Remember to tweet us a comment on this podcast with the hashtag #CosmicJustin for your chance to win a signed copy of Justin's book! Exams finish at the end of June. After that I'll be uploading like normal again. *Big* interview coming soon.

@veloxlupus303

5 жыл бұрын

Nice! Anyway, why do you not seem to ever bring up inflation when it comes to the cosmological constant? Inflation solves the flatness problem (among other things such as the horizon problem and the relic particle problem), hence here you have a physical principle that you were looking for (in the sense that you mentioned it in a earlier video).

@major7thsmcgee973

5 жыл бұрын

Best of luck in your exams Alex, not that you'll need it. ;)

@Alyzzardo

5 жыл бұрын

Excited for the interview!!! Thank you for all of the effort you apply!! You truly love what you do and it shows.

@grains425

5 жыл бұрын

Best of luck with your exams!

@Max-jf5vu

5 жыл бұрын

Sounds really exciting! Can't wait to catch up on podcasts like this once I finish my A Levels next week!

Alex, I’m a Christian and I love your channel. Thank you for being so respectful in discussion. It’s refreshing and keeps me coming back to listen to more of your videos without being intellectually ambushed/ attacked like I’ve felt listening to other atheist channels. People would ultimately make a higher impact on the world if they carried themselves like you do.

@kenshiloh

3 жыл бұрын

Hi. How can you praise an atheist for the 'impact' he is making on the world? He is calling your Father (I hope or suppose) a liar! Do you know the Lord? Have you been born again, filled with the Holy Spirit? Do you have 100% assurance that you are saved, not because of your confession, but from the witness of the Spirit? Do you hunger for God's Word and enjoy fellowship with Christians more than you do the friendship of the world? I don't know if you are saved, but your words concern me. Whoever is not for Christ is against Him. Jesus Christ is the light of the world.

@muncher1753

3 жыл бұрын

@@kenshiloh yeah nah

@blakejohnson1264

3 жыл бұрын

@kron n Basic Christianity evidence to show the probability God is real is almost 100% and it’s the Christian God First of all whoever is reading this Jesus died as a sacrifice for the punishment for our sins so we can attain eternal life through him. All you have to do is accept that gift and follow him. If Christianity is false you live a meaningless life without following God and win and lose nothing. If Christianity is true and you reject you receive punishment for your sins which is eternal separation from God and everything that has to do with God’s nature commonly known as hell. Before any of your objections come into play if Christianity is true they don’t matter. I urge you to research. God bless. The reason I believe is because of the evidence, the probability of a creator, eye witness testimony to miracles, people’s life experience, and my life experience. Look into the resurrection evidence, the fine tuning argument, the moral argument, the teleological argument, the cosmological argument, purpose, love, law, order, Biblical prophecy, look into Christian miracles, eye witness testimony to miracles, life testimonies from Christians, look into Jesus’ impact on society such as what year we are in right now and why, look into the historical evidence of Christianity, science stated in the Bible, the archeological evidence for Christianity. That should give you a great place to start if you are skeptic you shouldn’t trust me on the matter. You should seek out all these things to the fullest. Great resources: Frank Turek has quick short to the point KZread videos on misconceptions about Christianity, evidence, and more great place to start. William Lane Craig has a great channel as well. Watch bishop Robert Barron vs cosmic skeptic debate. Watch Frank Turek vs Christopher Hitchens debate. Watch William Lane Craig debates. Watch John Lennox debates. Watch Frank Turek vs cosmic skeptic debate. Read: “Is God a moral monster?” “I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist” “Stealing from God” and “A Case for Christ” If you research this while pursuing nothing but the truth with an open heart with all objections aside you will find God. I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist. You’ll understand what that means once you see this evidence. Anyone who has “evidence against Christianity” I urge them to type in what that evidence is and watch a Christian apologist refute it. Debate or discussion links: kzread.info/dash/bejne/YqiNz5ZqmMWaaNI.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/l4OauKSqd7PdmZM.html

@blakejohnson1264

3 жыл бұрын

@@muncher1753 Basic Christianity evidence to show the probability God is real is almost 100% and it’s the Christian God First of all whoever is reading this Jesus died as a sacrifice for the punishment for our sins so we can attain eternal life through him. All you have to do is accept that gift and follow him. If Christianity is false you live a meaningless life without following God and win and lose nothing. If Christianity is true and you reject you receive punishment for your sins which is eternal separation from God and everything that has to do with God’s nature commonly known as hell. Before any of your objections come into play if Christianity is true they don’t matter. I urge you to research. God bless. The reason I believe is because of the evidence, the probability of a creator, eye witness testimony to miracles, people’s life experience, and my life experience. Look into the resurrection evidence, the fine tuning argument, the moral argument, the teleological argument, the cosmological argument, purpose, love, law, order, Biblical prophecy, look into Christian miracles, eye witness testimony to miracles, life testimonies from Christians, look into Jesus’ impact on society such as what year we are in right now and why, look into the historical evidence of Christianity, science stated in the Bible, the archeological evidence for Christianity. That should give you a great place to start if you are skeptic you shouldn’t trust me on the matter. You should seek out all these things to the fullest. Great resources: Frank Turek has quick short to the point KZread videos on misconceptions about Christianity, evidence, and more great place to start. William Lane Craig has a great channel as well. Watch bishop Robert Barron vs cosmic skeptic debate. Watch Frank Turek vs Christopher Hitchens debate. Watch William Lane Craig debates. Watch John Lennox debates. Watch Frank Turek vs cosmic skeptic debate. Read: “Is God a moral monster?” “I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist” “Stealing from God” and “A Case for Christ” If you research this while pursuing nothing but the truth with an open heart with all objections aside you will find God. I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist. You’ll understand what that means once you see this evidence. Anyone who has “evidence against Christianity” I urge them to type in what that evidence is and watch a Christian apologist refute it. Debate or discussion links: kzread.info/dash/bejne/YqiNz5ZqmMWaaNI.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/l4OauKSqd7PdmZM.html

@muncher1753

3 жыл бұрын

@@blakejohnson1264 still nah

21:24 start of the actual discussion of arguments for or against Christianity.

@utubepunk

5 жыл бұрын

The start of the shifting of the burden of proof.

@zacharyshort384

5 жыл бұрын

I would say it's the 35 min mark ^_^

@notwhatiwasraised2b

5 жыл бұрын

Naw, one should not miss Justin's ridiculous commentary re: atheists in the first 30 minutes

@SolitaryReaper666

5 жыл бұрын

@12 years old Yes

@TheBeatle49

5 жыл бұрын

One way that societies can become more moral is by people losing religion.

Very nice platform. A dialogue with a Christian rather than arguing.

@MrGodofcar

4 жыл бұрын

Please, define dialogue and argumentation.

@Sal3600

4 жыл бұрын

@@MrGodofcar I guess, godless is trying to say, there is the question being asked and then answered. Its a conversation about the mindset of each person.

@oomfiekat

3 жыл бұрын

To be expected from smart individuals that studied at Oxford. xD

@redpillpusher

3 жыл бұрын

@@oomfiekat Ivy League education not required for thoughtful sensible civil dialogue.

@soumya7846

3 жыл бұрын

@@redpillpusher exactly

I am an atheist and I have to say, Justin Brierley is probably my favorite popular Christian. He is the most honest christian I've ever seen. Not many Christians will admit that they don't know for sure that god exists. Even though he has spoken to atheists for 10 years and is still a christian, he still shows some willingness to be convinced otherwise.

@theunrepentantatheist24

2 жыл бұрын

many Christians admit they don't know for sure god exists. In any case you are an atheist - and your post is irrational according to what he argued in this show. So best not to post in future until you embrace Christianity.

@jasonr.8822

Жыл бұрын

Same. Although sometimes I wonder if some “Christian’s” that are honest and help “civil discussion” are actually non-believers but feel the best way to reach into the echo chamber is to simply call themselves Christian, smuggle in honest arguments for atheism. I’m an atheist and feel Christians like him help our cause more than they know.

