somone screaming in your face with hate and pride.

having debates that arent just people shouting or interrupting each other, but rather people making good arguments and discussing them is so much more enjoyable

@youtubesucks3811

9 ай бұрын

Lol and you have two of the most calm and respectful people for this, so it just works so well 😂

The problem of evil is not an easy position for theists to defend but Michael does it flawlessly without appealing to emotion. God bless Michael.

@georgedoyle7971

3 жыл бұрын

Totally agree with you! Well done Michael you are an inspiration.

@lampad4549

2 жыл бұрын

Where does he do a good job defending it?

@stephendianda1543

2 жыл бұрын

@@lampad4549 It's my opinion and opinions are highly subjective so if you don't see how he does a good job then its a free world you can think what you like.

@codygillard

Жыл бұрын

@@lampad4549 "WhErE DoEs-" stfu

@pleaseenteraname1103

Жыл бұрын

I wouldn’t say completely flawlessly I did have my own issues but he did a great job.

My favorite atheist, christian, and italian get together. Awesome.

@spectre8533

4 жыл бұрын

Italian?

@spectre8533

4 жыл бұрын

Sorry im not from your country, i dont speak english

@crimsonking5961

4 жыл бұрын

@@spectre8533 Cameron is an Italian American.

@flaze3

4 жыл бұрын

Un italiano che però non parla italiano! Lol

@michaelt5030

3 жыл бұрын

Right, because Italians are neither Christian not atheist! 😂

I have so much more respect for Alex then someone like Matt Dillahunty. He actually tries to answer questions. And he’s brilliant.

@Nameless-pt6oj

Жыл бұрын

And he’s not a condescending jerk when he answers them. We need more skeptics like Alex.

@ZhangK71

Жыл бұрын

I know this may sound like a cop-out, but after thinking about this as objectively as I can (full disclosure: at the end of the day I am still an atheist), I truly think Matt’s sanity-to say nothing of patience-has gotten frayed to microscopic dimensions from decades of dealing with arrogant, insufferable, _and simultaneously logically bankrupt_ theist callers. That’s a perfect concoction for anyone becoming grouchy. (Obviously, are there “saints” out there with superhuman patience who would have handled those decades of purgatory better than Matt has done? Sure, but we don’t judge human behavior based on the highest level of tolerance possible, otherwise murder would be legal since some extreme pacifists do tolerate being murdered.) And when you deal with not-so-well-informed theist callers, combine it with impatience, and you’re bound to come off as arrogant or rude to outsiders who never stepped into your shoes. Now, that’s all about grouchiness. I’ve yet to see how Matt has consistently dodged questions-quite the opposite compared to the theist callers he hosts, in my opinion. Can you give some examples?

@areallycoolhat5427

11 ай бұрын

​​@@ZhangK71ell said. As a theist I do have mad respect for Matt from his experience alone, but there is an undeniable air of 'kookiness' to him compared to someone like Alex.

@ZhangK71

11 ай бұрын

@@areallycoolhat5427 I think I see what you mean by “kookiness”, and if I’m catching your drift, I agree. He certainly isn’t the most patient or friendliest guy out there; I’d wager that even if Alex were in Matt’s shoes for two decades, he’d at least manage to conduct himself with more class and less crass by account of his posh British demeanor / mastery of couching derision in sarcasm and subtle mockery 😆.

I don’t think I’ll ever get tired of hearing IP and CS discuss these topics! Excellent video!

@georgedoyle7971

3 жыл бұрын

Well said! It’s good to build bridges and appreciate the positive aspects of both world views instead of sharing comments that create division and misunderstanding. They both did really well but I thought Michael was ahead and better structured on most points to be honest. All the best to you and keep safe during this Corona virus crisis ❤️

IP’s argument on how a world without suffering would be unrealistic is so good in my opinion, the only way no suffering is possible if if nature itself would have to bend out of its physics and rules for a certain scenario, nothing as we know it would have an unchanging state. If a skydivers parachute failed, the ground below him would have to suddenly become anything but solid, a world with no natural evil would make no sense.Great debate

@myothersoul1953

3 жыл бұрын

The laws of physics would not need to be altered in order for there to be no suffering in the world. All that would need to be changed is the structure of the things that do the suffering so they didn't do suffering any more. That is a horrible prospect but it wouldn't be that big of change. Unless plants, fungus and single cell organism can suffer, only animals would need to be altered. Only a small part of each animal would need to be changed. Of course animals would soon all die off, but that laws of physics would not change.

@NoOne-uh9vu

3 жыл бұрын

@@myothersoul1953 So nuking the whole rainforest would not require physics of the world to change? Or not being able to breathe inside of a gas chamber might not be painful but its not very conducive to life and thriving and happiness. So how does that not require the laws of physics to bend?

@myothersoul1953

3 жыл бұрын

@@NoOne-uh9vu Yes, nuking the whole rainforest would not change the laws of physics and neither do gas chambers.

@NoOne-uh9vu

3 жыл бұрын

@@myothersoul1953 Of course it would. It would require you to breathe without oxygen and to magically have the rainforest survive the blast. Even if you specifically would not suffer in the gas (lets say its a special kind of gas) your relatives will suffer from the loss. So in that hypothetical world you MUST survive on the principles of the world which bend physical reality by necessity

@myothersoul1953

3 жыл бұрын

@@NoOne-uh9vu Breathing isn't a law of physics. At constant temperature, the amount gas dissolved in a volume of a liquid is directly proportional to the partial pressure of that gas in equilibrium with that liquid. That's a law of physics called Henry's Law. Even if no one where around to know about Henry's law or to suffer, it would still describe how nature works. All there needs to be for there to be no suffering is no suffering things. The laws of nature do not depend on suffering nor do they care about it.

Let's be real... the winner of this debate is CC's hair.

@zahydierodriguez4702

3 жыл бұрын

As a christian I can deny that ._.

@evallisalyngdoh8713

3 жыл бұрын

🤣🤣🤣

@josephbelov6212

3 жыл бұрын

As an atheist I can deny that, it's obvious who won the debate

@Ivann1005

2 жыл бұрын

Hello. So, what I want to do with this message is to simply show what the Gospel is. I am not trying to force my belief down people's throats. It's your choice whether you want to accept it. So, a question: Do you think you are a good person? If so, have you ever stolen anything, lied, looked lustfully, watched adult material? All of those are sins and anyone who sinned is not good(on God's standard). You, I and most( most because babies don't sin, and maybe specifically mentally Ill people) purely human beings have violated God's moral law. Since God is just, He can't let sin go just like that. So is there any hope? Yes, there is! Out of love and mercy, God became a human being, Jesus Christ. Jesus lived a sinless life and finally died on the cross to bear the punishment we deserve, we deserve to be punished because we have sinned. The reason why blood must be spilled for forgiveness of sins is because the life of the flesh is in the blood, in the Old Testament Jews sacrificed animals for sins but the sacrifice of animals were enough to temporarily cover some sins. (it did not allow forgiveness of sins, Unlike Jesus's, it only temporarily covered them). Jesus is the Lamb of God, the ultimate sacrifice for sins which is enough for all sins that have been done, are done and will be done. Jesus was buried and rose again. His resurrection proved that His death was enough to pay our penalty, the penalty for our sins. Jesus paid our penalty and in order to accept the free gift of salvation from God, we must trust in Jesus's spilled Blood, His finished work on the Cross for our Salvation. And then your sins will be forgiven because of what Christ did, you will be saved. See: Romans 3:10 KJV, Romans 3:23 KJV, Romans 5:12 KJV, Romans 6:23 KJV, Romans 5:8-9 KJV Romans 10:9-10 KJV, Ephesians 2:8-9 KJV, John 3:16 KJV, Leviticus 17:11 KJV, Ephesians 1:7 KJV, Colossians 1:20 KJV, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV. kzread.info/dash/bejne/npaWltqwic2Xaco.html Evidence for God's existence: Kalam Cosmological argument, Contigency argument, Modal ontological argument. Regarding Christianity watch InspiringPhilosophy's videos about the Ressurection of Jesus reliability of NT. Together, they show good evidence that Christianity is true. V

@samplejoseph

2 жыл бұрын

@@Ivann1005 Do you have any good reason the believe any of that is true?

The timers are a great touch for the audience. Thank You.

@ElficGuy

4 жыл бұрын

Agreed (my watch didn't appreciated it though)

@ElficGuy

4 жыл бұрын

1:06:09 The answer to this is found in the final conversation between Jonah and God (in the book of Jonah) God feels for all of his creatures, ALL OF THEM.

@Iamwrongbut

4 жыл бұрын

ElficChanel that passage has nothing to do with debate timers.

@ElficGuy

4 жыл бұрын

@@Iamwrongbut ,ahh yea, sorry, thought I was on the general coment area, my bad.

@Jamie-Russell-CME

4 жыл бұрын

@@Iamwrongbut i don't get it

The point Michael made about the types of books we read blew my mind. If we are desperate for Utopia, free from struggle, why do those types of stories sound awful?

