I appreciate the way the chairs match their shoes. Whoever made that happen, I see you.

@ANONM60D

Жыл бұрын

Hey nice eye!

@tennicksalvarez9079

Жыл бұрын

Best comment ever

@punpai4003

Жыл бұрын

Civilized comment.

@MizzouRah78

Жыл бұрын

Or...it's coincidence.

@ingenuity168

Жыл бұрын

Good observation. 😁

Filming this in heaven was a nice touch

@3magikarpinamansuit281

2 ай бұрын

I know its been a year, but this is funny.

@zissanm3919

2 ай бұрын

😂😂

@maolsheachlannoceallaigh4772

2 ай бұрын

@@3magikarpinamansuit281 after a year and two weeks, it's still funny. Let's come back periodically and see when it stops being funny, if ever.

@Pretty_Fly_White_Guy

Ай бұрын

That’s almost believable 😂 then you see cosmic sceptic is there

@ReligioCritic

6 күн бұрын

​@@Pretty_Fly_White_GuyStrongest evidence against Christianity.

My wife's water broke while listening to this. Just thought you all should know.

@tomyossarian7681

Жыл бұрын

You fornicator you..

@mateusztgorak

Жыл бұрын

Congratulations!

@Skurian_krotesk

Жыл бұрын

Damn hopefully you'll be able to fix her water again...

@joostvanrens

Жыл бұрын

I broke while listening to this

@BigPapiLoc

Жыл бұрын

If you drink it you get superpowers

I’ve been watching cosmic skeptic for a long time and this conversation has really changed my perspective: I too now see Alex as a tall person.

@zootsoot2006

Жыл бұрын

You're not talking intellectually speaking I take it.

@jonathacirilo5745

Жыл бұрын

@@zootsoot2006 it was a joke i think, but why not exactly?

@dade1603

Жыл бұрын

Right?? Damn

@elainewagnon6690

Жыл бұрын

I thought it was funny.

@tsvetanstoychev655

Жыл бұрын

Is 6.1ft (what the hell is wrong with you people still using this atrocious system) considered tall? It's... it seems kind of average to me. Edit: 6.1ft = 186cm... I am 184 and I'm not considered tall nor am I considered short...

So refreshing that there needn’t be a moderator in this debate. No strawmanning, dodging questions, rabbit trailing, or ad hominems. Just two serious thinkers really listening to each other and talking through what they believe. I’m a Protestant Christian but I greatly respect both of these guys.

@electrical_cord

11 ай бұрын

Even as a Catholic, Alex O'Conner is very respectful. Lots of atheists can learn from him in how to have a discussion. And yes, Trent is great. He's always super nice in debates/dialogues.

@pixboi

11 ай бұрын

Yes, this is the climate we need instead of the inflammatory fundamendalist vs. Hitchens age

@thedubwhisperer2157

10 ай бұрын

jaredlowry, what convinced you to select your particular religion out of the many which are available?

@gorb_oron

10 ай бұрын

@@thedubwhisperer2157are you a seeker?

@thedubwhisperer2157

10 ай бұрын

@@gorb_oron A what?

Alex has become my favorite and respectful atheist. He’s sincere and genuine and respectful. He’s definitely an example of someone who disagrees and yet he’s not mocking or insulting the other! Definitely an example for Christian’s as well to follow.

@gideondavid30

Жыл бұрын

He carries himself well. But I can't take him that seriously as a thinker. He is too young for one. Articulate yes, but still young.

@mattheartfollower4123

Жыл бұрын

@@gideondavid30 It's not age that makes one wise.

@TickleMeElmo55

Жыл бұрын

@@mattheartfollower4123 It often does aided with life experience and self-reflection. How many 18-22 yr olds have you met that are wise? Very small percent.

@TickleMeElmo55

Жыл бұрын

@@gideondavid30 This. I think people give him too much credit where there shouldn't be any credit.

@patman142

Жыл бұрын

@@gideondavid30 one of the most silly comments I have seen in a while

Another atheist here. I am also a nonresistant nonbeliever. In fact I used to believe and realized my prior evidences and personal experiences for my beliefs had more natural reasons. I wish you all the best, Internet comrades. Lots of love.

@Calx9

Жыл бұрын

Well said! That matches me perfectly man.

@JesseDriftwood

Жыл бұрын

Samesies.

@TheGreatAgnostic

Жыл бұрын

Yup. Never thought I’d be in those shoes but here we are. Would have liked to hear Alex’s reply about evil in the Bible. That to me is probably my biggest hurdle to belief that Christianity is true. The follow up question was telling of what possibly could be in the Bible that would convince you a loving God didn’t write it.

@joshs2986

Жыл бұрын

Hey mate. Just want to challenge you on nonresistant nonbeliever. I'm not saying your not. In my experience though, lots of people say this and then on reflection realise they were resistant. They had just fooled themselves. Again, not saying you are. Just saying sometimes understanding our own motivations are hard

@alwayslearningtech

Жыл бұрын

@@joshs2986 Hey mate, I'm replying though you didn't comment to me. Leaving Christianity was a struggle that took me around a decade. I was trying to share the good news and prove the truth of Christianity but I kept coming up against evidence against my claims and reasons to doubt. As someone who desperately wished for Christianity to be true, even after no longer believing it, I can tell you that there's many of us out here who truly desired to believe or continue believing, but became convinced otherwise. Sometimes the truth hurts because it's not what you truly desired with all your heart.

00:00 Discussion on philosophy of religion and why Trent Horn is a Christian 05:52 The existence of intrinsic human dignity and morality points towards a divine direction. 16:12 The problem of divine hiddenness and non-resistant non-belief raises questions about the existence of a loving God. 20:43 Religion and politics cannot be simply labeled as good or bad. 35:27 A world that journeys to perfection has more goods in it 44:48 Critiquing the problem of evil in Christianity 49:25 The morality of inflicting suffering for a greater good 58:44 Promoting welfare of mentally handicapped humans over non-human animals 1:03:37 Moral debates involve emotive states and differing moral claims. 1:12:53 The Bible's account of God's revelation is progressive in nature. 1:17:57 People will be judged based on their culpability, not just intellectual inquiry. 1:28:26 The problem of evil and falsifiability of Christianity 1:33:01 The problem of suffering is important and should be taken seriously. 1:42:32 Compensation for suffering may justify allowing evil. 1:47:14 Arguments can increase probability of Christianity being true 1:56:02 The existence of suffering and evil is not a reason to be an atheist.

@Blastoise9000

11 ай бұрын

Thank you so much for these time stamps!

@jgmrichter

10 ай бұрын

Can we get this comment pinned please?

@wolfegaming36

8 ай бұрын

I feel like there needs to be a time stamp to 10:22 but I'm not good at writing a quick little title for it. That's when Alex begins to explain why he is an atheist, starting with the problem of needless suffering.

@lariat_

8 ай бұрын

@ContriteCatholic MVP of the comment section 😎

@lariat_

8 ай бұрын

​@@wolfegaming36yes i think you're right, maybe something like "Religion is a response to human suffering"

It’s lovely that we’re starting to see Alex so much in all places. I’ve been here for a while and absolutely delighted by the recognition he has received.

@joannware6228

Жыл бұрын

The smartest atheists don't remain atheists, but for Alex it's a career.

@Gill1923

Жыл бұрын

@@joannware6228 by that logic Dawkins, Hitchens, Sam Harris and so on arent smart atheists? Lol ok

@joannware6228

Жыл бұрын

@@Gill1923 You forgot Hawking. He was one of the smartest. The other three are smart but maybe not the smartest like C. S. Lewis and Edith Stein.