@syndicatesanctuary8692

Жыл бұрын

@@jasonr.8822 Yes, it can work both ways. As a Christian I would say you’re suspicion is at least justified. When he made that assent, it made it clear to me he had no personal relationship with Christ, or at least I personally doubt he has, because there is one heavy doctrine implied in Christian magisterial teaching when concerned with the noetic effects of faith. Meaning, you can no longer deny “rationally” when you come in contact or confronted with Christ. You could dismiss one thing for what you perceive in another as a greater good but the reality of the said referent could never become a nonentity. Example: someone could make me lie, conceivably, today, that it didn’t rain, by torture or some other extreme method, but what would not follow is that my dismissal on grounds of pressure would give me the capability to deny the reality of the rain that fell today. Similarly, with the Christ God. One could deny Him, dismiss Him, be harmed by society in such ways that it seems a far greater good to retreat from Him, but the retreat would prove the reality of the time when with Him and knowing Him as for those who believe. No one can state it’s possible for someone to disprove Christianity without logically giving away the fact that they know not God personally, neutralizing them as a valid person to contend with as an atheist. If I were you I wouldn’t waste time with such people. Us real blooded Christians who are honest and would genuinely be surprised if you proved the faith invalid (but the surprise would come with a proof of an impossibility, and plus, we rarely listen to such “believers”, which in both our estimation, is akin to imposters) don’t follow and listen to such people when he states such things are many other things which are equivalent to what we see as unbelief. I will make clear, I hope for his sake we are both wrong, and for your sake you would reconsider your base existential axioms because Christ is and always will be the case. God rest

@Jay_in_Japan

Жыл бұрын

@@syndicatesanctuary8692 All your rational-speak gives you away as a Western Christian, if other factors were ignored. So much rationalizing about something beyond human rationality. Question: have you ever experienced significantly altered states of consciousness? Via extreme fasting, exertion, or meditation/ prayer, or via psychedelics?

@Jay_in_Japan

Жыл бұрын

@@syndicatesanctuary8692 To put it another way, have you ever _met_ God? Spoken to him? I don't mean in a general or vague sense, I mean literally met him, literally spoke to him.

At least Justin is honest and seems vastly more reasonable than most of these professional Christian debators that we're so used to. I actually enjoyed hearing his point of view.

@R3DASH09

5 жыл бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/mqB3xcGNcZrNp5s.html justin's not a bad guy

@notwhatiwasraised2b

5 жыл бұрын

Then you should listen to Justin's podcast 'Unbelievable'. But be prepared to lose you mind in the absurdity of believers trying to convince each other they are rational and reasonable in their faith.

@4CiiD3

5 жыл бұрын

@@R3DASH09 How many likes this ridiculous video has holy shit. The banana we human selected is fit for human consumption and we human are adapted to our environment but not because of evolution ofc HOW AMAZING.

@karlschmied6218

4 жыл бұрын

Being nice and respectful is good and I love it too, but it's not the point here.

@karlschmied6218

3 жыл бұрын

@Your Greatest Ally I agree but I can understand the aggression of atheists that have been educated in a belief that threatened them when they had no chance to defend against their indoctrinators. It is unbelievably difficult to get rid of such an education. Alex once said in a video about hell, that can still feel a fear deep inside about it.

He looks like genetically modified skeptic's dad. 😂😳

@jd2981

5 жыл бұрын

LOL

@Thedeepseanomad

5 жыл бұрын

😂 😂

@imanidiot2180

5 жыл бұрын

I actually thought it was him at first lol

@manikhasan4494

5 жыл бұрын

And gordon ramsey looks like his dad

@manikhasan4494

5 жыл бұрын

@12 years oldwhat , no why

I'm a Christian and fan of Justin's show. I watched this because he linked to it. I appreciate the civil discussion. Thanks for having him on :)

@larrywest4130

4 жыл бұрын

ty

@MrGodofcar

4 жыл бұрын

You should be ashamed of yourself for being a christian.

@KingOfBboys

4 жыл бұрын

@@MrGodofcar Oh, shut up you troll.

@MrGodofcar

4 жыл бұрын

@@KingOfBboys You shut up, and I'm not a troll.

@boat123qweasdzxc

4 жыл бұрын

@@MrGodofcar Why be ashamed of being a Christian?

Love how respectful this conversation is!

On "free will" Justin didn't offer up an argument he just kept repeating over and over that he doesn't believe that we don't have it!

Huge respect to Justin! Pretty sure he's the most pleasant believer I have ever witnessed in a discussion.

@theunrepentantatheist24

2 жыл бұрын

yes and he believes that you have no ability to reason - so your post is without any foundation.

@zephyr-117sdropzone8

Жыл бұрын

@@theunrepentantatheist24 He literally does say you have the ability to reason because it comes from free will. Did you even watch the video? My God stop being arrogant and go back to Dodge Dillahunty.

To maximize the experience of this conversation, it is important to imagine that Justin is taking damage every time he says "hmm"

Every one of his points boiled down to, "I don't like the consequences of X being true so I feel X is false."

@lalaluv093

5 жыл бұрын

Who are you taking bout m8?

@ApostateltsopA

5 жыл бұрын

@@lalaluv093 Justin.

@xImBeaST12321x

5 жыл бұрын

@@lalaluv093 for example, he rejects determinism because he doesn't like the idea that he isn't a free agent...... and he rejects subjective morality because he doesn't like the idea that torturing babies could be morally permissible (and confuses moral subjectivism with moral relativism)

@davelanger

5 жыл бұрын

@@xImBeaST12321x The thing since he believes in god, he can't have free will. Even without god we don't have free will but with god its even more so true we don't have free will.

@matthewleiter3524

4 жыл бұрын

davelanger you can have free will with God. Just because God knows what you’re going to do doesn’t mean you don’t have free will.

The fear of death and the search for meaning in life can cause extreme cognitive dissonance.

@boterlettersukkel

5 жыл бұрын

We all know the meaning of life. It is 42.

@patrickconnor2913

5 жыл бұрын

@@boterlettersukkel With a little procreation in between.

@davemaier68

5 жыл бұрын

Patrick Connor Very well said. I think childhood indoctrination plays a part too.

@brettperry218

5 жыл бұрын

That plus a lack of education, and critical thinking skills.

@LeventeCzelnai

5 жыл бұрын

Pretty much your identity, everything is just based on beliefs - why should we only focus on religion? It is cognitive dissonance as well

I really admire Alex’s goodwill when talking to Christians. I cannot do that, I lose patience very fast.

@R3DASH09

5 жыл бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/mqB3xcGNcZrNp5s.html

@ianmacfarlane1241

5 жыл бұрын

I was going to say that Alain's comment says more about him than it does about Christians.......I was going to say that......then someone linked to a Ray Comfort video......probably one of the most intolerable, disingenuous, dishonest pieces of shit in the Christian World. 'Ashley' proving Alain's point beautifully.

5 жыл бұрын

*Weak minded people lose patience.*

@kaldrake2167

5 жыл бұрын

Rather lose patience then be a pretentious snob who calls others weak minded for being human.

5 жыл бұрын

*I would rather be a realist than an overweight virgin keyboard warrior sweating on his computer and triggered on the internet because his mom hasn't cleaned out his shit bucket yet.* *Insert coin[s] to try again.*

These two guys are two of my favorites in this whole realm.

Alex has some very solid lines of approach

@danielosetromera2090

2 жыл бұрын

Actually, no. Lots of false dichotomies and grasping at straws.

@Gumpmachine1

2 жыл бұрын

@@danielosetromera2090 easy to say, harder to demonstrate. At best the theistic argument was why we may of made the god concept up

I didn't watch this whole video nor did I pay attention to everything that I did watch of it, but I still give it a thumbs up because this is a perfect example of how to treat each other when we disagree. The more our species can engage in discussions that are conducted in such a respectful manner as this, maybe progress can be made and also perhaps changing someone's point of view for the better of ourselves. It's wonderful but also unfortunate that to witness something like this, is refreshing.

@yetanotherperson6436

5 жыл бұрын

That's an unexpected comment from someone who calls themselves 'I cum and go'. It just goes to show; don't be too quick to judge.

"This episode of the cosmic skeptic podcast is braught to you by... EU"

@hansb1337

5 жыл бұрын

Take that Brexiteers! /s

@KewlAidTime

5 жыл бұрын

@@hansb1337 Checkmate atheists

@JohnDoe-gy3yy

3 жыл бұрын

The EU sponsoring godless barbarians as usual hehe

@dadafish1

3 жыл бұрын

@Damian Sauce i dont give 2 fucks who dead people love.

@dadafish1

3 жыл бұрын

Hey simple pimple.. you sure are a dummy.

This is how these sort of discussions should be had. Gives me so much hope to see a young person being mature and calm and capable of hosting a well planned, organized conversation with someone of an opposing view. Thank you for the stimulating video!

I enjoyed your conversation with Justin Brierley. Whenever I have any talk with a theist I always begin by asking if their belief in god started at a young age. Did they begin going to church at as a child. We’re they told that if they engaged in an action that was unacceptable, they would be tortured for eternity in hell. That fear is so deeply indoctrinated in them that to give up that belief takes an enormous amount of self reflexion and teachings. However, when asked if they believed in Santa Claus growing up as a child they found it very easy to give up that belief because there was no fear of repercussions. Fear is an extremely challenging emotion to rid oneself.

@buckchile614

Жыл бұрын

To me, catching them young is akin to smoking; once caught it's extremely difficult to stop

i like the friendly conversational debates, it feels more like a cooperation trying to find the truth instead of competition one problem with him saying god choosing humanity gives humans a feeling of dignity is that it intrinsically makes other groups worth less in their eyes even if they're similar. this is probably a significant reason why christians and muslims never had a large vegan population

@notwhatiwasraised2b

5 жыл бұрын

The ONE PROBLEM in all of this is the presupposition that god(s) even could exist.