@Cassim125

2 жыл бұрын

Because those utopias are static

@charlienachname1978

2 жыл бұрын

because those places are deliberately written to be DYStopias, not Utopias

@docsspellingcontest592

Жыл бұрын

Revelation 21:4 “And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes, and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain; for the former things are passed away.” I guess we better stop reading the Bible, then. Sounds awful

@SheepofChrist818

10 ай бұрын

@@docsspellingcontest592Are you against the Bible or for it? I can’t tell.

@danielsmithiv1279

6 ай бұрын

​@@SheepofChrist818I think Docspelling was being sarcastic. A world without suffering can and WILL actually be fun and engaging, HOWEVER it just won't be realistic to do in this physical universe and physical world. This is why God -- when He comes back -- is going to completely wipe out and blow up everything to literally remake an entire new heaven ( the universe or cosmos) and new Earth where there will literally be no suffering. This is going to be incredible. Here's an example and reality of why a world without suffering and a true Christ Utopia will actually be incredibly fun--contrary to what we read in these Utopian books: for instance, in this current universe, I'm a serious writer and also an aspiring serious artist (drawer). But the fear and reality is, I personally wont live long enough to tell the stories I want to tell because my life is going to die and this really sucks. And, there is so much things to explore in drawing that I want to draw everything and more, but this wont be possible because I'm going to die. Again, this sucks. Also, the current environment is not ideal to fully explore stuff because massive sudden changes from evil may occur that will throw out my entire system of artistic work and way life. There is ra eality that my city could get destroyed by nuclear warfare. There is a possibility of an economic societal collapse. If this happens, gathering the tools to continue to draw and write will be incredibly difficult than it is now and would be full of immense suffering. Therefore, my point is, I want to be an immortal. But i dont want to be an immortal on this Earth because this current Earth is completely damned. I want to be an immortal human in a new universe and a new Earth so I can continue to do the things that I love to do without fear or suffering. And Jesus Christ is going to do this. I just have to be patient and continue to make every effort to live my life right so that I am worthy to attain this new and ultimate form of existence.

- @Capturing Christianity - KZread Streaming Debates and Conversations.: Would God Allow Evil.?. - Debate. - @CosmicSckeptic Vs. @InspiringPhilosophy - Discussion and Conversations - - BEGINNING - @CapturingChristianity's Introductions -> 0:00:01 - - @CapturingChristianity's 15:00 Min. Introductions - @InspiringPhilosophy's Introductions -> 5:09 - @CosmicSckeptic's Introductions -> 19:51 - - @CapturingChristianity's First Rebuttals, Explanations, and Introductions -> 15:30 - Sub-Categorizations - @InspiringPhilosophy's First Rebuttals and Explanations. -> 35:12 - @CosmicSckeptic's First Rebuttals and Explanations. -> 45:29 - - @CapturingChristianity's Second Rebuttals, Explanations, and Introductions - Sub-Categorizations - @InspiringPhilosophy's Second Rebuttals and Explanations -> 56:22 - @CosmicSckeptic's Second Rebuttals and Explanations -> 1:01:43 - - @CapturingChristianity's Q/A's Messages, Discussions, Responses, and Conversations -> 1:07:17 - Sub-Categorizations - Sara Rainey's Messages and Questions -> 1:07:43 - David LA Rosa's Messages and Questions -> 1:13:41 - Gorgoly Nogy's Messages and Questions -> 1:18:12 - AM101171's Messages and Questions -> 1:21:10 - Shad Sparks's Messages and Questions -> 1:24:12 - Gina M.'s Messages and Questions -> 1:30:11 - Anthony Burk's Messages and Questions -> 1:37:04 Paul Rimmers Messages and Questions -> 1:38:35 - Roger Marshalls' Messages and Questions -> 1:40:05 - Maverick Christian's Messages and Questions -> 1:42:42 - Alice Lawrence's Messages and Questions -> 1:47:16 - Roni's Messages and Questions -> 1:48:16 -> Joshua Helle's Messages and Questions -> 1:51:27 -> Gil Cancel Comas's Messages and Questions -> 1:52:49 -> Harry's Messages and Questions -> 1:54:05 -> PHIL's Messages and Questions -> 1:54:59 -> Josh Anderson's Messages and Questions -> 1:55:46 -> Mohsin Khan's Messages and Questions -> 1:59:26 - @CosmicSckeptic's Responses and Answers -> 1:07:56 -> 1:11:13 -> 1:14:01 -> 1:14:16 -> 1:19:09 -> 1:26:08 -> 1:27:45 -> 1:29:39 -> 1:30:26 -> 1:33:27 -> 1:34:49 -> 1:36:18 -> 1:37:19 -> 1:40:21 -> 1:43:01 -> 1:43:37 -> 1:45:06 -> 1:46:19 -> 1:48:32 -> 1:50:36 -> 1:52:07 -> 1:53:08 -> 1:55:54 -> 2:00:45 - 0:00:00 - @InspiringPhilosophy's Responses and Answers -> 1:10:23 -> 1:13:03 -> 1:15:50 -> 1:16:56 -> 1:18:32 -> 1:21:04 -> 1:21:25 -> 1:24:27 -> 1:27:24 -> 1:28:54 -> 1:30:03 -> 1:32:20 -> 1:34:18 -> 1:36:01 -> 1:36:49 -> 1:38:41 -> 1:39:56 -> 1:44:49 -> 1:47:31 -> 1:51:40 -> 1:54:19 -> 1:55:10 -> 1:57:56 -> 1:59:41 - 0:00:00 - - @CapturingChristianity's Responses and Answers On Suicide and Depression -> 1:49:51 - - @CapturingChristianity's Closing Statements -> 2:01:12 -> 2:01:59 - @InspiringPhilosophy's Closing Statements and Thoughts -> 2:02:24 -> 2:07:00 - @CosmicSckeptic's Closing Statements and Thoughts -> 2:04:31 -> 2:07:12 - - END -> 2:09:50 -

@josephsack4918

3 жыл бұрын

You didn't get enough attention for writing this lol.

@danglingondivineladders3994

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks for putting in the effort

@Backwardsman95

2 жыл бұрын

Nice

@The_Advent_c2

2 жыл бұрын

Wow you have a lot of time on your hands

@Ivann1005

2 жыл бұрын

Hello. So, what I want to do with this message is to simply show what the Gospel is. I am not trying to force my belief down people's throats. It's your choice whether you want to accept it. So, a question: Do you think you are a good person? If so, have you ever stolen anything, lied, looked lustfully, watched adult material? All of those are sins and anyone who sinned is not good(on God's standard). You, I and most( most because babies don't sin, and maybe specifically mentally Ill people) purely human beings have violated God's moral law. Since God is just, He can't let sin go just like that. So is there any hope? Yes, there is! Out of love and mercy, God became a human being, Jesus Christ. Jesus lived a sinless life and finally died on the cross to bear the punishment we deserve, we deserve to be punished because we have sinned. The reason why blood must be spilled for forgiveness of sins is because the life of the flesh is in the blood, in the Old Testament Jews sacrificed animals for sins but the sacrifice of animals were enough to temporarily cover some sins. (it did not allow forgiveness of sins, Unlike Jesus's, it only temporarily covered them). Jesus is the Lamb of God, the ultimate sacrifice for sins which is enough for all sins that have been done, are done and will be done. Jesus was buried and rose again. His resurrection proved that His death was enough to pay our penalty, the penalty for our sins. Jesus paid our penalty and in order to accept the free gift of salvation from God, we must trust in Jesus's spilled Blood, His finished work on the Cross for our Salvation. And then your sins will be forgiven because of what Christ did, you will be saved. See: Romans 3:10 KJV, Romans 3:23 KJV, Romans 5:12 KJV, Romans 6:23 KJV, Romans 5:8-9 KJV Romans 10:9-10 KJV, Ephesians 2:8-9 KJV, John 3:16 KJV, Leviticus 17:11 KJV, Ephesians 1:7 KJV, Colossians 1:20 KJV, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV. kzread.info/dash/bejne/npaWltqwic2Xaco.html Evidence for God's existence: Kalam Cosmological argument, Contigency argument, Modal ontological argument. Regarding Christianity watch InspiringPhilosophy's videos about the Ressurection of Jesus reliability of NT. Together, they show good evidence that Christianity is true. H

great discussion, thank you so so so much for hosting it

Appreciated the structure of this debate and the respect on display from both sides. Especially refreshing after seeing some of David Wood's recent outings with... less respectful debaters. Great job, guys!

Glorious and thought provoking dialogue. Listening to this is like desert after a good day of study.