@Gill1923

Жыл бұрын

@@joannware6228 What about Hawking? He was an atheist. Also a scientist. And not even close to being as smart on the subject of religion and atheism as the people I had mentioned.

@joannware6228

Жыл бұрын

@@Gill1923 Okay I'll cross him off. Thanks.

This is definitely one the best Christian and Atheist discussions I've ever watched after 30 years of listening/watching/reading hundreds of discussions and debates.

@streetwisepioneers4470

Жыл бұрын

Have you seen his debate with William L Craig...if yes what did you make of it?

@BibleLosophR

Жыл бұрын

@@streetwisepioneers4470 You mean where Alex interviewed WLC? It wasn't a debate. It was cordial discussion and interview. Alex even admitted that a number of his criticisms a few years back when he was younger were bad objections. That he now recognizes it being older, wiser and more informed when it comes to philosophy and argumentation.

@basedzealot3680

Жыл бұрын

It’s because Trent is Catholic. Protestants have no idea what they’re talking about

@KZSoze

9 ай бұрын

I think the calm and respectful tone is quite nice; but on substance I don’t really see this as being anything other than par for the course, bad arguments for Christianity.

@justin10292000

4 ай бұрын

​@KZSoze Truth is only "bad arguments" to the Spiritually blind.

Wow! My respect for Cosmic Sceptic has skyrocketed (pardon the pun!). I am really impressed by his integrity and honest enquiry. I wish him well. Thank you CC for hosting and posting this event.

@japexican007

Жыл бұрын

Mine went down, he keeps using the same excuse as to why he rejects God and it’s gotten so played out it’s not even worth responding anymore

@jimisoulman6021

Жыл бұрын

@C L I think we may yet still be surprised by his journey! I certainly can related to his way of thinking before coming to Christ.

@LosChongo

Жыл бұрын

@@japexican007 it’s god’s turn to respond.

@jessehollenbeck4607

Жыл бұрын

My respect for him has skyrocketed as well.

@joannware6228

Жыл бұрын

The atheist both thinks too highly of himself but also too lowly. He thinks too highly because his pride won't let him admit that he has faults and that he is wrong. He thinks too lowly because this causes him to accept a dismal existence.

As an atheist, I very much enjoyed this discussion, including Trent’s points. Well-spoken and intelligent, though I do disagree and think his response to the racism and MLK question was a total dodge. Subbed for more chats like this.

@joannware6228

Жыл бұрын

The atheist both thinks too highly of himself but also too lowly. He thinks too highly because his pride won't let him admit that he has faults and that he is wrong. He thinks too lowly because this causes him to accept a dismal existence.

@sterlinghawkins5182

Жыл бұрын

@@joannware6228 oh dear god…

@pushanka

Жыл бұрын

@@joannware6228 rofl what a terrible take, this is exactly why most Theists are laughed out of the room. Trent approaches this with empathy and you spew ridiculousness.

@NeutralMjolkHotel

Жыл бұрын

@@joannware6228 haha hot take there, Jo Ann Ware. Good thing nobody agrees.

@zacharyshort384

Жыл бұрын

@@joannware6228 You've only pasted this comment a handful of times. MOAR.

Such an awesome conversation! Could listen to these two talk all day

Been watching Alex for years, he always been a smart well spoken lad. big ups

Walked for 2 hours while listening to this, and I was thoroughly engaged the whole time. Thanks for this.

@rosiegirl2485

Жыл бұрын

I am cooking and have done the same. ⚘

@zacharyshort384

Жыл бұрын

@@rosiegirl2485 You walk while you cook? :p

@Solbashio

Жыл бұрын

same, but i got hit by car while crossing the street

@tamago8042

Жыл бұрын

Doing relatively mundane tasks while listening to a video/podcast is always a nice experience!

@ChuckLorris

Жыл бұрын

@@Solbashio F

I expected a good conversation, but this exceeded expecations. There was certainly some repeats from earlier conersations but they injected some new content into this conversation and I was engaged throughout. Keep up the great work.

Love this! Nothing better than respectful, reasoned discussions.

I’m looking forward to Trent’s journey towards veganism.

@theunrepentantatheist24

Жыл бұрын

I think he is more likely to give up Jesus

@FahimusAlimus

Жыл бұрын

@@theunrepentantatheist24 I doubt it.

@amizan8653

Жыл бұрын

I wish

@tennicksalvarez9079

Жыл бұрын

Lol

@zavaughnkirkland5892

3 ай бұрын

​​@@theunrepentantatheist24 He would have to give up scriptural orthodoxy to be vegan. In Romans we read that "He who is weak in faith eats vegetables only". God instructs Peter to "Raise, kill, and eat". Jesus informes us personally that "all foods are clean for you to eat" so it's obvious to me that moral veganism is just a subjective individual elevating beasts up to the level of humanity. I don't have enough faith to look at farm animals as enslaved.😂

Cameron, PLEASE keep making videos! I hope your channel continues forever

Wow... I genuinely didn't think that either guest could bring me anymore "new" arguments to the table that I haven't come across before...boy was I wrong!

@archangelarielle262

Жыл бұрын

you must be new to this.

@Theomatikalli

Жыл бұрын

Hi @Aadam, what new gems did you discover :) ?

@Solbashio

Жыл бұрын

@@archangelarielle262 this comment is gold

what a deep and meaningful discussion between two opposing teams.... props to both.

This was a very good discussion. They work together to create a shared improved understanding, as opposed to fight against each other.

So much respect for Alex. Well done Trent, always impressed with your answers.

Alex seems to be a sincere truth seeker, and I love that!

@OrangeRaft

Жыл бұрын

He does, but pride will always block the truth even if you are sincere. Truth seekers don’t always find God because there are other things required like repentance and dying to self

@GlossRabban

Жыл бұрын

@@OrangeRaft Which God do you believe in?

@OrangeRaft

Жыл бұрын

@@GlossRabban well that’s not a good question unless you are involved in these debates comparing Americanized atheism to Americanized Christianity. But I’m not interested in such comparisons because there are other options like a Heiser type view on the ancient world. The question is of allegiances not “belief”

@GlossRabban

Жыл бұрын

@@OrangeRaft Fine. Which God do you swear allegiance to?

@genericusername8337

Жыл бұрын

@@OrangeRaft Yeah, allegiances. So this little game of yours does devolve into tribalism. How dull, and predictably human. Let's not have an informed view of the world, no, let's pick a team, and build a worldview of excuses that always comes back to that team, even though we live in a world that allows us to be more than that.

I was obsessed with apologetics and taught it to high schoolers in church for years. I now fall into the non-resistent non-believer category. I eventually couldn't help but realize that my determination was to support Christianity, instead of starting with 0 assumptions and aiming for the truth. I've had no spiritual experiences, even despite praying for an hour long drive every day for years. I was one of the "overcommitted" Christians, and now I just look back and cringe.

@tomyossarian7681

Жыл бұрын

I'm not going for sucking on each other's members, but I guess you have nothing to cringe about - it is common case that people have neither time nor strength of will to start from 0 and look at the claims impartially, especially when they have been indoctrinated as kids and live in tight communities that are bound by religion, church etc. I wasn't in that position, but I guess I would go through the same process. At some point I would need to know what the hell are facts about Jesus, resurrection, Genesis etc. I don't see how someone with average intellectual ability can swallow all the half baked answers, once they start asking the questions. In any case, good luck!