@jamesgossweiler1349

5 жыл бұрын

Not exactly. Scripture shows that God values all people...even non-Christians. This is the message in the parable of the Good Samaritan, the Book of Jonah, and many others.

@notwhatiwasraised2b

5 жыл бұрын

@@jamesgossweiler1349 Scripture does 'show' anything. It's the claim, not the the evidence or proof of the claim. There are other religions with scripture too, and some of them don't value all people. Do those 'show' anything?

@jamesgossweiler1349

5 жыл бұрын

Hi Greg! Interesting point. Even within the Christian community there are two views. Some hold Scripture as the inerrant word of God and "cold fact" and others believe it was written by people "inspired by God." I think the answer is somewhere in the middle. Actually, Scripture shows plenty. Having studied the Bible in the original Hebrew and Koine Greek since the 1970s, I think I'm qualified to make that statement. As for me, I simply believe...I don't need scientific proof. Each has to decide for themselves.

@leonkootstra6301

5 жыл бұрын

@James Gossweiler i think you misread my arguments, i was talking about the treatment of animals and how god choosing humans over them doesn't just give dignity but also blinds them to similarities animals have to humans since it goes against their notion of humans being special. this in turn reduces their capacity to feel empathy for them and makes them justify cruelties that is simply undeserved. that being said, i've met several christians in my christian childhood that claimed we were "chosen" by god to have the correct faith, i know that's not based on scripture but that's the logical consequence of people with low self esteem using scripture to justify propping themselves up. as for scripture itself, there are a lot of statements in the bible that are at best open to all sorts of interpretations so i don't consider it reliable. there is also the problem that once you consider one group not worthy of life based on their genetic background (ea not being human) and inability to defend their moral worth, it opens up the possibility of being open to hurting others which are less capable of that as well. the bible, koran and torah/talmud are great examples showing a real distaste towards consideration for women and children. of course it's also because of other factors at play, but a culture that finds killing/exploiting other beings okay even though they know pain and want to live does not escape spillover effects to other groups.

JB - Can you choose to be convinced of something AO - Yes JB - Okay...choose to not believe in god AO - No...I can't

@alexinhoMelius

5 жыл бұрын

He just answered that in a hurry because he got a different sense from what Alex wanted to point out. That's why he then corrected himself and explained why he can choose to make the action to reason. Btw, Alex's question is irrelevant to the question whether or not free will exists. It's like saying "can you choose the person to love? If not, boom... free will doesn't exist". It doesn't work like that. Yes, there are some things you can't choose, but that doesn't mean free will doesn't exist. It just means that free will doesn't apply to everything. Simple as that.

@Mercure250

5 жыл бұрын

@@alexinhoMelius I'm more radical. I believe that choice is inherently not free. Because there is always something that will make you take an option over the other. Be it reason, desire, morals... you name it. That is my case against free will; will, by definition, is not free. You do not choose how logic works, you do not choose your desires, and I could definitely make the case that, on a fundamental level, you do not choose what morals you have. And since every choice is based on those, choice is inherently not free. At least, definitely not in an absolute sense. You can't go back and just decide to take the other option based on nothing that will compel you to that other option; like, you could do it just to prove me wrong... but then, you do it to prove me wrong, so it's not based on nothing, and therefore, you would be proving me right. So that is my condensed argument against free will. I will be happy to read your counterarguments (unless you do agree, and you were just explaining how that other argument doesn't work).

@tmstani23

5 жыл бұрын

@@alexinhoMelius That point was to show that you cant choose what you believe in or are convinced of not that free will doesn't exist. The claim was that free will allows you to choose to believe in God and he was saying you can't choose to believe not as a proof of free will not existing but to demonstrate that you can't choose what you are convinced of. Though if you can't choose what you believe in it does disprove being able to freely choose God

@iwilldi

5 жыл бұрын

@@Mercure250 What made that stone rolling? I do research and find 10 ways to cause a stone to roll. Now i am the master of causality, who can cause stones to roll. But what made that stone rolling? You must admit, that we have a strong bias towards causality and determinism. That's how we created the mess we are in. But i agree. Most popular debates are beating strawmen. So let's ask differently: Is everything motivated by deterministic causality?

@alexinhoMelius

5 жыл бұрын

​@@Mercure250 I would like to make a premise first. I believe none of us can prove his point, so whatever we say it's just an opinion. Do you agree with that? Saying that, my opinion is that from my point of view your theory is illogical. So, it pretty much depends on what exact logic applies in every human's brain. I disagree with your statement "you don't choose how logic works". My theory is that you can't choose *common* logic, but you can choose your own logic. And your own logic pretty much depends on your IQ, character and how you were raised. Now you would ask me "if everyone has their own logic, why does common logic exist?". Because we have some things in our dna that make us want to have the best possible social life. That means that we biologically tend to imitate others. So, we choose to have a logic that is very close to the logic of the biggest group of people who think similarly (which is called common logic), so that we can have positive, peaceful and comprehensive social relations with other people. Then you could say "but you can't choose your IQ, your character and how you were raised". That is true, but you can choose to change the first 2 of them by changing your life actions. For example studying, have a mental coach, listening to philosophical lectures, etc... All those are results of free will. In the end, I think we may have different definitions of what free will truly is.

This is so great. Both of them stayin so calm and collected like actual adults. Bravo gentlemen

Fine-tuning argument: If things were different then things would be different. Whoop-de-do! The probability of rolling 3 consecutive sixes is the same as the probability of rolling a 1 and then a 2 and then a 5.

@meller7303

5 жыл бұрын

D LJ yes exactly. I always find the fine tuning argument funny - of course if things were different we wouldn’t be here. However, one could imagine the universal laws being slightly different and a different form of life happened. Then they’d say “woah it’s fine tuned for life!” It’s obviously whatever life you find is gonna be fine tuned for the universe it’s in.. else it wouldn’t exist.

@Autists-Guide

5 жыл бұрын

@@meller7303 Indeed. It's the Douglas Adams puddle story. Oh, and I have a naturalistic explanation of morality if anyone is interested.

@guytheincognito4186

5 жыл бұрын

@@meller7303 Yes, fine tuned by natural adaptation through simple things going into less simple things. From a reactionary existence to adaptive change and rivalry with kin and similar, further going into evolution through natural environmental /sexual selective pressures among other things. An in essence elegant yet highly faulty but "Working" natural process, unique only as to the arbitrary point in space time whatever kind of life developed over time.) Design don't exist other than in the minds of people.

@deanlowdon8381

5 жыл бұрын

D LJ Yeah, always seems to me as though they have everything backwards with the fine tuning argument. The universe is the way it is and we are what happened to evolve from that, it wasn’t ‘created’ with us in mind.

@billyskyline570

5 жыл бұрын

It also seems incredibly arrogant to believe the cosmos is finely tuned with us in mind when our own little speck of dust called Earth is largely uninhabitable by humans much less than entire observable universe appearing to be naturally uninhabitable by humans.

As an agnostic, it’s so nice to see the conversation between Christians and Atheists moving in a civil direction. I think every belief or idea that I’ve changed my opinion on, came from a person who showed me respect, and understood that my opinion wasn’t a reflection of my character or day to day behavior. People can hold really strange beliefs, but still be caring and compassionate. So it’s good to separate the human from the ideology.

Fantastic dialogue. I learn twice as much in the same amount of time when two perspectives can bounce off each other. When only a single side is presented, it can be fun to feel like your team is winning, but in reality it builds up an edifice of understanding of only one side of a perspective. If one side is all you learn, later on you can't grasp the opposing perspective, and may find in insensible, rather than recognizing the difficulty of building the corresponding edifice necessary for understanding in your mind. My big takeaway is these are not easy topics. As Cosmic Skeptic has said elsewhere, watching debates is the best way to build ground-level knowledge such that you won't be lopsided.

The moral argument presented here appears to come down to Justin's internal sense of right and wrong, coupled with a distaste of the idea that it may be in some sense arbitrary. All those feelings can be explained naturalistically (by evolution), and whether or not something is uncomfortable has no bearing on whether it's true.

@John-lf3xf

5 жыл бұрын

Thomas Jackson atheist are the ultimate users of ad hoc hypothesis with regard to Darwinian evolution (not to mention in complete ignorance of incompleteness theorems). Pathetic. And also why they’ll never win a debate with a real philosopher.

@anonymousperson1904

5 жыл бұрын

So are you saying that good and evil don't exist apart from our subjective opinions and preferences? If so, how can you make any moral condemnation or criticism of religious morality when all moral opinions are on a par on moral subjectivism?