Loved the debate! Respectful and constructive; the shared moment at 1:14:05 really demonstrates the massive potential to have debates that encourage civility and mutual appreciation. Whilst I appreciate IP's standpoints and his argumentation, and I'm very thankful for his work, I was frustrated that his approach was/is lacking in relationality. As I see it (as a Christian), we are created for the purpose of becoming virtuous souls only as a secondary corollary of our existence as beings-in-relation: humans are made in the image of God (Gen. 1:27), who, in the Trinity, is the archetype of being-in-relation (cf. John 17:21). Through Christ, human persons can experience restoration and reconciliation; such a restoration of the foundational human-divine relationship thereby produces strength of character (cf. Gal. 6:22-23), just as one's character changes with one's relationships; but a transformation of character occurs only as a result of the prior relation. CS himself says that suffering brings people together (@ 1:08:08); whilst he rightly focuses on the imperfection of human relationships, his critique does not apply to the human-divine relation, which is worth more and has more import than the sum of all possible alternatives (cf. Matt. 13:44-46; John 7:37-38; Phil. 3:7ff). Reinstating a relational perspective presents a new avenue in which suffering functions to reorientate each person towards reconciliation with God as the end-goal. Virtue ethics and consequentialist ethics are united in the individual's seeking after God-in-Christ, who is the source and summation of good (cf. Bonhoeffer's 'Ethics') (presenting a resolution to 1:24:15). Heaven is therefore not just a place of 'virtuous souls' but primarily a place of perfect unity of God with His people through Christ (cf. Rev. 21:22). Such unity of relation must be engaged in with intentional participation, though, and distinguishes it from our current existence (contra CS @ 27:17); likewise, the perfection of one's character is facilitated and completed by the indwelling Holy Spirit, which is not just a rational transformation but an ontological one (contra CS @ c. 26:00). This presents a counter-argument that is both logical and practical, though it is in conflict with IP's Hickian doctrine of heaven. IP heavily underplayed the centrality of Christ in the narrative of the God-human relation in the context of evil/suffering, in my opinion, to his detriment. I would advocate a more explicitly Christocentric perspective that allows all things to rotate around Christ (Col. 1:17), including all the above topics of ethics, suffering, heaven etc. Nevertheless, I really appreciated the debate! Thanks very much.

Well-spoken, humble, honest, and clearly very intelligent; as a Christian, I love listening to Alex.

@micahhenley589

3 жыл бұрын

Hello. Anyone who denies that Jesus Christ is Lord is a liar(1 John 2:22). Sadly, Alex hates and rejects the Christ. The bible warns that there is no hope in sinful man. Our only hope is in the everlasting God. What wisdom can Alex, or anyone, give? There is none. Wisdom comes from Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Only Jesus died to save sinners and salvation is found in Him alone: "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life. But whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on them." John 3:36

@michaelsinclair604

3 жыл бұрын

@@micahhenley589 How do you know that what the Bible says is actually true?

@micahhenley589

3 жыл бұрын

@@michaelsinclair604 Wait, didn't you say you are a Christian?

@michaelsinclair604

3 жыл бұрын

@@micahhenley589 Correct. Are you going to answer the question?

@micahhenley589

3 жыл бұрын

@@michaelsinclair604 Well we know the bible is true because God never lies. 2 Timothy 3:16 says ALL scripture is God-breathed. Everyone on the side of truth listens to Jesus Christ(John 18:37).

1:57:12 Alex' answer was incredibly powerful to me. Luckily, I personally am past the point of actually considering suicide but I heard that and the thought of someone approaching me with this kind of honest and open attitude at my worst times nearly brought me to tears. I think this could have actually resonated with me and possibly nudged me in a better direction much earlier.

@funkypunkypine

4 жыл бұрын

Life's tough sometimes....at other times nearly inconceivably difficult, I know. From one person who has been there to another: I'm glad you decided to hang around.

@dohsky

4 жыл бұрын

I liked Alex approach to acknowledge the reality and level of pain and suffering the person is feeling. Very honest and true. I was surprised by the question and was not disappointed by the answer.

@wodenpearce2337

4 жыл бұрын

Couldn't agree more. Was sad to hear IP respond how he did

@delikatessbruhe9843

4 жыл бұрын

@@funkypunkypine Glad you did, too. Thank you.

@delikatessbruhe9843

4 жыл бұрын

@Qwerty I don't think there is a general rule for it plus I doubt he will ever publicly speak on that because it's to sensitive a topic to actually name specific circumstances and run the risk of misspeaking somehow or actually pushing someone deeper into suicidal thoughts because they generalise what he says. I do think, though, that many such cases would concern people with irreversible physical illnesses rather than psychological ones.

This is a good debate. Nice respectful conversation. I hope Muslim Abdul like Muhammad HIjab will learn something watching this respective discussion. Although, the topic is very sensitive and heavy. Both parties did a good job and made good points. But for me, Alex's arguments seem very attractive but self destructive. I enjoyed the debate. Thanks CC, IP and CS. God bless!!!

@majesticrainmaker1460

4 жыл бұрын

Lol Ranfer

@georgedoyle7971

3 жыл бұрын

“Alex’s arguments seem very attractive but self destructive” I have to agree he’s a very charismatic speaker and is very convincing and does his homework but I also find his views self destructive, particularly his views on determinism and free will etc. Inspiring philosophy also does his homework and whilst they both did well i actually put Michael slightly ahead. All the best to you and your family and keep safe during this Corona virus crisis ❤️

@ranferchristian8050

3 жыл бұрын

@@georgedoyle7971 Yeah, I'm a fan of all of them. God bless you too. Stay safe my friend!!!

@georgedoyle7971

3 жыл бұрын

@@ranferchristian8050 Thanks a lot. Keep safe and God bless you and your family too ❤️

@Ivann1005

2 жыл бұрын

Hello. So, what I want to do with this message is to simply show what the Gospel is. I am not trying to force my belief down people's throats. It's your choice whether you want to accept it. So, a question: Do you think you are a good person? If so, have you ever stolen anything, lied, looked lustfully, watched adult material? All of those are sins and anyone who sinned is not good(on God's standard). You, I and most( most because babies don't sin, and maybe specifically mentally Ill people) purely human beings have violated God's moral law. Since God is just, He can't let sin go just like that. So is there any hope? Yes, there is! Out of love and mercy, God became a human being, Jesus Christ. Jesus lived a sinless life and finally died on the cross to bear the punishment we deserve, we deserve to be punished because we have sinned. The reason why blood must be spilled for forgiveness of sins is because the life of the flesh is in the blood, in the Old Testament Jews sacrificed animals for sins but the sacrifice of animals were enough to temporarily cover some sins. (it did not allow forgiveness of sins, Unlike Jesus's, it only temporarily covered them). Jesus is the Lamb of God, the ultimate sacrifice for sins which is enough for all sins that have been done, are done and will be done. Jesus was buried and rose again. His resurrection proved that His death was enough to pay our penalty, the penalty for our sins. Jesus paid our penalty and in order to accept the free gift of salvation from God, we must trust in Jesus's spilled Blood, His finished work on the Cross for our Salvation. And then your sins will be forgiven because of what Christ did, you will be saved. See: Romans 3:10 KJV, Romans 3:23 KJV, Romans 5:12 KJV, Romans 6:23 KJV, Romans 5:8-9 KJV Romans 10:9-10 KJV, Ephesians 2:8-9 KJV, John 3:16 KJV, Leviticus 17:11 KJV, Ephesians 1:7 KJV, Colossians 1:20 KJV, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV. kzread.info/dash/bejne/npaWltqwic2Xaco.html Evidence for God's existence: Kalam Cosmological argument, Contigency argument, Modal ontological argument. Regarding Christianity watch InspiringPhilosophy's videos about the Ressurection of Jesus reliability of NT. Together, they show good evidence that Christianity is true. O

Although Cosmic is certainly the most enjoyable online atheist to listen to, and held his own in this discussion... I ultimately think IP hits the nail on the head. The Christian and Atheist will always define "the good" differently. If the ultimate good is the pursuit of pleasure and avoidance of pain, then God might very well seem incompatible with the world we find ourselves in. If our highest good is the development of virtuous souls meant for deep, meaningful relationships for eternity, I see no inconsistency with God and the world we find ourselves in. A question to Alex would be, why pick an arbitrary aspect of human experience like pleasure to base a moral system off of, and then blame the creator for not making the world that most appeals to such an arbitrary standard of good? Pleasure is simply an accidental property of being a rational animal. Why not base ethics off of the pursuit of humor, or intelligence? The point is that we are not in a position to judge the world that God set up because it doesn't fit our man-centered ethic.

@robertd7717

4 жыл бұрын

Well said!

@disneybunny45

4 жыл бұрын

I'm not speaking for Alex, but the whole reason to set pleasure, or the lack of suffering, as the basis of morality is that everything can be simplified to what is pleasurable and what is not. Or maybe more simply, pleasure is the opposite of suffering, which almost anyone can agree is bad and undesirable. So things like humor or the pursuit of knowledge is only good because what the individual gets from it: pleasure, a good job, security, happiness. Edit: And there are many theories about what is morally right action, but most of them are about optimizing pleasure or diminishing suffering.