@tonywallens217

Жыл бұрын

Well that sucks lol

@JG-pw1wp

Жыл бұрын

What evidence made you leave a relationship with Jesus?

@tristanrenteria515

Жыл бұрын

@@JG-pw1wp I think it’s more of the lack of evidence of the god in the Bible.

@JG-pw1wp

Жыл бұрын

@@tristanrenteria515 The question of honest seekers looking for proof of Christianity is bogus. God’s raising His Son from the dead is the only proof, and that proof is infinitely capable of settling the mind of anyone who is concerned and who is sincere. So the question is not what proof is there of Christianity, because we are not dealing with Christianity. We are dealing with Christ. We are dealing with a man who became flesh, walked among men, gave His life for man and, to complete it, rose on the third day from the dead. The question is not what you think of Christianity but what you think of Christ and what you are going to do about Him.

Alex is so suave, calm and collected, a very impressive showing good sir. Keep up demonstrating what atheists can really be 👍🏽

@Staremperor

Жыл бұрын

"What atheists can really be" - well, anything that theists can be. We are all just people from obnoxious a**holes to champions of humanity. Whether person believes in God, gods or none doesn't affect it.

@williamdowling7718

Жыл бұрын

@@Staremperor in my experience, believing you're one of God's chosen people definitely lends itself towards obnoxious assholes. There are indeed a handful of very outspoken atheists... But the other side of the coin is Christian missionaries, of which there are exponentially more. And their main job is to travel the world and tell people they're filthy sinners who deserve hell except that some guy sacrificed himself so that if only you worship him, you can avoid eternal he'll fire.

@gideondavid30

Жыл бұрын

@@williamdowling7718 Are you objecting to the message or the messengers? If I had to deliver you disturbing news, and you wouldn't like it, should I just not tell you anything? Maybe a hurricane is about to hit the beach, and I tell you go inland, would that make me an obnoxious person?

@ck58npj72

Жыл бұрын

@@gideondavid30 From "The good news bible" then yes!

@DatHombre

Жыл бұрын

^Im an atheist, but I certainly think loud obnoxious atheists are far more common (hence the original comment and it's number of likes, since people agree that he's setting a better example than we have seen countless times). Sure, missionaries are spreading that message, but genuine ones are doing it out of the goodness of their hearts (well not exactly, but the point is that they aren't doing it due to ego). Atheists are constantly are just doing an ego battle of who's smarter/who was so dumb that they got brainwashed, and while theists arent immune from the ego battle of "you're so dumb god is right in front of you idiot you think we all came from nothing??? Hahaha idiot", they are still, at least seemingly, far less likely to engage in the battle of egos, assuming they're genuinely trying to live up to what their book has taught them. Since to them, it's very serious, literally about heaven and hell, and to us its just an argument to get into for the sake of arguing.

Good points on both sides. Thanks for stirring some thoughts. 🙂

This was fantastic. Love Alex’s heart so much.

Why's it so bright, was this shot in heaven?! That's one way to win an argument, well played...

I am an atheist but find this explanation and defense of theology quite well developed and honest (even though I disagree)

@AquinasBased

11 ай бұрын

do you think that with this defense and explanation presented to you, it might be a better idea to adopt a theological worldview for the sake of happiness and personal fulfillment?

@kailerpetersen6404

11 ай бұрын

@@AquinasBased no I’m quite happy and it would be a futile effort as you can’t choose to believe. Sure I can act like I believe but that won’t have the same effect and would result in me knowing I’m living in a way that I disagree with which probably wouldn’t make me happy

Fantastic dialog. Super respectful and in depth.

Alex is a very charming atheist in my eyes. He has real empathy for deep depression and suffering.

@amizan8653

Жыл бұрын

Empathy for deep depression and suffering is completely independent of religious belief. There are wonderful atheists and terrible atheists. They're wonderful Christians and terrible Christians. There's wonderful Jews and terrible Jews. Etc. Religious belief has nothing to do with it

@510tuber

Жыл бұрын

The difference between atheists and Christians is being an atheist tells you nothing about that person other than they don't believe in a god. They don't have doctrines. Christianity on the other hand has a book full of terrible things that even the "good" ones subscribe to.

@HarrDarr

Жыл бұрын

@@amizan8653 if religion doesn't make you a better person what is the utility for it

@amizan8653

Жыл бұрын

@@HarrDarr I think the utility existed in the past. If humans work together as a group, it makes them more powerful altogether compared to individuals. I think religion in the early days was used to get people to form groups where members of the group were even willing to die for the objective of the religious group leader(s). Such a group would have more power and out-compete other groups of humans. Also, humans are extremely afraid of death in terms of what death truly is: the unescapable, permanent end of one's existence, where they return to the state they were in before they were born. Religions all promise some form of afterlife, which is a coping mechanism to not accept with death really is. Anyways, these are simply guesses of mine as to the utility of religion. I can't prove that these are true or not. They're simply what I think.

@pnut3844able

Жыл бұрын

As everyone should

Man, thank you CC Team for hosting cool stuff like these.

@joannware6228

Жыл бұрын

The smartest atheists don't remain atheists, but for Alex it's a career.

@JazzyArtKL

Жыл бұрын

@@joannware6228 Very wrong there, Jo Ann. Atheist see the truth. We can do without an imaginary skydaddy.

That was a great discussion.

@CosmicSkeptic thank you for your work in these debates

I'm thankful for thoughtful and charitable interlocutors like Alex who can help us understand our beliefs and God better through these types of discussions. Perhaps that's one moral good that could come from some non-resistive unbelief 😉

@davidlovesyeshua

Жыл бұрын

As Alex would say, lucky you to benefit from Alex's non-consensually being withheld sufficient evidence/experience/whatever to believe.

@peterhudson5748

8 ай бұрын

What is Alex’s “threshold” and how is it objectively wrong?

Cosmic skeptic has been a huge influence in my life. Love him :-)

@marishasveganworld2240

Жыл бұрын

He is brilliant ✨

@katrinayakizz

Жыл бұрын

Same

@Macluny

Жыл бұрын

me too... mf made me go vegan xD

@marishasveganworld2240

Жыл бұрын

@@Macluny Now he is no longer vegan. So sad and disappointing, isn’t it? 😭

@Macluny

Жыл бұрын

@@marishasveganworld2240 yes. I'd love to hear the detailed reason.

I'm very excited for this one, probably gonna watch it this weekend. Greetings from the Netherlands! We're a dutch apologetics squad. Groetjes uit Nederland :)

@CJ-sw8lc

Жыл бұрын

I love the Netherlands! (I'll hou Nederland...?)

@ChristenDOM010

Жыл бұрын

@@CJ-sw8lc Amazing! You're getting there, it's: Ik hou van Nederland.

@aidanya1336

Жыл бұрын

Groetjes van een nederlandse atheist. Nog nooit een vervelend gesprek gehad met een gelovige hier. (greetings from a dutch atheist. Never had an annoying/bad conversation with a believer here)

@CJ-sw8lc

Жыл бұрын

@@ChristenDOM010 Ahh! I need to practice more 🧐

@ChristenDOM010

Жыл бұрын

@@aidanya1336 Groetjes terug :)Hoelang ben je al overtuigd van het atheïsme?

I subscribed to Trent because of the way he argued for his belief. Although I am an agnostic atheist, I like to challenge my existing beliefs. I only recently discovered Alex and his channel. In this discussion Alex was clear with his explanations and Trent did not seem to answer directly. In short, I will be consuming a lot of Alex's content this week. Great stuff!