@hidderaven7890

5 жыл бұрын

@@anonymousperson1904 i'm not sure what you mean by "moral condemnation of religious morlity". If you mean how could we morally condem for example the catholic churches stance on homosexuality. We really could do only two things, say that their stance doesn't fit with our subjective morals and try to, as alex explains, convince them that we all agree to seek pleasure and avoid pain (per definition) and convince them that their stance on homosexuality does not actually help them in the persuit of plesure and the avoidance of pain.

@darkdragonite1419

5 жыл бұрын

@@John-lf3xf your projection is showing

@anthonynorman7545

5 жыл бұрын

That's my exact interpretation

Video Deconstruction: Alex is spot on when he questions where in the evolutionary process god intervened to create humans in his own image. Justin believes god built compassion (and everything else) into humans. But we can arrive at compassion naturally by understanding that compassion evolved in many social species - species dependent upon one another for their survival - a trait without which these species would have gone extinct. No god necessary. Justin goes on to ask atheists to consider why humans think humans have value on a naturalistic worldview. Simply because every species has evolved to generally favor itself over other species, otherwise they would have gone extinct. Humans can just articulate this view better than others. But had dolphins developed the appendages to use complex tools, along with robust communication skills, one dolphin would be asking another dolphin on a PODcast (get it?) why dolphins all think they are so special as a species. Justin later says he believes people just know torturing babies is wrong, but thinks the only grounding can be god because naturalism doesn’t do it. But of course it does! Once you allow for certain traits like compassion and empathy to evolve in a species, you have a natural grounding for an innate sense of wrongness for torturing babies. Furthermore, if two branches of humans broke off from each other long ago, one who brutally tortures their youth, and another which does not, one can reason the psychological and physical impacts of being tortured when young would be detrimental to that society in the long term, thus eliminating the branch of torturing humans from the evolutionary tree. I do have to disagree with Alex when he seems to simplistically ground morality in the subjective pleasure/pain dichotomy. Just looking at it through this lens, it isn’t robust enough to ground our morality as a species. He does hint at something more when he briefly talks about making the case that rape is objectively less pleasurable on a grander scale, but needs to flesh this out. He would also wager that a rapist alone on an island with a victim wouldn’t truly find pleasure in raping. Prisons are full of rapists who enjoyed raping and would go on raping absent being caught. Rape of defeated societies was also widespread and commonplace throughout history (including the bible). So human morality cannot be boiled down so simply to just pleasure vs. pain, but rather our morality is a combination of inherent evolved traits (such as empathy and compassion) combined with an intellectual structuring of ethical rules. For example, as a thinking agent, I can see that other humans are also thinking agents, and therefore I can imagine myself in their shoes. Employing a veil of ignorance suggests that, when considering morality, we should imagine ourselves as both the rapist and the victim. While the rapist may indeed derive pleasure from the act of raping, the victim derives pain. This is an observable fact. So, we need an additional perspective beyond just subjective pleasure and pain when considering human interactions. To paraphrase Jefferson, we need to consider that all humans have evolved equally, and thus, to be consistent, should be considered equal regarding moral considerations. With this principle, we can see why the Nazi’s were immoral for torturing and killing Jews (because the Jews were not any less human despite claims to the contrary). We can see why slavery in the bible and elsewhere is and always has been wrong (because no human is elevated to treat another human as property), etc. There is more to be said, but this begins to address why I think Alex’s assessment of morality is too simplistic as expressed in the video. To Justin’s point, we can objectively assess other societies that devalue women and recognize that there is an artificial limit placed on the women of that society. Coming from a society which places higher values on women and individual liberties, we have an empirical basis for assessing which system is preferred given humans have evolved equally and thus there is no basis to treat them unequally. For example, few women (or men for that matter) in a free society where they are valued equally would choose to subjugate themselves to men and abandon many of their liberties to a less free society. Alternately, we can see many people have tried to escape oppressive societies to relatively more free societies all the time. And it is this empirical, comparative component which is what allows human morality to improve over time. Once we have an understanding that we are all equally human and all value liberty, pleasure, and wellbeing, and that we, as a species, are in charge of our own moral landscape, the notion of a god becomes superfluous and, can in fact, pollute the discussion. Lastly, free will. Justin simply asserting that he could make a different decision than the one he made if the clock was rolled back is simply an assertion without any means of demonstration. If all the factors which exist at time T lead you to choose A over B, then you would have to somehow introduce a new factor which didn’t originally exist at time T that would lead you to choose B over A if you could run the experiment again going back to time T. The set of all factors which led you to choose A over B in the first place would not and could not change if you could somehow go back to time T. Case closed. Overall, this video represents a fantastic, civil discussion between an atheist and a Christian which was far more productive in generating food for thought than most structured debates in my opinion. Well done!

@daviddeida

3 жыл бұрын

One could argue humans have dignity to see not only they are special other species are special and valuable, more so than any other species in its relationship with other species..Compassion and empathy can be evolutionary,however it must have developed very quickly in order to be valued and taken hold..It is after all allocating care for your survival and that of another.What really caused that?The inherent realization that I am not seprate from my surroundings.The Q being..were those traits already inside of us as the christian believes or are they caused because humans recognized the pleasure..I will go for inherent,dormant qualities that awakened due to circumstance rather than learned behavior.

@pipjaynegray

2 жыл бұрын

oh my gosh thank you for writing this, i was thinking so many of these points and i was kinda shocked Alex didn't make them

This comment section is disappointing. For all the intelligence that's supposedly there, it's sad to see people not engaging in the arguments at all. Yes, he believes in God, so what you, the critical listener, should take away isn't "omg guy so stupid", but rather "Why does he believe?" This doesn't mean that he is objectively right (that neither can be is acknowledged in the first few minutes) - but for real, people, try to engage with an argument you don't agree with. I mean, I'm an outspoken atheist, but the guest does have a worldview that's way more solid than mine.

@TheMrfrodough

5 жыл бұрын

The fine tuning argument has been a joke the entire time it has existed.

@darkdragonite1419

5 жыл бұрын

No. I listened to a good 1/2 hour of the podcast. His ONLY argument is ‘it’s the best explanation for this”... Abductive reasoning only gets one so far. He arguments are all shit

@Fs3i

5 жыл бұрын

@@TheMrfrodough It's a highly complicated argument that I personally don't find convincing. But the fact is, as far as we know there is only one universe, and it brought life with it. That can be coincidence, there may be a multiverse with different parameters, there might be something entirely different. If the argument didn't make you pause for at least a short while, I'm not sure you've understood it. Anyway, even if you think this argument is hilariously stupid, the guy's view on the moral argument was the first one that I can actually get behind. ("I think humanitarianism is super important, and so is objectivism - so I chose a world-view that had it as its core") Doesn't mean I'm a Christian now, but I can see how this helps powering through "doubt"

@TheMrfrodough

5 жыл бұрын

@@Fs3i the fine tuning argument is actually incredibly simple and effectively a logical fallacy in of itself.

@OneTrueScotsman

5 жыл бұрын

@@Fs3i The fine-tuning argument really isn't that interesting or persuasive. I'm not sure how you were given a pause for thought. First of all, we have no way of knowing that the universe could exist in any other form than its present one. We don't have any other to compare it to, to rule out our form of life surviving in another kind, or what other kinds could exist in a different form of universe. Second, the universe isn't fine-tuned for life, if anything it's "fine-tuned" for black holes. Life has, to the extent it can, fine-tuned itself, through the method of evolution, to the environment of the universe. The vast majority of the universe, and indeed, the vast majority of Earth too, is unfit for complex life. The ocean is full of salt. The sun, our main source of heat and life, also causes skin cancer, burns our skin, causes forest fires. And will, one day, completely engulf the first four planets (including the Earth). We find ourselves in the one of the mildest moments in Earth's life, and we've also, over time made it somewhat easier to survive in, but then some of us forget about all the troubles we STILL face, and marvel about how "designed" it is for us. It's ludicrous.

As always, a pleasure and delight to watch and engage with. Its sad that many places on the internet are not so amicable or polite. Awesome video. Much love to everyone. Take care of yourselves.

Just listened to this as a podcast, Alex. Super discussion and a great guest. Keep up the good work.

Don’t forget your short, informative videos. I believe they helped a lot of people with misconceptions. I enjoy your long discourse but miss the videos that got me started with you. Best wishes on your exams.

I saw one of the debates alex has had on his show & i remember being so impressed with this guys moderator skills. I didn't even knw he was Christian. Wow

This was great. I'm so used to hearing Brierly as a moderator/host. I liked hearing his thought process here (as well as yours, Alex). This was a thought-provoking conversation.

The journey of epistomology has become so much more interesting listning to this balanced discussion , wondefull to assertain a coherent and informative insight from both of you .

I wish i could have these convos with the people around me, but its too sensative. Your videos are a vent for me. Thanks for feeding my curiosity.

@willd6215

5 жыл бұрын

I had a conversation about belief with my mother in law and she ended up walking away saying I was being antagonistic

@graveseeker

5 жыл бұрын

There are ways to have these conversations. Look up Street Epistomology.