@richiejohnson

4 жыл бұрын

@Will Stueve. interesting that you go back over and over again to the idea of pleasure, which you use as if it was a loaded weapon in the hands of the weak, sinful and self centered. Pleasure as you say, and I would much rather use the term well being, Is preferable to pain and suffering. Your Calvinist viewpoint is wearisome and obtuse.

@cubedude76

4 жыл бұрын

So under the view that pleasure isn't the thing we should value does that mean that the malaria we have today is good? Any more or any less would be a worse world and the malaria we do have has good consequences which makes it desirable?

@disneybunny45

4 жыл бұрын

@@cubedude76 Malaria has good consequences? We are talking about the disease caused by a parasite in mosquitoes right?

I'm glad that inspiring philosophy isn't troubled by his childhood. But I'd trade the personal growth I got from mine if I could also get rid of the PTSD, still with me decades later. And the notion that no one gets a bigger burden than they can handle is belied by suicide.

@Solidude4

4 жыл бұрын

I really disliked that point of his. I have CPTSD from my childhood abuse and it's had a massive effect on my life and worldview. Like good for him but he shouldn't state his experiences like they're the norm (and I'm also skeptical of the fact that it really hasn't affected him)

@elawchess

4 жыл бұрын

Yep. IP extrapolating from his own experience to everybody else a little bit of a mistake here.

@JCW7100

4 жыл бұрын

Yeah I agree.

@51elephantchang

4 жыл бұрын

@@elawchess Far worse than that it made him sound arrogant..how dare he arrogate the experiences of others?He went way down in my estimation here.

@sujoygupta5264

4 жыл бұрын

And that, ladies and gents, is what the young folk call a mic drop. Well said!

1:41:47 What Alex said about suffering was so beautiful! I'd like to see how he develops his reasoning on that. He sounded like a true Christian in his concern, and yet, since he's an atheist, I can understand his despair. For me too, I don't see how anyone would be able to explain the existence of suffering without the context of religion. By grace, I am religious, so I have hope, but I cannot use my view of suffering to justify Christianity, it only works the other way around, logically. However, this created world allows to be known by science and logic, so I trust that honest philosophers like Alex will find a good answer.

@christopherlin4706

3 жыл бұрын

When Alex becomes a Christian again using IP’s perspective, he is going to be an intellectual powerhouse.

@thecircumcisedheartofricha7344

2 жыл бұрын

Agreed; if that really is all that is holding him back then he'll turn to the darkside before it's said an done.

I think I would have liked it more if there was an open discussion period

@RussianBot4Christ

4 жыл бұрын

I think the debate was missing the Cross Examination period, which I find crucial, but I enjoyed the formal debate. "Open discussions" allows people to manipulate, and derail the discussion. Case and point: Matt dilihunty The more formal debates are had, the better our discussions will be.

@Prophet_Isaiah

4 жыл бұрын

@M then he probably can't stand you 😂

@megazine

4 жыл бұрын

I agree, Cross examination and open discussion are crucial and most entertaining

@HunterL80

4 жыл бұрын

@@RussianBot4Christ Amen on that! I think no matter who, it gets muddled up no matter how amicable the debaters are in open discussions -- definitely have seen it chronically with Dillahunty. It makes a debate tough to listen to when one person is trying to railroad the opponent into stumbling while sending out cluster bombs of red herrings. It'd be hard to even read the transcript to that! x ( LOL

@420habicht3

4 жыл бұрын

Nothaf but then you can run into the problem of gish galloping - where someone brings up so many points in such a short time that's impossible to refute them all in a given time. Asserting something is always faster than debunking it. Good example for this would be Kent Hovind.

Really good format. Nice job!

This was an incredible debate. 👏

I have found this debate to be one of the most respectful and quite organized debates I have ever seen. Both debaters gave very good points with respect to whether a good God would allow evil? Now, don't get me wrong, but I think IP provided a more logical solution to the why of suffering. Alex gave some good points that made me reflect on the necessity of evil, but I eventually found out that his views of suffering were all seen from his own point of view, rather from God's perspective. Think about it, Alex suggested that it would be better for a world with no suffering, and that he rather have no virtue, because in order to have virtue, suffering would be required. The problem arises when Alex starts to suggest a world better than this one, and this is why so many skeptics fail when trying to explain their ideas on suffering. God is an all-powerful being, his spectrum of reality is infinitely bigger than the one of humans. My question is then, How can a person suggest a world better than this one, when his scope of reality is so vastly limited in comparison to God? I mean, as humans, we haven't even come to fully understand the very planet we live on, let alone the Universe, and now we think we can define what is best for the world. Our minds can not even grasp the many dimensions or reality in comparison to God's. Heck, we are fragile beings that are limited by the Space-time continuum, and still, some think what is best in the realm of immaterial things such as evil? The realms of evil and suffering are beyond our comprehension, because they are founded in a non-material reality, so, how can a person assume that it would be better for suffering not to exist, when this person is inside a realm that is way below the reasons for God to allow suffering? Anyways, this was a great debate, both debaters where stunning. God bless!

@Yameen200

3 жыл бұрын

It still doesnt justify animals having to suffer or the excessive evils in the world. We can see how excessive it is & its no different from a god that has abandoned this world.

@zephyr-117sdropzone8

Жыл бұрын

@@Yameen200 How do animals suffer?

@gabsters9833

5 ай бұрын

"How can a person suggest a world better than this one, when his scope of reality is so vastly limited in comparison to God?"

As a Christian, I've been challenged by Cosmic Sceptic's points on animal suffering. Do any Christians think that they have an answer to it? Thanks for the discussion!

@orcqa2534

4 жыл бұрын

There is none

@JCW7100

4 жыл бұрын

I too think this is a serious challenge for Christianity. I'd love to see a whole discussion dedicated to it

@tanner955

4 жыл бұрын

Read Trent Dougherty’s The Problem of Animal Pain

@lindapb6529

4 жыл бұрын

My answer is that it is consistent with both their views to be vegan; however, suffering covers/includes other points that veganism doesn't...as far as I know.I guess depends on how the question(s) were framed for a debate.

@thermal1580

4 жыл бұрын

@@lindapb6529 I mean, you can ethically harvest meat right. These "battery chickens" that are kept in cages so small they can never stand upright is sickening. I mean it's demented. But to have free range chickens with proper food and shelter..and then quickly and painlessly lop it's head off for some BBQ..I don't see anything wrong with that. Then again, if we ate Rover I might feel different..

This was really interesting to listen to !

Awesome stuff!

To add an illustration to IP's position and the question about how relationships can be deepened through suffering, our relationship with God is ultimately deepened as well in a way that couldn't have been in a perfect world. Imagine if we always lived in heaven with God from the start, and He told us He loved us all the time. Even though it would still be true He loves us unconditionally, there would be no way to fully demonstrate that unconditional love. So I think it might be possible we could doubt (or at least not fully appreciate) His love, or think maybe God only loves us because we perfectly obey Him, not because He is love Himself. Because we live in a world full of evil and suffering, we live in a world where it was possible for God to show His love for us through His sacrifice on the cross. He was able to show us what great lengths He was willing to go through for us even when we were still turned against Him. This should get rid of any doubt about how much God loves us. It should make us that much more eternally grateful and make us love God that much more deeply seeing what He was willing to do for us. This is why Jesus' resurrected body still has the nail marks - so we can always be reminded of His beautiful sacrifice and see how much He loves us. "Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." - Romans 5:7-8. I personally believe God temporarily allows a world full of evil for the purpose of showing how deeply He loves us and He still loves us no matter what, even if we hate Him. We cannot fully appreciate God's grace and mercy without experiencing and being aware of our own sin and our need for Him as our Savior.

Both made such good points. Such an interesting discussion. I do have to lean more towards Mike's side though. This is because, if I had to make the choice between never suffering again or having strong relationships, I would choose relationships. I get a lot of pleasure out of lots of things. Anime, video games, good food, etc. But all of that pales in comparison to the good feelings I have when I am with the people I am closest to. And I do agree, I think the strongest relationships are the ones built around hardship, built around suffering, built around confiding in others about one's guilt and regrets and insecurities and fear. Being vulnerable around someone, freely giving them a chance to hurt you, knowing what it's like to be hurt but still risking it, and happily finding that the other person chooses to be good to you instead simply because they love you. Without suffering, I do think there would probably be only surface level relationships. Acquaintances, but never friends. Hookups, but never romance. To me, that sounds awful. I'd much rather accept the suffering than live in a world where I have never felt real love for someone. If I lived in a world of no suffering but I only had surface level connections with other people, I might not have known what I was missing, but the me here and now can know for a fact that it would be deeply inferior to the life I have now. And given the choice, I would absolutely choose suffering.

@Cassim125

2 жыл бұрын

What about people who don't have the luxury of relationships? Its always easy to talk about something when you don't suffer from it

@Lady_de_Lis

2 жыл бұрын

@@Cassim125 There have been periods of my life when I was completely friendless. I've also never had a romantic partner. You are very wrong to assume I don't know what it's like to lack relationships. Just because we may lack relationships at certain points in our lives doesn't mean that this will be the case forever. With enough time, effort, and willingness to let go of our selfishness, we can certainly build new relationships with others. But real love is only possible if there is the possibility of rejection. Without the ability to reject you, that means the "love" they have for you is forced. If someone only "loves" you because they are forced to, it's not love. Rejection causes suffering. So in a world without suffering, there is no rejection. And therefore, also no love.