@gehrig7593

Жыл бұрын

Christians never answer directly, because they can't, there's no argument for them to make. Expecially his orrible answer about slavery really tells you everything you have to know about the intrinsic evilness of religion.

@Stuugie.

9 ай бұрын

Yeah I noticed that too. Trent when his ideas are backed into a corner seems to divert from the subject. Alex brought that up several times in this discussion and Trent never adequately engaged with Alex's point. Trent did this in his debate with Destiny on abortion too. He is very civil and his points are very well crafted and informed though, they both did pretty well I think

This is one of my most favorite Christian/Atheist dialogues of all time. Keep up the awesome work Cameron!

@johannaquinones7473

Жыл бұрын

I agree! I was so moved by the level of respect, engagement, knowledge that each of these men displayed. Their sincere interest in capturing the other person’s meaning and line of thought, just admirable. As a christian, I have to say I admire Alex’ approach, he is incredibly humble to always leave the door open ((however slim)) to the possibility of him abandoning atheism, I hold on to the hope God will reveal himself to him in a way he finds irrefutable. I say that out of love and respect for the beautiful soul he is.

@chrissonofpear1384

Жыл бұрын

@@johannaquinones7473 What would you say was irrefutable? John 14:12, would be one way. 2 Samuel 24 would be another - but boy, it would be messy. Or Numbers 13:13? It all depends what is being revealed, I guess, if God is so mutable, or changes His ways, or at least - changes what faces and traits, are shown. And Satan never got hidden from - even post high treason, his dubious suggestions about Job got given extraordinary weight and audience.

@Joseph-zi2pe

Жыл бұрын

@@chrissonofpear1384 "Because the Bible says so" ought never be enough evidence, reason or argument to convince anyone of the truth of the bible. Of course its going to have "trust me bro this book is true and people who say it isn't are idiots" ("only the fool says in his heart...") sort of verses. All religions and cults have these self preservation/protection devices built in.

@Joseph-zi2pe

Жыл бұрын

@@johannaquinones7473 If you're a Christian, how do you deal with the fact that your God has either favoured you in giving you the sort of brain that accepts the evidence for theism and not the evidence for atheism, or the sort of personal evidence that would convince anyone first hand, thus resigning you to an endless fate of pleasure and happiness. But he has given non-resistant non-belivers the sort of brains that are not convinced by the evidence for theism and are convinced by the evidence for atheism, or he denies them the undeniable first hand evidence that he gives to theists, thus resigning atheists to an endless fate of suffering and torment? How do you deal with that on a "all loving god" world view?

@johannaquinones7473

Жыл бұрын

@@Joseph-zi2pe Where is a person’s free will in all of this? I don’t see it like you do. Yes, everybody faces different circumstances, have different mental abilities, etc. and it is true God has very different ways of in which He makes Himself known to people, but I think it is up to each individual to ultimately make the choice for his/herself what to believe. For me it has been a journey, the more I learn about Christianity, the more I am convinced, and if I find myself doubting I put my questions to Him. I trust that He can help me either find answers or dissipate the feeling I need the answer to believe. I am not by any means saying to have faith without reason, but there is a point when you just decide that the evidence you have is good enough.

This is very good. Thanks for sharing 👏🏽

Love the patience of both speakers. That's probably why I was able to watch it until the end. They sounded like friends. Personally, I think a pragmatic justification for being a Christian is the hope for a renewed physical life without suffering and evil. If there is no everlasting and relatable hope after death, then one day everything will die and nothing will matter about my life. It may have mattered to me or others when we were alive, but in the end it will be the same. On the other hand, a new kind of relational and physical life in a world that has continuity from this life, yet suffering, evil, and death are not present....that's a uniquely hopeful possibility. This isn't to say there isn't any need for a epistemic justification of Christianity, but only that there is a pragmatic encroachment on the epistemic, as mentioned in the latest Reasonable Faith podcast. I find this to be a missing component of most explanations of why many of us become Christians. Another component can be found in what is often called reformed epistemology. I've already wrote enough though, but these would be three reasons why I am a Christian.

@Prophet_Isaiah

Жыл бұрын

Unfortunately the cost of living as a Christian isnt nothing! So we have to use some reason to determine if it's a good bet :)

@iSkulk

Жыл бұрын

If one day everything will be gone, and nothing matters inherently, then you get to decide for yourself what matters to you. I don't believe I have an afterlife waiting for me, so I have to make sure I live and love to the fullest while I can! I appreciate your well thought out comment, my friend. All the best.

@davethebrahman9870

Жыл бұрын

Let him believe this who can! I’d like to believe that every woman is attracted to me, but the evidence is against it.

@minor00

Жыл бұрын

@@iSkulk Thanks for reading my long comment(s) and replying! I agree that if atheism is true, everything will one day be gone and nothing matters inherently so you might as well live your life in whatever way seems best to you. I'm glad to hear your way includes loving to the fullest! Sometimes love is hard and even costly, and I'm guessing we'd both agree that the most loving thing a person can do for another would be to unexpectedly voluntarily choose to take the painful death that someone should've had so that they could live. For example, when Yondu unexpectedly dies for Quill. In Christianity, it's Jesus who unexpectedly dies for even the ones who rejected and killed him, in order that they would live. Even if you think it's a fictional story, I hope you get a chance, if you already haven't, to read a couple of the four gospel accounts of Jesus. Or if you don't want to read them, try watching "The Chosen", which is a top notch TV series on the story (with some creative license). Obviously as a Christian, I believe the gospel accounts are more than fiction, but even if we never agree on that, I hope you'll be inspired by the amazing love modeled in Jesus. Also, thanks for calling me friend. I hope for you all the best as well!

@minor00

Жыл бұрын

@@Prophet_Isaiah For sure. There is definitely a cost. Epistemic justification is critical as well!

I sincerely enjoyed this conversation

Wow, I oftentimes find myself disagreeing with whichever Christian Alex debates with, but I'm finding that Trent is doing a great job with taking him on.

I am highly sympathetic towards Alex O'Connor concern over why there is suffering and pain with us. .

@NoInjusticeLastsForever

Жыл бұрын

The immense pointless suffering of trillions of trillions of trillions of innocent animals on this planet alone should be enough to shake any believer's faith to its core.

@lesmen4

Жыл бұрын

@@NoInjusticeLastsForever what i begin to believe is that the pain, suffering and death in any form is part of our life on earth no matter how painful it is.. what matters the most is quality of our soul that matters the afterlife that i believe in. Jesus set a precedent for this process.

@genericusername8337

Жыл бұрын

@@lesmen4 In English, please.

@royalrejects

Жыл бұрын

@@lesmen4 do you have any actual reason to hold that belief, or is it just what you’d like to be true?

@japexican007

Жыл бұрын

@@NoInjusticeLastsForever indeed I agree pointless suffering created by man who rejected God and now God has to clean up our mess except atheists still reject God while making him the excuse as to why pain and suffering exists lol trololol

I’m an atheist but I do enjoy Trent Horn. I think he’s a very intelligent individual, speaks very eloquently, and can bring up points and responses that make you think. I will say, and I may be a weird case as an atheist, but I generally don’t like the problem of evil. As intuitively it may be for me to think that there’s no way a loving god could allow for all this seemingly gratuitous evil, it very well may be the case that if he were to exist then it would be justified in some sense.