@pnut3844able

3 жыл бұрын

@I know I’m wrong but, here in America, theists get super defensive. Especially in the bible belt

@toluene21

10 ай бұрын

It'll always be 'too sensitive' w/that mindset/inaction

justin has such a soothing voice. love to see these 2 together

I really appreciate Justin and Alex's candour in this conversation. Its all very grown up to have a civil conversation over subjects that people of faith and non-believers deeply disagree on. i think this approach is long overdue. We can share ideas without discriminating or insulting those on the other side of the isle.

Refreshing to listen to opposing arguments, by two sensible and accommodating people. Well done!

If faith is trust, then call it trust. Dillahunty's good on this point.

@guytheincognito4186

5 жыл бұрын

Faith technicaly has seven definitions, were of I think four were a version of trust and the other two being the biblical version of belief without evidence and the last being the Christian interpretation (excuse)of this same passage. My personal definition of faith is simply this, it's nothing more than another term for intellectual dishonesty.)

@TKK0812

5 жыл бұрын

@@guytheincognito4186 Can you tell me where and how you arrived at these "biblical" definitions?

@guytheincognito4186

5 жыл бұрын

@@TKK0812 One is directly stated in the Bible as mentioned, the other is simply the subjective interpretation of said passage by the average Christian. Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" Hebrews 11: 1. To see a thorough explanation of the seven definition and their meaning, just go to rationality rules channel and his video on faith and it's definitions. I think the video should still exist. He lost alot of videos like a year or so ago, I don't know the details regarding that however so I can't say anything about whatever happened.

@TKK0812

5 жыл бұрын

@@guytheincognito4186 Thanks for the response, Guy. So I would quickly disregard discussing a colloquial definition given the vast amount of data we have from the Bible and secular works on the socioeconomic system of client patron reciprocity and how writers of the biblical text would have described or understood grace and faith. In regards to the Hebrews 1 passage, I'm confused as to how you go from this passage to "believing without evidence". The word translated “substance” comes from the Greek hupostasis (Strong’s # 5287), which means “a placing or setting under, a substructure or foundation.” This word appears elsewhere in the New Testament as “confident” or “confidence” (2 Corinthians 9:4; 11:17; Hebrews 3:14). The word translated “evidence” comes from the Greek word elengchos (Strong’s #1650), meaning “a proof, or that by which a thing is proved or tested; conviction.” The context in question deals not with deciding whether or not a god or the supernatural exist, it's regarding trusting God based off evidence and confidence in His revelation to us and our trust towards Him. Read the whole chapter. Look at verse 29. It talks about Moses, by faith, going through the split Red Sea as if on dry land. How in the world would that be classified as "belief without evidence"? It's because that's not at all what the word means. Biblical faith comes from careful observation and the weighing of all available evidence to trust God, not just believe He exists. People are sent to prison every day for crimes no one saw them commit. Would you say they are sent off belief without evidence because we didn't see the crime committed? No, it's comes from an examination of evidence. Now you may disagree with the evidence available being justified, but just don't misrepresent faith because your definition is indefensible, anachronistic, and not biblical.

@ryanbolton5992

5 жыл бұрын

@@TKK0812 You just redefined the definition to mean the same thing. Faith is "the confidence in things hoped for, the proof of things not seen." This is the new passage with your "corrected" definitions. You would be correct in stating that the passage isn't arguing whether god exists but rather that we must have faith in him given that he does, but that's the problem, you're assuming a given. You can't have "faith" in something performing an action if you can't even prove it exists yet. Well, you can, but that would be stupid. Regarding your example of Moses, belief without evidence is exactly what occurred. Moses had never split the red sea before, and he had never seen god do it, therefore he had no evidence outside of god's word, (so no tangible evidence), that the water would clear away at all. He, by definition, acted on faith. You are committing the fallacy that was quoted by Dillahunty at the start of this thread. You're just redefining faith to mean trust. In that case just call it trust. "Biblical FAITH comes from careful observation and the weighing of all available EVIDENCE to trust God." You have contradicted yourself within the same sentence. Having faith in evidence is just trusting evidence. You can't have faith in evidence. The statement is a paradox. Your prison example fails for the same reason. We can't see air or gravity, yet we have instruments that can detect both and we can see them in action immediately with a simple jump from the ground. Our hair will move in contact with the air, and we will come back down to earth thanks to gravity. We don't have faith that we will come back down to the ground. We have a trust in physics that we will.

I’m late to the party, but I love this video! The friendly, respectful debate here puts a smile on my face every 5 minutes.

@nenmaster5218

2 жыл бұрын

I talked with some Atheists and we came to an interesting Result: Atheists dont have this 'inherent desire to spread their word', which of course is UNDERSTANDABLE buuut it also has negative side-effects, evidend by Atheist-Channel generally being smaller than theist-channel. So i think we should all self-reflect here.

🤯 Alex, your mind is incredibly fascinating. I love your show, love your logic and I'm just over all impressed with the patience and calmness you exhibit when I'm on my phone rolling my eyes (not at you) after you explain your clearly made, logical response for the 4th time, lol.

Clear & comprehensive debate. Love the way they both debate!

Free will (at around 1:24:00) I would think of it like this. You cannot choose not to be convinced. Even if you weigh up the evidence, and go through the process as Justin suggests, once you are there were you are convinced, and you say to "Alright, I have weighed all the evidence and I am convinced X is more likely true". You cannot then go "You know what - I am convinced, but I am going to choose to not be convinced. So now I am no longer convinced." So .. Alex is right, the way I see it.

@hester234

5 жыл бұрын

You cannot even choose the thoughts you have. As soon as they appear, they are already there. You didn't pick them.

@matthew8720

4 жыл бұрын

@@hester234 RIght but when a situation arises in your circumstance and multiple thoughts and solutions pop into your head and you ponder them and weigh them and go with the one you believe is the best are you not choosing which one to execute or embrace? Did you not contemplate how to word your response, whether not to answer at all, whether it was worth you time, whether to proof read your response or not, whether you are going to dismiss on dwell on what I am asking you and whether I am even worth answering? I feel like there are more layers to the whole concept of free will then yes or no. Humans seem more complex and beautiful then this. Do you disagree?

@hester234

4 жыл бұрын

@@matthew8720 Humans are very complex and beautiful, but they don't need to have illusions about free will. We are part of nature and as such we as organisms and each of our cells follow the laws of nature. We are not above them. Of course you can ponder, and decide, and choose, and contemplate - nobody says you can't do that. "No free will" doesn't mean "no will". Every single little step you experience, f.e. when making a decision, is yet another thought that arose in your brain. A thought you didn't author. A thought that was just there. You can think about your decision for hours or days or months, but every thought that you have must appear first before you even notice that it's there. There is no freedom in having your next thought. But it shouldn't bother you, it can't be any other way and your will remains unbroken. It's just not supernaturally floating above the laws of nature :)

@matthew8720

4 жыл бұрын

Too hot out here Right but you still get to choose which thought you want to act out in many situations based on what you value. And a lot of values are built from habitual choices. Call that whatever you will. We don’t have to call it free will. We still have to choose between things. Though one can argue between how many layers there are to such things.

@hester234

4 жыл бұрын

@@matthew8720 Of course we choose but every choice is yet another thought that arises. Every single one, no matter how often you switch between A and B, each time it is a thought that simply appears. You didn't author it. Logic itself can IMO only exist in a deterministic universe. You cannot freely choose that 2+2=4, either you understand that 2+2=4 or you don't understand it, but anyway you didn't choose to understand or to not understand it, you simply do or don't. If you choose to learn math, this decision is a thought that appears due to prior causes. Again, I don't think this fact diminishes any beauty or complexity we appreciate about the human mind. There is agency, it's just not detached from causality and only a small percentage of it is happening/appearing in consciousness.

It seems as if many of Justin's beliefs are held in part because of his discomfort with the contrary. I was hoping Alex would ask him: "Why do I need Jesus?" It would have been interesting to see if Justin would be comfortable to reply: "Because if you don't believe in Jesus, you are heading straight to hell".

@seeinggrey7945

4 жыл бұрын

But the Christian view isn’t about that, it’s not about fear of going to hell, we don’t want people to become Christian because we don’t want them to go to hell, rather we can see a light in. Em and opportunity in heaven

@StevenDavisPhoto

4 жыл бұрын

I'm a Christian. I would say because life is more fulfilling and joyful when you're living the way God designed you to. That's the selfish reason at least.

@ohdehhan

2 жыл бұрын

@@seeinggrey7945 I've heard that said alot, but also the phrases 'my Saviour', 'I'm saved', 'my salvation', etc. From what? It boils down to going to Heaven or going to Hell, regardless of how more fulfilling your live is as a Christian or not.

I really like and respect Justin and think his show is a great way for the general public to interact with these ideas. Props for having him on, and I'd love to see you on his show more Alex.