@Cassim125

2 жыл бұрын

@@Lady_de_Lis ahh yes I forgot in heaven evil must exist since good things can't exist without suffering. So either heaven is actually hellish or nobody in heaven has free will to always love everyone

@Lady_de_Lis

2 жыл бұрын

@@Cassim125 You can talk to other people about Heaven or Hell, if you want. That's not the topic I am discussing or care about. The specifics of what happens after we die, to me, isn't very important. None of us know what it will be like, so it's pointless to argue about it as if any of us have any clue. I am talking purely about suffering on Earth. Specifically, I am talking about whether I would prefer to live on planet Earth with or without suffering. And I have made my position pretty clear. If you want to talk about any other topic, I encourage you to talk to someone else who is more interested.

@Lady_de_Lis

2 жыл бұрын

@@Cassim125 Shows how presumptuous you are to think that people must be interested in the same topics that you are. A stranger leaves a comment on a KZread video about something very specific. And then, when they don't want to change the topic to something YOU want to discuss, you belittle their intelligence. Again, if you want to talk about those things, talk to someone else who is interested. Belittling my intelligence because you aren't getting your way won't make me change my mind.

I know it is a clichee to say that but it's really nice to see debates where people speak calmly and let the other person speak out and not devolve into screaming matches.

@codygillard

2 жыл бұрын

Respect is the name of the game son, we should all play

Cameron I love the aesthetics of your channel, everything is very sleek. Also great discussion, Michael and Alex are great!

@MarkVanReeth

3 жыл бұрын

I like the style of the text, the arrangement of the video feeds, etc, but I keep wondering what Cameron does to his own camera feed to make it look the way it does. His face is lit unevenly and the colours seem muted, as if he applied some kind of filter or colour grading that intentionally makes the image less vibrant.

@davidwilliams6966

3 жыл бұрын

Interesting when celebrities open about faith, especially from Backstreet Boy!

@pleaseenteraname1103

Жыл бұрын

Not as neutral as I would like him to be though, I mean he was still in like 95% neutral, but a little more biased than I would like, nothing wrong it’s just that I like my moderators to be more neutral.

Very great discussion! While I mostly agree with IP I think that CosmicSkeptic brought up some good points. I appreciate the fact that he’s not like other atheists who just want to be right rather than be rational.

@theoskeptomai2535

4 жыл бұрын

So you are asserting that atheism is not a rational position?

@derechoplano

4 жыл бұрын

@@theoskeptomai2535 He never saod that. Do you have reading comprenhension problems?

@theoskeptomai2535

4 жыл бұрын

@@derechoplano "....other atheists who just want to be right _rather than be rational."_ Do YOU have reading comprehension problems?

@theoskeptomai2535

4 жыл бұрын

@Usman M Yet oddly, the former is defined by the latter. I don't see a huge difference. I see a huge accordance.

@theoskeptomai2535

4 жыл бұрын

@Galaxy Guy Are you capable of intelligent comment or do you just drool?

This is much helpful and prevents them not get out of track.

thank you capturing christianity for arranging this debate, been a fan of both Cosmic skeptic and Inspiring philosophy and i always wish they debate someday. Their previous debate were also very inspiring. Alex made so may good points and i really wish Michael could have time to answer them all.

The Christian dude looks like he’s ready to punch someone

@majesticrainmaker1460

4 жыл бұрын

Lol, na he is an honest person

@ManlyServant

3 жыл бұрын

no,this was his natural Face

@zahydierodriguez4702

3 жыл бұрын

Thats just hes face when he thinks thats mostly acording to IP since someone said why does he have such a grumpy face and IP answered

@whatsinaname691

3 жыл бұрын

It’s his military background

@thanos9438

2 жыл бұрын

@@whatsinaname691 Wait Michael Jones(IP) is a military vet? Lol would like to see some sources that would actually be pretty cool if it wqs true

this was... surprisingly civil. Nice

Dope would love to interview you thanks Cam

first time in such a debate i wish there was a cross examination section, coz both debaters are super respectful.

Why can't all debates be like this, done in good faith, well mannered. Very intellectual!

As a teen I noticed that when I was a kid there are xthings I wanted or endured, that had my parents not forbade me or allowed, would have been far worse for me getting them, yet I suffered as a kid not receiving them. In my twenties, I noticed more xthings I wanted or endured, that looking back, had I received, would have been terrible for me or had not endured, yet I suffered them. In my 30s I see similar in my 20s. The point is that as we become wiser, we are made more aware of the things in which suffering at the time is worth it. A perfectly wise being is going to understand perfectly what particular amount and type of suffering is necessary in every particular situation. Michael is not perfectly wise, thus the analogy between him and his son is only helpful for demonstrating the necessity of suffering in principle, but dis-analogous as soon as it begins "drawing moral lines" regarding particulars and even principles implying particulars.

@Phill3v7

2 жыл бұрын

@@TheWTFcakes If you want to "roll" my comment into an argument for naturalism over theism on the basis of an isolated variable like suffering I'd likely be inclined to agree with you. However with respect to the original intent of the comment, which was directed at supporting the analogy used in the video that was offering a way to think about God having plausibly sufficient reasons for allowing/permitting various evils/sufferings, it is simply a red herring.

@Phill3v7

2 жыл бұрын

@@TheWTFcakes I appreciate the candor. It's extremely refreshing to witness on KZread. Im looking forward to possible future discussions.

Love the formal debates, but they need to be formal or they become like TV news shows.

This is excellent! And very humbling! God bless those who would accept, or wish, to be blessed by God!

@BigHeretic

3 жыл бұрын

*Douglas Souza* Obviously it wasn't very humbling to you who thinks that after that defeat you can say "god bless".

@douglasdms777

3 жыл бұрын

@@BigHeretic Very humbling does not equal to Absolutely humbling. Not sure what would be the relevance of a "win" or a "defeat" regarding my comment, which was supposed to be impartial...

@BigHeretic

3 жыл бұрын

@@douglasdms777 Saying 'god bless you' is not impartial, it's the equivalent of emerging from a football game in which your team just got rinsed and shouting 'we are the greatest' - that fan doesn't look humbled by their defeat.

@douglasdms777

3 жыл бұрын

​@@BigHeretic I guess we are working with a different set of assumptions. I did not mean to offend anyone. Just edited the comment, I hope it is less pretentious now.

@BigHeretic

3 жыл бұрын

@@douglasdms777 Offence isn't the problem, it's appealing to a god who has just been shown to be a callous and incompetent creator. Correct me if I'm wrong but the best defense given here for all the pain and suffering in the World is 'the ends justify the means' (which it doesn't). *Inspiring Philosophy* hand waves away other peoples' and animals' suffering by saying 'god works in mysterious ways' and it makes more people want to read the Bible because otherwise it would be a boring book.

One can't rationalize evil without a moral premise, and it seems to be that Michael takes this more seriously than Alex, even his position regarding the forests is more objective whilst Alex takes a moralistic point of view..

Mohammed Hijab should watch this and take notes on how to debate honestly and respectfully.

@deadalivemaniac

4 жыл бұрын

He’s beyond saving. From his train wreck with David Wood to his deleting 30 minutes of footage, he’s too intellectually dishonest.

@BY-rx5bl

4 жыл бұрын

The Freedom Hoplites yup he’s beyond saving is the right phrase

@thephilosophermma8449

4 жыл бұрын

Really! No I don’t think so . What he did was completely justified

@nakkadu

3 жыл бұрын

He would just get triggered and tell everyone to kill themselves.....then insult their wives...and randomly speak in Arabic every now and then for no reason.

@GhostLightPhilosophy

3 жыл бұрын

Mohammed Akod Mohammed Hijab is the most dishonest muslim debater ever

Boundlessly impressed with CosmicSkeptic in every conceivable way. This debate was food for my brain and soul. Have this guest back asap please. Let's get into the question of animal suffering this is something near to my heart as well.

@JCW7100

4 жыл бұрын

I totally agree!

@LeneChibi

4 жыл бұрын

Agreed!

@michaelnelson3652

4 жыл бұрын

Personally I don't find CS that impressive: if he comes across that way, it's because most of his engagement is with random youtubers like IP and rarely at philosophers of religion like Feser, Davies, or Pruss. I don't even think he has read Davies' book that, imo, refuted the problem of evil 15 years ago.

@lllULTIMATEMASTERlll

4 жыл бұрын

Excuse me, but Qwerty is an intellectual powerhouse. It wouldn’t even be worth it to try to challenge his genius. Anyone that disagrees with him is unread and unintelligent.