@tomyossarian7681

Жыл бұрын

I agree entirely, but the example of someone beating a kid on the side road made Trent fidget a bit - if you accept god has his reasons, you cant back away because "you understand parent - child dynamic". Either you can act on your own and counter god's decision to have a child ripped apart, or you have to accept any murder, rape, robbery and whatnot as part of gods plan - after all "if he were to exist then it would be justified in some sense". As with other arguments, Christians want to have it both ways, and that's just 🤮

@jimothynimajneb622

Жыл бұрын

@@tomyossarian7681 I agree for sure.

@davethebrahman9870

Жыл бұрын

Merely positing that an explanation may exist is not to provide an argument; it is merely to assert that one thinks such an explanation is possible. Until that fact is established the ‘argument from evil’ stands.

@MrBanksLP

Жыл бұрын

I was also interested in what arguments he would bring forth. Sadly the first argument was the argument citing Anthony flee ... Hm.

@pg1448

Жыл бұрын

Agreed. Because I can't help but intuitively feel that these second order goods like compassion, forgiveness or bravery enrich the human experience in a way that even a loving, perhaps especially a loving God, would allow them. The idea that a loving God necessarily needs to provide us some luxurious paradise just doesn't sit right with me

Wow great convo between these two.

both sides made brilliant points i think its these discussions that will eventually lead us to the truth that is if we ever have enough time to develop the concepts before extinction

Great conversation. Im an Athiest and I liked Trents approach and deminer.

@johnwick2018

Жыл бұрын

Demeaner

@johnwick2018

Жыл бұрын

Damn it!!! Its demeanour

After I suffered from some traumas in life , I thought about how our ancestors, the hunter-gatherers , who encountered the Neanderthals, might have dealt with suffering loss of loved ones. I truly believe what arose was a belief in an afterlife and god(s)... to help provide hope and reduce the chance of suicidal ideations.

@pnut3844able

Жыл бұрын

Bingo

@paulhayes5684

9 ай бұрын

I think it's the opposite and much bigger than we realize

@shamicentertainment1262

5 ай бұрын

@@paulhayes5684care to elaborate ?

Beautiful discussion!

I enjoyed this. Personally I felt it was an intellectually honest debate, where each one tried to understand and answer each others point (same for the Q&A). To often we see debates where the other side is ignored or misrepresented .

"Infinity is just a really bad thing to bring into the world." In the next breath claims god is infinite... This is why I can't.

@tonywallens217

Жыл бұрын

Where in the video did this happen

@augustuslc

Жыл бұрын

God it's not a created being, thus is the only thing, by a definition of a supreme creator and God, that can be infinite. Among the created things (this whole reality), his postulate about infinity is still compelling.

Seeing Trent bend over backwards for how God treated Job was hard to watch. Alex certainly gave the right interpretation and asked the right question

Good debate. You can tell these 2 guys have respect for each other

People praise Trent for his intellectual honesty but he dodged (politely I'll give you that) almost all of Alex hard questions. What's his answer to the deer under a tree problem ? I have no idea.

@lawrence1318

7 ай бұрын

Without suffering faith is void, and without faith it is impossible to please God. So there's your answer.

@MB-nx9tq

7 ай бұрын

@@lawrence1318those are non séquitors.

@evanr5871

6 ай бұрын

@@lawrence1318 kzread.info/dash/bejne/aKylpc2xZrq3cqg.htmlsi=mAF52CNHkNgnz0yU&t=18m24s

@sageoverheaven

5 ай бұрын

​@@MB-nx9tqAtheist here (or, nonresistant nonbeliever)-I wouldn't call that a non-sequitur. To have faith, you need that faith tested. Suffering is presented by the individual you're replying to as the test for faith, meaning without a reference point (the spectrum of suffering-happiness), you have no touchstone for faith. It's the same way having no power and being peaceful does not make you good, just harmless. One way to visualise a good man is to visualise a powerful man who exercises reason of his own volition to inhibit his use of his power.

@lawrence_of_osaka

5 ай бұрын

Complete dodger

Thanks Trent and Alex. I’m writing this only 45 minutes in, so my apologies if I’m writing prematurely - regarding the objective good God and an existence of evil. Alex wanted a Christian answer. Well Trent could have said we live in a broken world. From his Catholic belief… we did live in a perfect world. That’s was before the original sin.

how articulate alex is never fails to blow my mind

@fleshedexperience

Жыл бұрын

It's scary.

@ATOK_

11 ай бұрын

He has watched all of Hitchens videos and read his books

@bryn3652

7 ай бұрын

He's made himself sound smarter by changing the way he speaks

@Spasaymoostard

6 ай бұрын

Or he's actually that smart and has only gotten smarter...@@bryn3652

@justin10292000

4 ай бұрын

@viancavarma3455 But Alex is still wrong. Charm, sophistication and intelligence don't equate to wisdom and spiritual insight.

May God give Alex the grace of faith as he sojourn throughout his human existence. Maybe not the way we expect it. That's the beauty of the Theodrama of life. May the Great St. Augustine intercede for him as well 🙏

Man! I have so many questions for and ideas to put to Cosmic Skeptic! Just as a regular believer.

Trent has such an amazing way of fully fleshing out what someone is asking or trying to say, that is definitely what makes him special at this debate stuff.

@cheftr1

Жыл бұрын

Interesting take. I find him quite different. Often, when he is fleshing something out, he he just changes what is being said. Example when the talk about the Problem of Evil. Trent changes it into "Why God let's bad stuff happen". If that were the problem of Evil, it wouldn't be considered a problem. The switch from discussing "How can Perfectly Good create an absence of itself and it still be Perfectly Good" into "Why does Perfectly Good allow bad things to happen" are fundamentally different questions. Trent's changed question assumes there is no Problem of Evil (creation of evil) and asks why God allows (already created) Evil to continue existing.

@cheftr1

Жыл бұрын

@FPT Bot They are fundamentally different in that one asks about actualization and the other asks about sustainment. Trent knows this but does it anyway.

@noahwinslow3252

Жыл бұрын

Trent has a great way of confidently not understanding the question

@King-uj1lh

Жыл бұрын

@@cheftr1 both questions are part of the problem of evil, though.

@cheftr1

Жыл бұрын

@@King-uj1lh If asked one question and you decide to answer the other, it doesn't really matter that they both are found as chapters in the problem of evil book. They are entirely different arguements dealing with the Problem of Evil, with different premises and different conclusions.

It feels a bit like Alex is getting tired of this debate, atheism vs. christianity. And I understand him. I really appreciate him moving on and discovering other discussions like he have done with veganism!

@chrisvalenzuela7911

Жыл бұрын

Lol, he's the one accepting the invitations. He can easily say no to them if he's tired of it.

@HarrDarr

Жыл бұрын

@@chrisvalenzuela7911 he's probably tired because he had to spend half the video explaining the christian position to the christian

@pnut3844able

Жыл бұрын

I mean you can only prove their arguments wrong so many times. Theism never changes, so you just prove the same things wrong over and over.

This is the most honest debate I’ve heard

This discussion had good clash

56:00 Trent's suggestion that he has the moral right to hit his own children, because they are "his" is chiling. Firstly, because it implies it's the act of fathering a child that gives a man "moral authority" over them, rather than its being a corollary of his offering them care and support. Secondly, because he is proposing that the parent-child relationship is essentially one of private, individualised, ownership, rather than guardianship of a human being until they are competent to make their own decisions. His attitudes are precisely those that underpin slavery, and the abuse of animals and other living things through the centuries.