Hi Alex. I know this might sound a bit weird...but what mic arms are you using for your podcast?

I've changed my mind about the ability to reason without freewill. I thought it wasn't possible, but Alex has convinced me otherwise. Instead, I now believe you can reason if there is no freewill. You just can't know if your reasoning is leading you to the truth or not.

@notwhatiwasraised2b

5 жыл бұрын

Sleep, diet, coffee, life experience and the like may influence our "will" to some extent, so I don't know if we have true "free will", but I almost no doubt we have some degree of "will", or "won't" if you prefer.

@eoghan.5003

2 жыл бұрын

Do you think we choose what to believe?

I would love a video in which you lay down your objections to the Argument from Reason.

@ivorystinkershack3422

5 жыл бұрын

Watch the debate between him and a muslim then

@tmk7301

5 жыл бұрын

@@ivorystinkershack3422 Mohammed Hijab ? I watched the debate ,and I don't remember them discussing it.

Best conversation ever from two people who completely disagree! I wish all of our disputes in the world could be handled this well.

Fantastic discussion, really enjoyed.

I was thinking about this very question today ... Obviously I clicked immediately when I saw this

Did Justin offer anything other than Argument From Incredulity supporting his claim that reason's validity is dependent on free will existing? I remember hearing him say repeatedly that reason's trustworthiness depends on free will, and that he can't understand how we could trust logical conclusions without the ability to choose between options, but I don't remember hearing any evidence or examples, only assertions. Did I miss something? I found Alex's example of the inability to believe something on command useful, and was disppointed that Justin apparently brushed it off instead of addressing it directly.

@theunrepentantatheist24

2 жыл бұрын

he said at then end that free will choices would still be needed to get to the stage of being convinced by something which Alex is saying is something you cannot choose. All total nonsense of course. Im afraid the Darth Dawkins presup disease is spreading.

Thanks for having Justin on the Show... interesting conversation.

Great discussion, really enjoyed it and would love to hear you two talk again. That said I really feel that any discussion about morality or free will should start with both parties clearly defining what they mean by those terms. I really feel you spent most of the discussion talking past each other as you were using different definitions for those terms.

Didn't catch a word, I've just been staring at that wallpaper.

@WyattCayer

4 жыл бұрын

Dude, same!

@bnpixie1990

3 жыл бұрын

It's hard not to stare at it! I really love the pattern

"You cant convince Genghis Khan with your world view, he would just say I don't care." But isnt this exactly how it would play out with your "Objective" view? The truth is that the only evidence for morality being objective is that you REALLY want it to be b/c it would just suck if it wasn't... In fact the world looks suspiciously like morality is subjective.

@mordec1016

5 жыл бұрын

Eric Mitchell no, that's not true. Look up phenomenal conservatism, and try a book like Ethical Intuitionism by Michael Huemer.

@MultiCappie

5 жыл бұрын

Why would we take Gengis Khan's moral framework as an example of his culture? Every culture has its psychopaths.

@1StepForwardToday

4 жыл бұрын

Dignity is an objectively true moral law. It applies equally to all, and everyone benefits from it (individually, universally and collectively).

@1StepForwardToday

4 жыл бұрын

@@stylis666 Dignity is an objective true moral.

@stylis666

4 жыл бұрын

@@1StepForwardToday objectively* But you're using the word _objective_ as true for all people and the universe is more than people. If you say that dignity is an objectively true moral for people, I agree. If you say it's objectively true I disagree because morals are just not universal. I don't think a male spider is very dignified when it masturbates and brings his semen to the female, losing more legs with every attempt. The spiders don't need morals, as long as the male has enough legs left to succeed in his delivery. I suppose dignity is important for other social animals as well. Probably not for all of them, but as vain as my cat is, I think it's safe to assume it's important for her as well :p Nah, I was actually more considering the death ceremonies some animals have, but I think my cat isn't even such a bad example to support your position. It's just not a very large sample size. (Don't tell my cat I said that; she thinks she's a sufficient sample size to make all judgement in her favour :p)

This was an exceptionally epic discussion ! The patience and determination (and intelligence!) from both sides allows for a much deeper and more rigorous form of inquiry, getting to the root of disagreement. I particularly enjoyed Alex's thought experiment about turning back the clock to where all atoms were in the exact same state/position and posing the question to Justin of whether he believed the outcome could have been any different for the observer, ie whether or not "independent" thought could influence material outcome. I think that they could very well have touched on what is also a fundamental question in Science, namely wave-particle duality and the influence of the observer in collapsing the wave. The deeper we go into fundamental particle physics (eg, quantum mechanics), the less classic/concrete things behave based on our normal and intuitive understanding of the otherwise physical and mechanical universe. Shrodinger's cat, double slit experiment, and all of that. We have good reason to believe that all of matter conforms to the EM spectrum, and is therefore all fundamentally a manifestation of waves, even if our senses seem to suggest otherwise. This lends credence to the notion that thought/faith precedes form/outcome, thereby strengthening the rational case/justification for believing, from a Scientifically-supported point of view, in the existence of God and His claim of being the Great "I AM", the Alpha and Omega who is the causal/metaphysical necessity (ie, Creator) beyond the constraints of all space and time. I think the bottom line here, is that even if the theist is being overly optimistic about his assessment, a truly informed atheist should have no place mocking him with ridicule or condescending arrogance, which is anything but what we see from our god-less peers who are evidently therefore unsophisticated/uninformed, assertive village idiots for the most part. Barring Alex and anyone who thinks like him, that is :) I've never heard anyone do such a great job at making the notion of a lack in belief in freedom of the will (which on the face of it, seems patently absurd) sound so convincing, as CS does

Best debate I've had the honour to see so far :D

i must congratulate you CosmicSkeptic to be such a nice debater.

I've been hearing arguments for Christianity for over 35 years and I'm equally unconvinced.

@jamesgossweiler1349

5 жыл бұрын

Being a believer isn't something one gets "convinced" about...it's something you discern with your heart.

@3MrNiceGuy15

5 жыл бұрын

@@jamesgossweiler1349 To believe is to accept that a statement is true which is the same as being convinced something is true. If you believe in a god you are convinced god is real. If you believe chocolate is better than vanilla you are convinced as such.

@jamesgossweiler1349

5 жыл бұрын

Yes, one is "imputed" and the other is "actual." Convinced is belief, not actual knowledge.

@3MrNiceGuy15

5 жыл бұрын

@@jamesgossweiler1349 Who said it was knowledge?

@wakeupcall8188

5 жыл бұрын

Benjamin Schooley Are you sure you heard them May be they were just passing through your ears Have you tried anything you have heard in open heart or you already know what’s coming Think about brother

great vid guys, really enjoyed this one!

I had no choice but to comment lol great talk guys. Thank you so much for the great content. Both of you!

Please have a talk with God is Grey. She is very respectful.

@angelica5813

5 жыл бұрын

Respectful yes, saved no

@ayeyobro3748

5 жыл бұрын

Angelica Gatis she’s a much better person than most Christians tbh

So he has a problem with atheists saying that we lack belief because rocks and plants also lack belief? Really? Come on. The word “bald” means not having hair. Rocks and plants don’t have hair. Does that mean the word bald is also invalid because rocks and plants are bald? Really? Am I the only one who thinks this sort of objection is absurd? That would be like walking into a party and asking me who in the room is married, and then I point to a lamp because the lamp isn’t married.... Sorry I just can’t.

@IllustriousCrocoduck

5 жыл бұрын

Tracy Harris calles that the "ick factor" - people tend to dislike being compared the rocks, and obviously when it comes to intelligent, we are very different from rocks. It is just a knee-jerk reaction "oh, we aren't rocks therefore the argument must be absurd". But of course a moment's thought shows THAT to be absurd.

@knowitallblogger441

4 жыл бұрын

Fallacy of false equivalence

@alasanoei

4 жыл бұрын

How can Alex keep a straight face with all these Christians. I couldn't.

@mrseph007

4 жыл бұрын

Metalli Vegaani maybe that’s because you don’t have enough intelligence to do anything else

@alasanoei

4 жыл бұрын

@@mrseph007 Yeah, I know Alex is more intelligent than I am. But that... is pretty awesome regardless.

Hey @CosmicSkeptic, I'm a Christian, but every time I've seen your videos I've truly admired the charity and respect with which you engage others. It really makes you stand out, among both atheists and Christian thinkers. It's truly an inspiration. You make it clear that you are genuinely looking for truth, not just to win an argument. I really hope that journey takes you to amazing places over the course of your life.

Great discussion! love the topics and your arguments. i hope some of them had an impact on Justin.

@SamD-th5tg

3 жыл бұрын

I hope some of them had an impact on the cosmic skeptic

Great discussion, Alex. I particular liked how clearly and precisely you pressed the issue of free will.

A computer has no free will, but it can play a good game of chess.

@qetoun

4 жыл бұрын

Explain the HAL 9000 then!!!!!