@lllULTIMATEMASTERlll

4 жыл бұрын

Excuse me, but true

What hit me hard, was Alex talking about the Covid lockdowns, after realizing that this video is three years old!

I really enjoyed this debate and how polite the the conversation went. I have a question for Michael, if he reads the comments. You said that it is possible to get out of hell and go to heaven in the afterlife. How would you interpret Luke 16:26? Thank you.

I think it's difficult to even have this debate, because the premise of the existence of God and an afterlife creates a dynamic of 'good and evil' that is completely different from what we would conceive of without those things, so the two sides would be arguing (or should be) from completely incompatible perspectives. What I mean by this is that a belief in God and heaven would have to liken our lives to something like a dream, because the infinite would be more 'real' (a higher tier of reality) than the physical world we live in day to day. That's not to say it's meaningless, just like most people don't realistically think our dreams are meaningless. That only means that anything that happens TO US in our physical lives would be considered incredibly temporary without lasting consequences. The only thing that matters would be the choices we make. God being incredibly concerned about human 'evil' and 'suffering' in our physical lives would be akin to a parent being incredibly concerned about their child having a nightmare. It would be somewhat ridiculous beyond a certain point. So, because of this I think this argument is kind of a non-starter. I know they touch on this in the beginning, but from my perspective, there's simply no way to move past this point from a logical perspective.

What I truly find gracious in Alex, is that he doesn't run about making strawman arguments ; he addresses each of the opponent claim and then proceeds to question them critically . He also doesn't make postive claims about the non existence of God , he rather uses evidence and follow them where they lead . Is a Honest guy , I can tell that if He had enough reasons He would embrace God . He is not prejudiced on this

Incredibly incisive argumentation. Good stuff.

The best part of Inspiring Philosophy's point of it better to live in a world with suffering vs one filled with pleasure is isn't that what the Garden of Eden was for? No pain or suffering?

@tman_theboss4171

4 жыл бұрын

No not really, just a place where there was no pain and suffering for direct communion with God

@tman_theboss4171

4 жыл бұрын

Then it was tarnished

@lavontescallion2375

4 жыл бұрын

@@tman_theboss4171 You seemingly agree with me.

@tman_theboss4171

4 жыл бұрын

@@lavontescallion2375 kind of, it was more so the intention that I did not agree with, I think of it more of a state of being instead of a purpose.

@uchihadsanchez6473

4 жыл бұрын

The world we live in is not what God intended. It was caused by the first sin. Why should we defend it? It's bad and we can't wait to live in a heaven or eden. Adam was thrown into eden, he didn't need to go through suffering to prepare for it. Let's stop pretending that we need to go through all this suffering. We are just simply going through it as a consequence of sin.

A point that Alex made that I feel needs to be made more is the implication that the amount of suffering is necessary. The position is frequently straw-manned into advocating for a pain/suffering free world, but the argument is that we don't need AS MUCH suffering, not that we wish for a suffering free world. Michael even said himself during this discussion that he doesn't believe all evil and suffering produces good and I wish he was asked why that unnecessary suffering is allowed to exist. When you discipline a child and cause suffering you don't beat them within an inch of their life...you inflict the minimum possible suffering necessary for that good to be produced. When Michael talked about his childhood suffering and other suffering not being that bad I think is a failure of empathy to adequately recognize the enormous amount of misery that is experienced by millions of people on Earth at this very moment. Even if you don't care at all about animals (which I also think is a massive failure of empathy), the scale of human suffering alone is off the charts. Consider also that for the vast majority of hominid history, the standard of living was even worse than it is today when we did not enjoy the benefits of modernity.

@avivastudios2311

11 ай бұрын

The problem of evil is a completely emotional argument. I'm not saying I don't care about people suffering but their suffering doesn't negate God's existence. God commanded people to love one another not to be abusive. If people are abusive that's not what God wanted.

@cwjalexx

11 ай бұрын

@@avivastudios2311 It's an emotional argument because the logic is compelling. The Christian conception of God is that he's all loving and perfectly moral, yet there is an ocean of suffering that is not a product of human action. The tsunamis, earthquakes, genetic mutations...that's on God. Earth has experienced several mass extinctions from climate change, ice ages, asteroid collisions...we're talking trillions of living organisms that were wiped out and couldn't do anything about it. Massive suffering is just hardcoded into the universe. I think it's beyond messed up that a God could create plants that get energy from the sun, yet decide that it would be better to create living organisms that can only survive by eating other living organisms. Watch a video of a zebra being eaten alive by a lion and remind yourself that God saw this and decided that it would be a good thing if this happened all the time. I can accept a lot of the arguments for the existence of some suffering, it's just the amount of suffering seems way excessive and requires explanation if the claim is that God is perfectly loving.

@amandavieira2543

4 ай бұрын

​@@avivastudios2311 most bad things in the world are not caused by human actions.

Fantastic manners from both sides. Both are very articulate and intelligent unlike some other debaters I have seen engage in similar topics.

C.S. Lewis discusses why pain is metaphysically necessary if we want a world where we can interact with each other. See The Problem of Pain

IP regarding the fall: “If God knew that all of us would’ve acted similarly, he does no wrong in choosing one person to represent us.” This has always struck me as bizarre. If every conceivable human would’ve partaken of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, then how is this not a fault of the creator in making us so susceptible to temptation that none (and I repeat none) of us could’ve resisted?

@williamdowling7718

4 жыл бұрын

Well said.

@jonahkane7027

4 жыл бұрын

God gave all of us free will in making decisions.

@bobross5716

4 жыл бұрын

Jonah Kane that doesn’t answer anything he said. did you read his comment?

@tman_theboss4171

4 жыл бұрын

James 1:13-15

@tman_theboss4171

4 жыл бұрын

As you see It wasn't God making them so suspectible to temptation, really just that the devils words confused their philosophy, making them question if God really said that they could not eat from the fruit.

1:39:54 - I had the same reaction as Michael. lol

I really enjoyed it As a Christian, I can’t say I agree with everything IP says, but he defends what he believes in the faith very well

Very good discussion. Both sides brought up points for me to consider. From an agnostic (formerly a Christian)

@logans.butler285

3 жыл бұрын

Do you believe that the resurrection of Jesus would automatically validate the whole Christian faith?

@jonesboome4451

3 жыл бұрын

@@logans.butler285 no. Seemingly Miraculous things happen all of the time over in the “Guru land” of India, and they aren’t Christians. People who meditate for years without eating, drinking, or moving that look like a skeleton with skin and have to have their disciples cut their hair and nails because they keep growing meaning that the person is still alive. Gurus that can tell you exactly what you’re thinking, etc. these people are not Christians nor do they claim to be god. Well at least not the kind of monotheistic king of kings kind of god that Christians believe in. Some of them do claim to be God because they are pantheistic and believe that everything is God and that God is everything and once you awaken to that realization then you too can do miracles and they claim that Jesus was one of them, a mystic.... a Buddha. A person that realizes one with God. Just because something happens that we can’t explain doesn’t necessarily automatically mean that god is involved. I think that is a fallacy that Christians tend to just take for granted. Like oh he did miracles so he must be god.... how did you come to that conclusion? Did you rule out every single other possibility? Did you rule out that he was a magician? Or an alien? Or a mystic? Or a a liar? Or a myth? Or a time traveler? Or a lying time traveler? Or a lying alien? What about an alien time traveler? No, you just made an assumption.

@zephyr-117sdropzone8

Жыл бұрын

@@jonesboome4451 You are also making an assumption.

Here from Cosmic Skeptic, just wanted to say that this was a lovely discussion, thank you for holding it!

I love the fact Michael(IP) used Lord of the Rings in his rebuttal 🤣. That is amazing.

Good discussion, cosmicskeptic subbed.

Definitely just wrote a Sixteen to that intro beat might post it later

Very good discussion! I think that this was Alex’s best performance! Both did excellent, wish they would’ve had more time however!

@justinpartogi

7 ай бұрын

Yeah! The time limit stuff is not fair...alex opening was not an opening in the first place...he immediately refute IP's words and the IP must refute his words in a shorter time! There are several argument i know IP can use but cannot because the time limit stuff...somehow it makea me kinda angry a little bit...I think there should be a few minutes of discussion to make the debate more interesting

Good debate

Alex I love you, you made so many great points. Many of which I have been thinking of recently. From a Christian

@Davisme1

4 жыл бұрын

Alex is my new favorite atheist💟

@codyehmke1218

4 жыл бұрын

Same, love you alex! Keep diving into the truths of the universe!

@anglozombie2485

4 жыл бұрын

Oppy is still better

@Jockito

4 жыл бұрын

@@anglozombie2485 To be fair, give Alex a few more decades ;)

@sally9352

4 жыл бұрын

As a Christian I've been listening to Alex and he's been growing on me. I'd rather listen to what he has to say than any other atheist.

Good job all around

To my understanding it comes to this: What is the greatest good? A world of pleasure with no evil, or a world of virtue with evil?