@tjwhite6052

Жыл бұрын

1000% agree with that observation. While watching this I kept thinking, not only does Trent have weak reasons for being a Christian but the morality he derives from it is primitive and gross. The more I honestly engage with Christians the more I'm confident that I made the right choice in leaving Christianity.

@hyuugafan2

Жыл бұрын

So parents don’t have responsibility to discipline their children? Have you not seen how unruly children can be….if your parent say don’t touch the hot stone and you still touch it that’s your fault…

@said8784

11 ай бұрын

@@hyuugafan2 Parents have a responsibility to discipline their children. Parents should not have the right to abuse their children. Corporal punishment is abuse, it leaves lasting scars and only teaches children forcing people to submit to your will through violence is acceptable.

@dan_m7774

3 күн бұрын

Funny how a needed spanking is defined abuse, but mutilation of genitals is love

Let me tell you, that plant enjoyed the debate - especially the part where they brought forth the concerns of the creature's sufferings alongside human suffering. Praise God.

Come to Vancouver, Canada, next with Alex!

Great talk. Thanks

I’ve listened to this a few times since it came out, and I genuinely appreciate the conversation. I think Alex does a fantastic job presenting his own positions as well as strong counters to Trent’s. I also appreciate how honest Trent seems when trying to understand Alex properly before offering rebuttals. I think these two are some of the best representatives of healthy conversation in this space. Now that it’s been a year I’d love to know Trent’s thoughts on a few things. (If anyone else knows feel free to weigh in!) 1. Did you ever get off the fence? Did you land on ethical veganism or an advocate of factory farming (I imagine neither, because nuance). 2. Around 1:22:00 when using Michael Shermer as an example he says: I think really smart people can come to unintuitive conclusions. This strikes me as the opposite point he wants to make. The world is full of unintuitive truths. Quantum mechanics isn’t intuitive. A globe earth isn’t intuitive. There are countless logic puzzles that demonstrate just how readily our intuitions can fail us. It seems to me that a smart the smarter a person is, the more willing they should be to accept unintuitive answers when related to life’s most complex questions. 3. I forget the rest. But just want to reiterate, I like Trent a lot. I think he’s be a very fun person to get a beer with and chat philosophy. Much love.

@HereTakeAFlower

7 ай бұрын

Number 2 I want to give my two cents about, since it's something I've had my own issues with. Intellect is mostly pattern recognition, the universe is very complex and apparently chaotic. It happens that smart people may notice new hidden patterns and expose them to the world, and (maybe irrationally to a degree) they must fight so that they are not relegated back to the chaotic background at least for as long as it takes to properly assess their worth. A very smart person could theoretically create a defense so good for their theory that others who undertake the duty of trying to prove it false, fail. Eventually someone, or the smart man himself, may prove it wrong, but the time between him finding a theory and someone proving it wrong (we are assuming it's wrong) is a lapse of time in which great intelligence made up and sustained a lie. Sorry English is not my first language and I may have messed up somewhere.

Hahahhaa I just got to the part where buddy thought he dunked. 😂

Alex is the man!

My physical suffering comes and goes. There is no remedy. It shrinks my world. Maybe your compassion does something for you but it does nothing for my suffering.

Hey Cameron. Someone mentioned having more Eastern Orthodox people on. Would you consider reaching out to Jonathan Pageau to come on? We could all learn some fascinating stuff from him!

@CristianaCatolica

Жыл бұрын

THE TRUE CHURCH IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

@brando3342

Жыл бұрын

@@CristianaCatolica The true church is the universal church. That's catholic, with a little "c".

@Thedisciplemike

Жыл бұрын

@@brando3342 or "orthodox" with a little "o"

@brando3342

Жыл бұрын

@@Thedisciplemike Touche 🤣🤣

@davidjanbaz7728

Жыл бұрын

@@brando3342 Universal as in Church of the First-born Hebrews 12:23 so it's not limited to c or o traditions.

I’m Catholic and love these debates. Alex is incredibly respectful and knowledge. God bless💪🙏

@shuvamsingh702

5 ай бұрын

Science Bless ❤

Only thing that matters is do you treat your fellow human with kindness. I don't care what you believe as long as you at least believe you should be kind to all and gentle to children.

As a child in the 1950s, watching Oral Roberts "lay hands" on the "afflicted" every Sunday on our black & white TV terrified me In 70 years, I've never set foot in a "church". Swaggart, Hinn, Jim and Tammy Fae, etc, reinforced my resolve. Hallelujah

I JUST STARTED HAVING AN EXISTENTIAL CRISIS 14 MINUTES INTO THE VIDEO AND IM TYPING THIS TO BREAK THE TRANCE THANK YOU

@tennicksalvarez9079

Жыл бұрын

Hey bro Hope ur doing well

@peterp-a-n4743

8 ай бұрын

Almost all former Christians eventually enjoy the freedom from religious delusions and appreciate reality.

@Real-HumanBeing

6 ай бұрын

@@peterp-a-n4743 Listen to Sunset Limited

@hummingbird1375

5 ай бұрын

I KEEP HAVING EXISTENTIAL CRISES WHEN WATCHING DEEP DEBATE VIDEOS AND ALWAYS TELL MYSELF I NEED TO STOP BUT I AM SO DRAWN TO THEM THAT I CAN'T STOP WATCHING THEM. IT'S A CURSE.

@peterp-a-n4743

5 ай бұрын

@@hummingbird1375 no it's your brain trying to resolve an important issue. Existential crises only thrive in a backdrop of delusion. A disappointment with reality is just the mourning of a falsehood (disappointment in German is "Enttäuschung" which is literally "disabusement")

As an Agnostic/Atheist I just want to point out that were someone such as myself come to the conclusion that a god, or gods, do exist, that doesn't mean that one should become a christian. Christianity's primary reason to exist has failed. I'm not saying that one should move to Judaism or Islam, either. Theism doesn't equal believing in any of the Abrahamic religions at all.

I had a chat with God this morning. He told me he's having trouble sleeping. I gave him some advice and he thanked me.

@georgedoyle2487

7 ай бұрын

“I had a chat with God this morning. He told me he's having trouble sleeping. I gave him some advice and he thanked me.” By sheer coincidence I’ve actually got two new brands of pen right here on my desk which i use for writing down ultimately meaningless and ultimately purposeless comments. A [Richard Dawkins pen] and a [@tedgrant2 pen] they’ve got no point!!

What a great comment by Alex in regard to suffering and in my opinion the common denominator of everything certainly about the human experience disclosed in the Christian faith as the path chosen by God to redeem its creation. This is not an argument to justify a religious conviction rather pointing out the biblical passage of the crucifixion of Jesus. Death and suffering.

@BornOnThursday

Жыл бұрын

Is the bible just the oldest record of victim blaming?

Christ is Lord! I love when debates like this can happen and people can talk about this. Horn is a good apologist for the Faith.

@talyahr3302

8 ай бұрын

If that were true you wouldn't need an explanation point. Everyone would just know. And you don't think it's telling that it's called being an apologist lol.

@micahcollins6412

8 ай бұрын

@@talyahr3302 Apologist ultimately comes from Late Latin, meaning “a speech in defense of”, in this case Christianity. Also, you saying that Christ isn’t Lord doesn’t make him any less the Lord.

@evanr5871

6 ай бұрын

⁠@@micahcollins6412You Christ is Lord doesn’t change the fact that it’s actually the eternal Oompa Loompa that is Lord. Prove to me it isn’t.