@andrewdouglas1963

4 жыл бұрын

Only after being programmed by an intelligent being.

@Uxorious

4 жыл бұрын

@@andrewdouglas1963 I don't think that takes away from what I said. Decisions can be made by electrons flowing around a circuit, a good game of chess is played, without any laws of physics being violated. The computer can assess its environment (the chess board) and make good decisions and even rival a grandmaster chess player. Yes, an intelligent being programmed the computer, but the programmer didn't impart free will on the machine, they didn't impart a supernatural element to it. It shows that if you configure nature in certain ways it can then do quite surprising things, totally unexpected (to me) from the underlying laws of physics.

@DimitriPappas

3 жыл бұрын

Moot point. The computer is programmed to play the game of chess. It doesn't think, it processes. Difference. By saying "the programmer didn't impart free will on the machine, they didn't impart a supernatural element to it", besides for basically making an implicit admission that the programmer has a sense of free will in the first place, you're also thereby implying that there is a fundamental difference between the way the computer processes, and the programmer thinks, because they actively CHOSE not to impart that thing, called free will. Imagine talking about this thing called "free will", and understanding its very concept and relevance, yet denying that it exists in any way. Seems alarmingly self-defeating and irrational, even if you do believe that it can be rationally accounted for in a deterministic world!

@Uxorious

3 жыл бұрын

@@DimitriPappas You seem to have come to my post with a lot of baggage. I'm not claiming half the things you think I am. For example I didn't say there was no such thing as free will. You also need to understand what an internal critique is: Even if there is free will and/or a supernatural world we still don't think we can impart these attributes on to our chess computer. I was just highlighting this point "It shows that if you configure nature in certain ways it can then do quite surprising things, totally unexpected (to me) from the underlying laws of physics." The laws of physics can play a mean game of chess. I'm not even claiming that human thinking is the same as a computer programme.

i love hearing both sides of the debate and many times hear an argument that i don't believe. and find that i enjoy it and listen to it and agree with it more or better i guess u could say when it is presented in a calm adult manner and in a well thought out way.i am more likely to listen to it and consider it when it is done that way. unlike calling names and making fun of the other side i listen to reason from both sides and look at what has been shown from both sides of the point and try to make a decision for my self on the subject. i love that u both have shows that respect the other side and debate not like children but like adults the subjects. i m a non believer but will watch both shows from now on and tell others about them . ty

Justin and you are a really nice combo for a chill discussion

And God said- "let there be wallpaper.. let it be even more trippy than the old set of draws"

@eulyssey

3 жыл бұрын

😂

@theyellowmeteor

3 жыл бұрын

And the wallpaper was blue and God saw that it is the best color.

What if we don't need a god to tell us that we have value and simply agree on it? Adding a God to agree on does not seem necessary. Furthermore, it's not as if that God put value on all people in the bible (slavery in both NT and OT, disregard to women, if not complete genocide), so I find saying this comes from the Bible disingenuous.

@John-lf3xf

5 жыл бұрын

François Plesse What you are saying is an entirely subjective value judgement. Furthermore, you could level the same argument as John Locke against your argument. Why do you feel you have the right to have no concrete justification for anything yet tell people what is or is not good morality?

@francoisplesse8010

5 жыл бұрын

​@@John-lf3xf I would only partly agree with you: the foundation for the moral system I find most convincing is well-being (from human beings to sentient animals to all living organisms, the line has to be drawn somewhere which can also be discussed). This in itself is I would agree subjective. However if two people agree on that foundation, then what conclusions you can draw from that are completely objective, and I would argue much easier to test than morality from a book written thousands of year ago with very different issues and subject to mistranslation and so on). So I would say that I have a concrete justification for my morality and it is this justification that makes me criticize the morality that would be drawn from a litteral reading of the Bible. And if people are not litterally taking their morality from it, then they are basing theirs on something else. And finally, I think that making people agree on well being is much more reasonable than to agree on a version of a God to which I have presented with no compelling evidence. Could you explain what the argument from John Locke is ? Also, where do you think I'm wrong ?

@John-lf3xf

5 жыл бұрын

François Plesse You may feel like your Rousseauan social contractionism less arbitrary than morality derived from a thousand year old book, but that’s just not the case. Also what about it multiple people agree on the same thousand year old book? John Locke said atheists cannot be trusted because they have no transcendental reason for doing anything.

@francoisplesse8010

5 жыл бұрын

​@@John-lf3xf So what about the parts in the Bible that many of these people choose to thankfully ignore ? On what ground are they choosing to do that ? Well, John Locke was wrong, you can choose rational atheists to be convinced that this social contract will work in their interest and to uphold it. Also empathy is a thing. Transcendental reasons can be so fickle and chosen to mean whatever people want, so I wouldn't rely on those for trusting people, especially when some of them think that they get a free entry into a new life.

@John-lf3xf

5 жыл бұрын

François Plesse Transcendental means that which is outside oneself, and since it is unprovable and untestable, belief in it means very fundamental passionate belief

Realy enjoyed the good-spirited conversation. I love the "unbelievable?" show because Justin is an honest, humble, and great mediator and I think you have won me as a subscriber due to similar characteristics Alex. There is a lot of toxicity that goes around in conversations like this and it immediately shuts people down when they sense it, just read youtube comments if you don't believe me.

Awesome vid, man Much love from 🇨🇦

About time you released another podcast! lol

Wow good discussion! First time I haven’t been extremely frustrated by the christian side. Brierly’s arguments were not logical but he atleast was honest and respectful! Very refreshing! This thing with free will is interesting but in the end doesn’t really matter, wether we have it or not, reality stays the same. And basicly - if O’Connor’s argument is true we can’t choose our actions and if Brierly’s God is real this god already knows what our actions were gonna be in the first place AKA we were gonna do them no matter what. They both get to the same result?

@nicosanmiguel3761

2 жыл бұрын

Brierlu believes there is free will regardless of the fact god knows what we’re going to do; not the same result

@nilsbossiusklintenberg3623

2 жыл бұрын

@@nicosanmiguel3761 such a long time since I wrote this comment I don’t really remember the context. :p But ok, Brierly thinks we have free will. But my point (I think) was that if all our actions were known before the creation of the universe then it’s not like we could have done otherwise. So God shouldn’t be able to judge us for what we do wrong - he created us knowing all the bad things we were gonna do and has done nothing to change that - so every person not going to heaven is because God thinks this is right.

Justin is always an honest and courteous host and moderator, he does a great job, and I thoroughly enjoy his show. It was great to see him in more of an active role in the conversation here. Thanks for having him on.

@notwhatiwasraised2b

5 жыл бұрын

he's not being honest here

@twstdelf

5 жыл бұрын

@@notwhatiwasraised2b How so? I don't see him being dishonest, I see him disagreeing and not being convinced by Alex's arguments (even though I think he should be, as I am also on Alex's side here).

@notwhatiwasraised2b

5 жыл бұрын

@@twstdelf Justin knows that 'atheist' means nothing more than not believing god claims, but he wants to attach a lot of other things to 'atheist' so that he can launch his practiced assault on whatever he attaches to atheism. Then he asks the atheist to defend a worldview s/he may not subscribe to or have thought much about. Then he reclassifies the person as 'agnostic' and proposes some form of divinely revealed knowledge the 'agnostic' can't match. Then he claims victory of his 'rational' and 'reasonable' conclusion that god(s) must have done it. What's honest about that? He's been at this for years and he know better than the misrepresentations he is making here. So I am left to interpret his misrepresentations as a desperate attempt to straw-man the 'atheist' as an agnostic lacking meaning, purpose and/or 'objective' morality. Muslims can claim 'objective' morality just the same and some of that morality will be very different than the Christian's.

Hi Guys, I've just watched this entire video. Very good conversation despite of the deadlock you guys had. I very much enjoyed the bits about the problem of evil. I've seen very few good conversational material about it. If you guys can do more of it, or point me in the direction of more, I certainly would love it. I've wrestling with it for a while.

I just went here to like the video (as a little form of support) but I'm going to listen to it on Spotify. Edit: I just think that morality will always be subjective on some levels. For atheist: subjective on which desires to act upon. For Theists: subjective on the level of choosing a God, which morality they are going to practice.

Bloody awesome discussion 👏🏽👍 In particular the issues around free will. Jordan Peterson (not a fan) once stated he acts as if god exists. I act as if free will exists.

Superb podcast. I lold when Alex asked, 'why the hell are we playing chess?'. I ask myself a similar question most days.