I would love to see a debate/discussion between Cosmic Skeptic and Braxton Hunter from Trinity Radio. I think people sleep on him as an apologist but he seems to have the whit and intelligence to go toe to toe with Alex.

@WhatsTheTakeaway

4 жыл бұрын

Well, he cleaned Dillahuntys clock when they debated. And in his reviews, he really zeroes in on what he thinks is Dillahuntys errors.

@WhatsTheTakeaway

4 жыл бұрын

@@piage84 That's your opinion, and it is objectively wrong.

@WhatsTheTakeaway

4 жыл бұрын

@Usman M Well he backed Dillahinty into a corner, and Dillahunty admitted he had no counterargument to Braxton. Dillahunty only leveraged his personal incredulity.

@WhatsTheTakeaway

4 жыл бұрын

@@piage84 Look at the language you are using. "Does he know for a fact", what do you mean? Does he have 100% Cartesian certainty? No, he even admits he doesn't, nobody does. Do you mean does he have facts and information/data that he provides when making arguments? Sure he does, and he presents them regularly. Its really odd to me that atheists MUST argue the theist must have 100% certainty or "they are just making things up". This is your opinion, and it is objectively wrong. It is not my opinion that you are posting your opinion, so the "I know you are but what am I" should be left on your atheist channels.

@spectre8533

4 жыл бұрын

@@piage84 wtf

Alex opening statement is grate on point once more

In 1:01:14 when he replied to the pleasure vs virtue dilema, I would Agree. What about the pleasure of discovery? The pleasure of growing in knowledge, the pleasure of growing morality. Isn't it more pleasurable world a world with science growing alongside the way, vs the world where there's no need to have science, or personal growth, o moral growth. If we can achieve some similar goal, let's say knowlegde X. For me it's far more good a world in which we arrive to the knowledge of X and the pleasure of abtaing it. Of course there are midpoints here and there

Why is this dated 6 months ago in the description?

@Solidude4

4 жыл бұрын

It aired six months ago though...

These GUYS are BOTH GREAT! They're like "Brain Food". 🍿🧠

Good debate! What's the intro music called by the way?

I really really wish this type of old style debates would stop such as 10 minutes of rebuttal and so on. A free flowing conversation is far more enjoyable.

Saying our pain won't matter that much in our afterlife is so weird to me. If I get beaten that'll also be nothing more than a memory in two weeks, doesn't mean it's not wrong/evil.

@goddamnfaith6607

4 жыл бұрын

its like you get paid after getting beaten by a mob and that somehow justifies the assault

@51elephantchang

4 жыл бұрын

Especially when that afterlife is unwanted.

@Raul-vs6ff

4 жыл бұрын

@@51elephantchang you don't want it?

@51elephantchang

4 жыл бұрын

@@Raul-vs6ff yes

@robertd7717

4 жыл бұрын

I don't know if I'm describing IP's viewpoint accurately, but I personally don't believe that any pain, suffering, good or evil in this life loses its meaning because of the afterlife. It is all still meaningful, real, and significant. It's just that it will no longer be felt in heaven. Heaven is far greater, more glorious, and eternal, so comparing it to any consolation received in this finite life is not an apt analogy.

The fact is, no one can actually either prove or disprove either the existence or the non-existence of an ultimately evil omnipotent being. There's no comfort to be found in that fact. Just because we wouldn't be worried doesn't mean that we shouldn't be worried.

@jerrytuxman4421

7 ай бұрын

If there is an evil omnipotent thing in the universe, why would this be the worse it could come up with?

@somethingyousaid5059

7 ай бұрын

Just because it would create all of us in a world that is not maximally bad, would not necessarily mean that it was not a maximally evil being. For all we know, it's an (everlastingly) maximally bad world (call it "hell" if you want to) that _does_ follow this one, and each of us _does_ go there when he or she dies. Thus that evil being would not be cheated out of anything would it. As far as finding ourselves in a world that's just only so bad, maybe it wants to watch all of us squirm in it before it sends us to the maximally bad one. Maybe that's it preference. But the point is, it could have that preference and still be maximally evil.

Colonizing the universe after being resurrected as an immortal sounds like a really interesting sci fi novel.

Really valuable discussion! I think both speakers made really good points and it was enjoyable.

Glad to see I.P. used Philosophy to actually address the argument, at least more so than the explanatory analogy given about Genesis 1 - 11. There were several disappointing views taken up which weren't aligned with scripture, not to mention referring to other ancient languages and evidences before referencing Hebrew itself. Or the fact that oral tradition not only had to come first, but was customary for Hebrews commanded by God to be separate, making that easier to obey, not having written everything down, protection of elders/scribes/traditionalist, to continue on such commands in a more robust way than cultures surrounding them. There were many other things addressed in that that I'd take issue with, but can still appreciate the attempts and efforts made by Michael.

Just commenting for the algorithm more of these two plsss

What application did you to have those questions showing on your screen?

Gregory Boyd's Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy is one of the best, if not the best, way of making sense of the problem of evil.

@EternalVisionToday

2 жыл бұрын

Will check it out. Thanks for rec.

@j8000

11 ай бұрын

@@EternalVisionToday it attests evil to other wills than god, like satan. If god is no longer omnipotent, then obviously the problem of evil goes away.

@EternalVisionToday

11 ай бұрын

@@j8000, Thank you! I had actually forgotten to check this out. So you served as a great reminder.

I’m mostly in agreement with Alex here, although Michael’s point regarding the natural suffering in the wild is important and interesting. If we could eradicate nature without consequences, would that be the right thing to do? We would eliminate animal suffering, but is ending all those organisms’ lives our choice to make? What if some of them do want to live despite the suffering they endure? How do we determine which do and which don’t? With humans, it’s clear enough that some of us believe that life is worth the suffering, while others don’t. But with nonhuman organisms, this is difficult to parse.

@richardgamrat1944

4 жыл бұрын

Interesting questions. Though they seem to be separate from the problem of evil argument. Because God doesn't need to eradicate life, he can preserve life, just take the suffering from it.

@saturnray1260

4 жыл бұрын

If I had the infinity stones then carnivorous animals, meat-eating in general, and capitalism would be outta here. No more unjust exploitative hierarchies, No more perpetually evil circle of life, and No more enslaving and cannibalizing our conscious cousin species.

@elawchess

4 жыл бұрын

" If we could eradicate nature without consequences, would that be the right thing to do? " That's the wrong question. You don't need to eradicate the whole nature to eradicate the suffering. You could just make it operate in a different way e.g sentient beings don't need to kill each other for food. "What if some of them do want to live despite the suffering they endure?" This feeds into TJumps view of morality. OK God could have made it optional then. So that if you wanted to experience suffering as you suggest, you could choose to of your own volition. This would be a more moral world than the one we live in.

@cockerswilde

4 жыл бұрын

It seemed to me almost as those Cosmic Skeptic was leading himself down a path that would advocate zoos over the rainforests which I doubt that he would agree with. The point about a tree falling on a deer and the deer starving to death. This scenario could be made to be impossible by a zookeeper. The animals in zoos are generally well treated - zookeepers that I have met have a huge amount of love for the animals in the zoo and they tend and care for the animals but instinctively we know that the animal has a richer and fuller existence in the natural world but they are likely to endure more suffering.

@abelkjohn

4 жыл бұрын

@@saturnray1260 but wouldn't you be killing carnivorous creatures? So you become the thing you fight.... Also funny sidenote I've seen goats eat birds... Sooo...

Love IP's beard

This debate is an example of why I abandoned classical apologetics (although I still have a ton of admiration and respect for William Lane Craig). Alex did really well here.

really great debate!

InspiringPhilosophy wins. He was way more logical and collective. CosmicSkeptic was just boring and stereotypical.

@iisaverstudio

Жыл бұрын

I agree IP wins but I also think that CS have a good points.

@cosmicflare_

9 ай бұрын

Did anybody really win here?

@cosmicflare_

9 ай бұрын

I don’t think this debate was held on the matter of winning or losing. In my mind Alex ‘won’ because the Christian never convinced me of his argument

There seems to be a false assumption being made by atheists who think that God has ‘moral obligations’ to someone or something. If that’s the case then we’re not actually talking about God. God is the ground of all existence and is Goodness itself. It doesn’t make sense to anthropomorphise and treat God as if he were one more moral agent alongside human beings. There is no moral standard over and above him.

@robertjohns6701

4 жыл бұрын

Philo Theos....I suppose all we can go with is what’s written in the bible since none of us was there....but the said bible is self defeating in most of its sayings....somebody once said “ don’t write more than 3 pages when you starting a religion...same with Christianity....the book is full of contradiction...take Mack Twain who questioned why we never seem to blame god for anything...when he points out “the bible teaches us to intervene where we see human suffering and sorry lest we sin heavily” observes that “there has not been human suffering and sorrow that god could not alleviate....”does god sin then?” and argues that if he is the moral giver, he sins .....the judge on the bench can not condemn crime....to revel in it as soon as he’s off the bench, without condemnation?....