Trent's face when he questioned whether or not a fetus is a human being perfectly captures how I feel when reading the majority of pro-choice objections.

@tomyossarian7681

Жыл бұрын

It's not about whether fetus is human, or if it's in there "curing cancer and writing poetry".

@elawchess

Жыл бұрын

So what's the best pro-choice objection you've heard about?

@interloc1290

Жыл бұрын

@@elawchessParaphrasing but something along the lines of: Human or NOT ppl do not have a right to other peoples organs. Under any OTHER circumstance would a child have a right to use their parents organs without their consent for 9 months, cause them immense amounts of pain and possibly death? I actually don't think it counts as a human but I don't STRONGLY disagree and I can understand the perspective of those that do. But I don't think you actually need that to matter for this particular argument to be compelling and valid. As a thought experiment picture your mother makes a very simple miscalculation (I dunno like mixes up your prescription or something), and the results of that miscalculation causes you mortal health complications (like failing kidneys or something). Medical science has advanced enough that doctors can keep you alive long enough to recover IF you borrow one of her organs (say you surgically receive a KIDNEY). My mother loves me enough to probably do that and yours probably does too. But DOES the state HAVE a right to harvest her organs by FORCE to prolong your life? OR do you think SHE gets to decide that for herself? Now what if you are the mother and its your child? What if it is essentially a stranger that you have no bond with (how some woman feel with a child they did not plan for)? What if your a father in this scenario? What if a stranger poisoned you and not your mothers fault? (I was trying to come up with an analogous scenario for rape). I find that almost every concept of morality I have encountered relies on Bodily Autonomy. I think therefore I am is pretty basic. If people do NOT have autonomy over their own bodies then most other alleged rights do not make much sense. Did my best to summarize, and I have certainly heard at least 3 or 4 other GOOD compelling arguments. But I find that one the strongest because it requires the least assumptions and personal value judgements to be valid.

@tomyossarian7681

Жыл бұрын

@@elawchess Bodily autonomy - look up "violinist analogy" if you want.

@bigfootapologetics

Жыл бұрын

@@elawchess That's a really good question, actually, to the point where it's hard to come up with an answer. I'd have to answer broadly. I think the best pro-choice argument is one that hinges on a worldview that either 1.) presupposes that human rights are not inherent or objective, but legal constructs to serve the normative majority population, even to the (possibly lethal) detriment of some classes of human beings or 2.) it's okay to kill human beings that have not yet developed the capacity for pain. Basically, 1.) is the "personhood" spectrum of ideas - that a majority block of voters or a ruling class can legally strip human beings of their humanity by denying them the concept of "personhood" in order to kill them (basically, "might makes right"). 2.) is more of an appeal to the idea that human beings don't have value and that everything should be construed with respect to pleasure and pain.

The number of things that exist that I and everyone never expected. Why not this world?

When it comes to why we permit animals to suffer, I think the term should be "excuses" rather than "explanations"

56:28 What Trent said here is utterly abhorrent. It is not in fact moral to beat your children, countless studies were done on it you do nothing but cause trauma if you do it. And what is even more disgusting is that he admits that without "moral authority of having caused them" limiting others autonomy would be slavery. So by his logic the act of parenting is slavery but it's a just kind of slavery. Just why? Why do people see their children as objects? Can't you teach children by love? And if you can't why do you think it's OK for you to have them? This pathetic remnant of pre-enlightenment garbage ethics must die. As moral people we all must condemn the religion that promotes child abuse.

@santa_christ

8 ай бұрын

nobody: Christians: I wanna hit my kids so badly

@zgramzhnisk3036

3 ай бұрын

Studies on this topic by their nature tend to look at the larger picture, they cannot be used to condemn each individual case of parents disciplining their children via physical force. Although I agree in most cases where violence is used for parenting it does more harm than good, there are certain circumstances where some sort of a physical responce or at least the threat of the possibility of a physical responce is absolutely needed. You seem to have a naively positive view of how children behave, coupled with a seeming underestimation of the possible consequences of their actions, especially on other children. As someone who has over 20 cousins, many of them younger than me that i had to look after from time to time, some kids just won't stop doing harmful acts like excessive bullying unless you threaten them with force, no matter what you do or tell to get them to stop, believe me i did try all the healthy communication methods that i could think of. This isn't that surprising, considering studies show empathy itself isn't something we are born with, rather it is something we are taught over the years. So some children who havent yet had empathy instilled in them are literally sociopath like in their behaviour, even if they have good and caring "ideal" parents. A kid who practically behaves like a sociopath won't listen to arguments from "empathy" based on "healthy communication" or any other stupid advice typically given by many so called "experts". In cases like that, for the sake of the other children these kids might target you do need to step in with a strong deterrent if they won't stop despite repeated warnings. Obviously not beating them into a pulp but a slap or some other limited method of violence can really be needed and effective to discipline them.

Fantastic discussion. Top class. There's an obvious reason why Alex O'Conner is sitting there rather than Stephen Woodford.

@Enaccul

Жыл бұрын

What don't you like about Stephen Woodford?

@abaddon2148

Жыл бұрын

@@Enaccul arrogant dbag who purposefully misrepresents his opposition to make them look stupid

@Enaccul

Жыл бұрын

@flock of doves Oh dang really? When does he do that? That's shitty if he does

@Nick-Nasti

9 ай бұрын

Stephen could just as easily sit in that seat and do just as well.

@chrispyp2331

9 ай бұрын

@@Enaccul There's zero modesty in his claims. He produces a lot of "debunking" videos, and presents his arguments as irrefutable. Alex O'Connor truly engagés with all the arguments, and leaves the door open for modification or correction. Stephen doesn't, and comes across extremely arrogant.

I went from truly not understanding Christians but respecting their connection to faith to truly considering some of them brilliant people because of Trent. Now I still have a lot of issues with Christianity, pro life one of them, but Trent is really smart and I appreciate how he has changed my perspective. Still an atheist sorry to whoever

Trent Horn went: “hey Alex here’s the mic drop against my own argument, have at it” 😂

The juxtaposition of "who am I to know god's reasoning when it pertains to any unresolved idea or mystery followed by the religious person "knowing god exists and his commands and how he wants humans to act etc" always seems so glaring to me. In one hand they are so sure as to even try to change legislation to follow what they think is god's command but then immediately fall back on "who are we to question or assume we know xyz regarding god". Cant have it both. ways folks

@Nick-Nasti

9 ай бұрын

I notice no theist has attempted to respond to your point. There’s a reason for that.

@jditsfights256

2 ай бұрын

Because they’re different scenarios. When it comes to the moral law of the universe, God has revealed what it is to us. But when God acts in a way that seems to contradict His law, we are saying we have no right to question His actions since we are not all knowing like He is. We are not questioning the objective morality of the universe that He’s implemented.

As a polytheist, I find it fascinating to watch these types of discussions between atheists and monotheists, as I can often find myself agreeing with either side or neither side on some issues. I find the intellectually honest, civil discussions happening between atheists and monotheists recently to be a very big step of from the type of discourse we typically found on KZread a decade ago. I hope that things continue in this more civil direction in the future.