Hey, I really appreciate the thoughtfulness you put into your videos. I’m a Christian (I promise I actually think tho), but I’m readily aware that we’ve gotten thrown into a world where there doesn’t seem to be great answers from even the people claiming to have them all, and maybe especially them, so it’s applaudable that you are searching. Anyway, I’ve been following your thought on the ‘force’ behind our life and just wanted to run a thought by you. So, you have said “there is some kind of unseen law that governs the fine-tuning of the universe” and then, “I argue it’s some kind of undiscovered law of physics…” That’s basically where I got with the reasoning out of human life. Like, evolution or whatever had to have some force upon matter to propel it forward. The difference between that and something like a God is the question of intent. Like, does it know it is doing that, or does it have a purpose or reasoning behind its force for life (reasoning coming from a form of mind). It seems like you would agree the question is obviously, “Is this force self-aware?” And so, how do you know if something is self-aware? I think you can only know if it talks to you (at least, if we’re using our logic, which is all we have to go by), maybe there’s a different way though, idk? Regardless, if communication is the way to know intent, then the only real proof one could have for a personal force is by the force communicating with them. Christians make the claim that the force talked to them in our own medium as well as proved he was the ‘force’ by overriding the laws of our universe (death), so it seems like that actually is the only natural step for a God to make, if in fact he is the purposeful force behind our universe. I guess the claims of Jesus’ resurrection would be the next thing to look at? If they are fake then I don’t really see any evidence for the unseen force talking to us, though I’ve looked at psychedelics a little and maybe dreams - the resurrection seems more straightforward though. But, I actually think there is pretty solid evidence for that force communicating with us (basically Jesus). If you have any thoughts on this it would be much appreciated. Like I said, I am a Christian, but I care to be very solid on what I do with my life and so I like my beliefs challenged. I think the video I quoted was 3+ years old though, so I imagine you’ve had some new thoughts on this since then?

All my life I was an atheist so it's hard for me to understand fully how come one believe in God. But because I was experiencing the illusion of free will myself, that part I can understand why people have hard time giving up. It's just such a strong illusion, it was hard to give up that myself. But if one has to honestly follow where evidence points to, it's even harder to stick to it. How come so many theists claim that their so called spirit cannot be demonstrated by scientific methods, if most of them claim that at some point that undetectable, non-material thing may change the flow of the atoms in his brain in a different direction and therefore affect physical world? That is by definition something that science can test against existing physical laws that govern unconscious materials and matter. Alex, I am a relatively new subscriber. You are awesome, thank you. I wish I found you channel earlier. Keep up good work brother. Cheers ;)

@jordanb1153

5 жыл бұрын

But you still act as though you have free will right? I lean towards free will not existing when I think about it, but my day consists of me believing that Ive got free will and that I'm making decisions.

@KemoHay

5 жыл бұрын

@@jordanb1153 Exactly. I mean, I feel proud when I do job well, I feel guilty when I do something bad. That is exactly what makes the illusion so vial. I absolutely agree with you.

@GustAdlph

4 жыл бұрын

@@KemoHay Hello, then do you agree with Richard Dawkins that DNA just is and we dance to its music?

@KemoHay

4 жыл бұрын

@@GustAdlph That would be helpful, if you would reference the source for me to see what he is saying exactly in the context. What do you mean "DNA just is", what else can it do?

@GustAdlph

4 жыл бұрын

@@KemoHay Hello Kemo, thank you for replying to my post. In "A River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life," (1995) Richard Dawkins writes: "DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music." He is a biologist so he is the person to let you know what DNA can do.

I hate how he thinks evolution is random (when he quoted his exchange with Dawkins)...

@TimCrinion

5 жыл бұрын

He is right that evolution gives whatever is *convenient* for survival though. And *convenience* of the belief that rape is wrong does not make it true.

@virnalinebrida-sunga7748

5 жыл бұрын

technically it IS random, because the mutations are random. if the mutations are a benefit, then it passes on, if not, then it dies off.

@iwilldi

5 жыл бұрын

@@virnalinebrida-sunga7748 The genome is selected as a whole package with a wagonload of foul apples.

@TimCrinion

5 жыл бұрын

Why are harmful things wrong?

@wmpratt2010

5 жыл бұрын

@@virnalinebrida-sunga7748 Not true, humans have over 4000 genetic disorders that pass on.

always great videos!

really enjoy you guys. Alex has challenged my beliefs on so many levels and I appreciate that because it has forced me out of a hollow Christianity and into a much deeper dive. Like Justin, I have not been convinced by the counter perspective. Just a thought to add to the discourse: While touching the hot stove, the natural reaction is to pull back away from the stove as to not harm oneself. However, you can override that reaction with will of the mind and leave your hand there full knowing that it will inflict harm. Thus, I am convinced that putting my hand on a stove would cause harm and not be for my betterment but I can by Free Will choose to overcome that convincing fact and inflict harm to myself. Does that hold any weight?

"that definition of agnostic is very wide.." yeah so? You can oppose it to believer it's wide too, I don't get his point...

@chompchompnomnom4256

5 жыл бұрын

I want to believe my dick is bigger

@John-vm2sq

5 жыл бұрын

This is like (a)theism debate 101 too. How do "professional" Christians keep getting this wrong? (A)gnosticism is a question of knowledge and (a)theism is a question on belief. They don't share the same spectrum. Agnostics are not the "middle ground" between theism and atheism. The natural state of a healthy, curious, and skeptical mind will always be that of agnosticism. To argue otherwise is to claim to know things you can't. This is where every single argument for/against God(s) should start. If the theist does not like this definition, then they are moving the goalposts because they won't dare be caught in a situation that deems them as agnostic. And because of that, it's so incredibly easy to point out the bedrock of their entire argument; that they are in fact not operating with a healthy, curious, and skeptical mind. If they can't admit they are agnostic about the question, then there is no debate to be had because they are not operating with a skeptical and open mind. Such a shame that this exercise of having to properly define agnosticism to these "professional" Christians over and over and over. They try to avoid, at all costs, having to admit that they don't know. And that, therein lies, the fundamental problem with their entire worldview. They aren't skeptical at all. It's a facade that is constantly having to be broken down and it's such a shame that the opposing atheist never really hammers this home. The rest of the "debate" means nothing if the theist doesn't understand the difference between (a)gnosticism and (a)theism.

@bnpixie1990

3 жыл бұрын

Someone gave a good response but it reminds me of people who say no one is really bisexual.

Some of the guys in the comments below has mentioned an interesting question whether a person would become christian if it so happened that it became obviously true. My response is "of course not!". Back in early 2k I came to a thought "if there is a supreme being that requires me to worship him, obey him and adore him, then, in my opinion, he is too narcissistic for my taste to have him as my moral compass". A clumsy yet quite true imo thought. So no, that guy will never be one I love and follow, rather I would be scared and kinda depressed that such a personality is all-powered and decides whether I go to eternal torture place rather than eternal bliss one. There are so many good arguments not only based on cruelties of old testament and inhuman things of new one, but from the idea of worshipping and embracing such a personality that imo contradicts itself, that I simply can't accept such faith.

@Tyranastrasza

5 жыл бұрын

That was my response to a christian if proven that god exists. I would accept his existence, but I would not worship him.

@grumpywasp4533

4 жыл бұрын

Yet this God, who you claim to be narcissistic, became flesh like you and me, was born not in a palace but in a stable with farm animals, lived not as a king but as the son of a carpenter, chose to be ridiculed, abused and laughed at most of his adult life and then die a horrendous execution because he loved humanity.

"we live in a society, that is the society in which we live, I am glad to be living in such a society" -Richard Dawkins

Great discussion Alex!

Christian Podcaster POLITELY DESTROYED by Alex O Connor

@georgeabreu6392

5 жыл бұрын

That’s written much in the style of those politically conservative KZread videos.

@NelsonMandela961

5 жыл бұрын

Not at all, he loses the argument.

@darkdragonite1419

5 жыл бұрын

@@NelsonMandela961 how so?

@NelsonMandela961

5 жыл бұрын

@@darkdragonite1419 I think it comes down to the free will argument. How can one say they were thinking rationally if there was no other way in which they could have thought?

@xXRockXLobsterXx

5 жыл бұрын

The British are renowned for their politeness unlike us Americans.

really great talk. I like this guy

@theswissman6255

5 жыл бұрын

time is relative, smh

Two are my favorite folks in this field.

Great discussion, both are reasonable and respectful

I don't see how any reasonable person can read the bible and not realize how much bullshit they have managed to pack in one book. This guy is either a liar or isn't actually listening to the atheist arguments. He's obviously using the skeptic community's good will to increase his brand.

@ddannydaniel3340

5 жыл бұрын

I don’t get. Are you saying Christians aren’t reasonable?

What so many of these discussions and debates ignore is the psychology of belief, which would totally expose the irrational nature of religious belief. You will never accomplish this through philosophical debate because it assumes that both positions are equally valid but they are not. If reason and logic dictate that there are arguments and claims that are more plausible, more probable, more realistic, or more believable, then it can be shown that science has a more valid argument than religion.

Love that discussion about what colour to paint the walls whilst sitting next to that fugly B&M wallpaper!! 🤣 Killer point, though 😎👌

nice, thanks to both for the interesting talk