@douglasverner1159

3 жыл бұрын

@@robertjohns6701 First things first before we can go forward, what is an example of a contradiction in the bible? i always here this yet one person has shown me.

@robertjohns6701

3 жыл бұрын

Douglas Verner : all you need to do sir, is research for yourself on KZread and search engines available....as for me, it’s the image we were given to worship as our saviour, was the image of the coloniser.... my saviour and my oppressor, my god and my enslaver became one...so you see my defence, if this thing ever turned to be true, which I strongly doubt....

@douglasverner1159

3 жыл бұрын

@@robertjohns6701 God is not an enslaver. he wants us to come to him by our own will. he never does it by force. and all ppl that end up in hell will want to be there.

@nikolaiquack8548

3 жыл бұрын

@@douglasverner1159 Really? Cause it seems to me that a lot of morally positive and/or neutral things that people do can land them them a place in hell. Btw, if this cruel omnipotent creature actually exists and I will be thrown in hell for not bowing down to him, I shall except so gladly. For a heaven under such a creature will not be a place I would want to go to anyway. Thankfully, the possibility of that is close to 0.

This was quite good, well thought out by both parties here. What I wonder is can pleasure exist at all without suffering? I think it's worth asking what perhaps is Alex's definition of pleasure since he does try to separate virtue and pleasure. It seems hard to me to find something that is pleasurable without the contrast of suffering, so it seems Alex's ideal world would be more of a purgatory, vegetable state and never a world with actual pleasure in it. I suppose you could argue that a vegetable world is superior, but I guess I'm not sure what the argument for that looks like.

@Yameen200

3 жыл бұрын

Then how can there be a heaven that has no suffering with only pleasure ? Contradiction much ?

@superha0

3 жыл бұрын

@@Yameen200 I'm not sure how your question relates to my points, namely how does one get pleasure without suffering and what is Alex's definition of pleasure, but I would answer your question by saying I think whether or not there is suffering in heaven doesn't matter if it is the ultimate place of happiness and pleasure. Its an interesting question, but I don't think a useful one. More importantly, getting to heaven will most likely require some form of suffering, which again coincides with our idea of pleasure through suffering. And again I'm not sure how Alex's views on this match up exactly as to me a world and life with no suffering will also have no pleasure, and I'm not sure about the argument that a pleasureless world is superior.

@Yameen200

3 жыл бұрын

@@superha0 if you say pleasure world cant exist without suffering then surely heaven is the same as earth just suffering mixed with pleasure. The same with free will issue. In heaven if theres no suffering is there no free will. Either way heaven is just hypotethical nonsense, its just escapism & way too good to be true. But it gives us a reasson to hope all this world makes sense.

@superha0

3 жыл бұрын

@@Yameen200 Do you have a reason for thinking heaven must be the same as earth? That's an odd assumption to me, and I'm not sure what impact debating heaven's suffering or lack thereof has on suffering on earth. That's why I say that question is mostly irrelevant either way. Do you have an example of pleasure that is obtained without suffering?

@Yameen200

3 жыл бұрын

@@superha0 Well this a different topic from the original but if we summarized it 1 Law of diminishing returns : Every activity/good on earth no matter how enjoyable is bound to get boring overtime until we can take no more. Now we could be made to robotically not get bored but life eventually would become the same as here, even with new activities in heaven be it the coolest thing being a superhero, james bond or billionaire genius. The whole god is an infinite being. that can never get boring as well as infinite intrinsically satisfying goods/activities is far fetched. 2 The experience machine : you familiar with this ? ie constant pleasure for eternity would become boring/sickening & people would crave difficulty but after suffering that would want that to end so the cycle continues 3 Its impossible for utopia to exist as long as ppl have free will & personal desires. If they dont have personal desires then they lose their identity and arent the same person from earth.

Can someone please let me know what book they were talking about that talked about animal suffering? thank you.

Although the theme isn't fully explored in it, Alex should read Brave New World. The morality of it is exclusively framed through suffering minimisation. All social problems are engineered to a T. And yet, we still have unease at the chimney stacks which burn corpses after the person rationally decides to end their life, their age beginning to alert others to mortality. We feel concern at the sexual promiscuity of youth, and the deliberate monotonous aimlessness of life in this world. I always found that this text pointed out to me the emptiness of pleasure as an ultimate end, and why a life on the Native reservation, disease, ugliness and all, or in Iceland, pursuing knowledge free from censorship, would be preferable. Feel free to disagree tho!

@btroger

3 ай бұрын

"Brave New World" is exactly the book I thought about during the discussion as well. It depicts the outcome of a society that is soley focused on elminating pain and maximizing pleasure. Character, virtue, and family are considered outdated or repugnant.

Also, their assertion that a world without suffering would necessarily result in a mindless life of pleasure is just a reflection of the limitations of our primitive human cognition. We have no idea of what a world free of suffering *could* consist.

@mithunbalaji8199

7 ай бұрын

Heard of Nirvana?

@jennifer97363

7 ай бұрын

@@mithunbalaji8199 LOVE their music!

@Grandmaster_Dragonborn

4 ай бұрын

Yes we can, we're not thick, we see how reality is and we can make hypotheticals and we can see that it wouldn't be a very nice life if suffering just vanished. I think we need to take the bad with the good, and use the bad to appreciate the good more.

"Some philosophers have contended that the existence of evil is logically inconsistent with existence of theistic God. No one, I think has succeed in establishing such an extravagant claim." - William Lowell [Atheist]

@logia7

Жыл бұрын

absurb quote...

Can you put the name of the track played in the lead-in into the description?

As the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ said, In this world u will have tribulation but fear not I have OVERCOME the world .

1:01:09 In response to what he just said: Isn't that what god created in the first place, in Eden? And isn't Eden supposed to have been the ideal perfect world? Yes, there was one difference, in that Adam had the capacity to reject that world, but wan't he supposed to _not_ do that? Wasn't that rejection supposed to be a bad thing? Meaning that going along with that world, in which he was ignorant, unchallenged, completey safe, cared for, and therefore virtueless, was the good thing to do? Furthermore, if Adam rejected that world, and, as IP says, _all_ humans _would_ reject that world, doesn't that just mean that god created humans to be incompatible with this "perfect" world? Isn't that a weird thing for a perfectly loving god to do? Why not create the kind of perfect world that _is_ compatible with man, _and/or_ create man to be compatible with a perfect world? The problem with the arguments that Christians make on this topic is that every reason they try to appeal to for why god had to make things the way they are, is _itself_ something that god made the way it is. They always _always_ fail to actually take seriously their own belief that god is responsible for *_EVERY THING_*

@EnglishMike

4 жыл бұрын

Agreed, and it's also very strange to mix mythology into a discussion on philosophy, though I guess when it comes to Christianity, it's somewhat inevitable.

@BigHeretic

3 жыл бұрын

*Realguy McCoolname* It's painfully obvious that believers bit off more than they could chew when they decided to attribute natural phenomena to the supernatural. Having done so though they seem unwilling to admit their mistake and they try to make it everyone else's.

@BigHeretic

3 жыл бұрын

@R.J.J- El ganador Appeal to consequences, ad hoc rationalisations as if to validate my previous comment. And it makes no sense; do you think that an architect wants their building to stand without the possibility of falling down and killing its occupants - no, they design it with flaws so that they can appreciate every day that it stays standing - and any number of similar debunks to your fallacious square peg. "same with god he wants people that can disappoint him..." How do you know what god wants? Isn't he supposed to be beyond understanding? Admit it your just guessing, or don't because it's obvious.

@BigHeretic

3 жыл бұрын

@R.J.J- El ganador I didn't miss your point at all, you missed mine. You're in a relationship with god alright and it ressembles an abusive relationship where the abused always finds excuses for the abuser - whatever he does there's always a reason and when there are no more reasons, well, we can't understand him but he must have his reasons, he's such a good person when he's not drinking. You didn't learn that excuse from the Bible, you heard it somewhere or you thought of it yourself and it made sense to you. You'd realise this if you could be honest with yourself for a minute. It makes sense if you want it to, if you're looking for an excuse to explain away an inconsistency. 100 people lost their lives in a plane crash but Miracle !! 1 survived, "thank god". Thousands of babies die of hunger and disease - they're better off in heaven, "praise the lord!" A whole community was devastated by the Hurricane - Miracle !! one house survived, "thank you god!" It's not that you can't see it, you don't want to see it.

@BigHeretic

3 жыл бұрын

@R.J.J- El ganador Aaaaand you're still appealing to consequences : "if you don't accept that there's an afterlife then all these bad people will go unpunished..." Whether there's an afterlife or not bad people do bad things right under the nose of your god. Could _you_ watch a priest grossly abuse his power and rape a child? again and again? and again? No, neither could I, but your god seems to get off on it. What's your excuse for that one *RJ ?*

34:00 but there is no end to this. If we presented a case where God did prevent an evil, you would simply move the goalposts to present a case where He didn't - so in effect this line of argumentation will result in "Why doesn't God prevent ALL evil?"

Both were very good