@jkid2467

8 ай бұрын

❤

@glebkamnev7006

8 ай бұрын

Out of curiosity, whats your Religion? And what points do you disagree with on both sides? :)

@philosophicaljay3449

8 ай бұрын

@@glebkamnev7006 Hellenismos, Greek Polytheism. I tend towards reconstructionism, but typically use the term "Revivalist". As for things I agree with on each side, Things I agree with Alex on: 1) I agree with Alex on the Problem of Divine Hiddenness, at least when it comes to religions like Christianity and Islam within which God demands worship. Within many religions, including my own, the Gods do not demand worship, nor do they necessarily desire it. Worship isn't for the sake of the Gods, it doesn't get us a better place in an afterlife, etc. Religions like this have no issue with Divine Hiddenness. I also would take things a step further than Alex and say that Divine Hiddenness is even WORSE for Christians, Muslims, etc. because of the fact that non-resistant non-believers can end up believers of many different religions (take me, for instance, that went from non-resistant non-belief to Polytheism). According to most standard theological ideas on the afterlife within Christianity and Islam, I am hell-bound merely because my non-resistant non-belief led me to the wrong religion, and that is problematic. 2) I do tend to side with Alex on the Problem of Evil in THIS discussion, but that is because they are both coming at it with the conception that a world without evil is a possible world and thus the existence of evil needs an explanation. I think that a world without evil would be a perfect world, but perfection only exists for the Gods and the Forms. Anything beyond that will have imperfections (take a sphere, for example, we can mathematically understand what a perfect sphere is but we also understand, due to our knowledge of physics, that such a thing cannot actually exist in the world). If you start with the idea that the world inevitably will have SOME evils, that is where I think various theodicies, like some used by Trent, work, but as it seems Trent maintains that a world without evil is possible, I tend to agree moreso with Alex's criticisms here. Things I agree with Trent on: 1) While it is moreso an agreement with Pruss and Koons, that infinite causal chains as an explanation cause more problems than they solve. I do think that the Grim Reaper Paradox, and variations of it, helps to suggest that our causal history must be finite. 2) I do agree with him that, in regards to historical miracles, that Jesus resurrection has better evidence going for it than many non-Christian ones. I think that is, however, in large part due to Christian dominance in the world almost dictating what texts got preserved, and I also do not think that that actually means that Christianity is true rather than Polytheism (Jesus' Resurrection is consistent with Polytheism, so non-Christian miracles not having as good of evidence as the Resurrection isn't an issue if the evidence is still substantial enough). I could go on, but that would require rewatching the video to see what they covered here.

@Detson404

3 ай бұрын

Polytheism is a much more coherent idea.

4:26 Theists: Everything needs an explanation for its existence. Nothing can explain itself. Also theists: God doesn’t need an explanation for his existence. God is the uncaused cause.

To give clarity on the question asked from the audience member about emotivism and utilitarianism, these two things are not mutually exclusive. I may have inferred the person's position incorrectly, but it sounded like he was under the impression that someone could not be an emotivist if they are a utilitarian and vice versa. Cognitivism and non-cognitivism are metaethical views whereas utilitarianism is a normative ethical view. Someone can be an emotivist, which merely describes what they think it means when someone makes moral statements about what is "good", and they can still be a utilitarian giving the "good" (or "hurrah") to the greatest utility.

Big fan of Alex

Im Christian but Alex kinda won this one though both did a good job

Cameron if you see this, a bit of constructive criticism, the video was a bit over exposed. Idk if this can be fixed in editing but just a heads up.

Wow that was an amazing discussion one of the best I have seen on a Religious channel between an Atheist and a Christian. It made me think to myself why I am not a Christian and have more affinity to Eastern Religions. So thought I would share my perspective. I know the main audience of this channel is likely to be Christians so I wanted to say I am not here to criticize Christians but to critique the ideas of Christianity as I have encountered them. Humans have feelings ideas do not. Having listened to Alex's points helped me clarify the clash I en-counted when studying Christianity. I don't want to write a whole essay so I will summarise my points succinctly. I feel the main reason I never became a Christian is the character of God in the Bible seems to behave in contradictory ways. Trent said in his talk that God defines Morality which then makes Morality arbitrary as God has done things which seem Immoral if done by humans. If a scientist developed a device that flooded the whole earth and killed all Animals and Human life (Plus insects etc..) that would be a immense evil. But God floods the Earth killing all life bar a few and that is totally ok because God is morality by definition. A War-lord commands his men to kill a group of people (including women and children) and we call it a genocide and say its Evil. God commands the Slaughter of the Canaanite's and that is totally fine. Trying to use God as a measure of what is Moral seems to be like using a ruler that randomly changes length every time we try to measure something. It would be useless as we would have no idea how to measure anything reliably. Second point is God is unfair in the way he communicates with his creation. God through his Grace makes his existence known to some as recorded in the bible but not others. Alex as an example has sought God intently as have I in my past. But God has not made his existence 100% clear to me or him. But God in the Bible talks to various characters and makes himself known. To me that is like a teacher who sets a quiz (Salvation) but gives some hints to some pupils and not to others. A teacher who behaved that way would be disciplined or sacked as it is unfair. It was this constant whip lash between the character of God that made me doubt the ideas in Christianity. It seems that God is allowed to abuse his power because he is God. But if Humans behave that way we call them Tyrants and Dictators. Seems like a might is right kind of argument. Trent tried to defend this by saying God is the creator so can behave how he wants and also mentioned his being a Parent gives him authority over his children which is true. But if a parent tried to kill their children no Court is going to let them go free just because they say they brought the child into the world they have a right to take it out. That would not be a good reason. We take into consideration the rights of the child to life. In Eastern religions, Buddhism, Jainism the principle of Ahimsa is the Goal to make one's conduct as Non- Violent as best as you can. This principle seems more applicable to Humans as it is not as arbitrary as the Morality of God in the bible. If Gods Morality is so much beyond what we can understand then its like someone telling you they have the knowledge of ultimate Truth Morality and everything but it is too advanced for your mind. So its totally useless in the real world where humans have to navigate. Finally I wanted to comment on Trent's example in the Q&A about happy to accept 10 million pounds for his house being destroyed but not happy if it involved someone sleeping with his wife. I feel the analogy is flawed as God does not let us choose the suffering we experience in life so we are forced to endure suffering against our wishes. Even if the result is a great reward in Heaven it does not negate the suffering we experience here on Earth as we are powerless in general when it comes to suffering. If we could choose the suffering and be sure of the reward in Heaven that would make is analogy hold. That's my summary.

@uniquearahill6819

Жыл бұрын

Up

@chrisflowrhymes89

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for sharing. These are often objections of the unbeliever who has spent time thinking through the God of the Bible. I figured I would share with how the Bible responds to your main points. The most obvious passage that covers most, if not all of your questions/comments is found in Romans 9:14-24. You likely will not like the answer you find there, but it is nonetheless the response of the Bible so figured I would share!

@kamana6435

Жыл бұрын

@@chrisflowrhymes89 Thanks for the reply I will have a read and see what it says.

@brianfarley926

Жыл бұрын

I think most of your post is flawed in the points your exist. For example God commanding the execution of the Cannanites. It is permissible because it is God passing judgement. In other words what he did was serve justice. Justice is about giving to someone what they deserve. Secondly I think you look at morality through the lens of the 21st century rather than in the infancy of civilization. Life was far harsher and those who got out of bounds with their tribe the consequences much more severe so the penalty one would accrue from justice being carried out back than we should expect to look vastly different than it would today. I became a believer from agnosticism not because I had some overwhelming experience in my heart that God exists. Reason is what brought me to God and what brought me to Christ was the Resurrection. There is nothing else comparable to it including what happened afterwards in my view. Perhaps you should really go and flesh out those points you listed and counter them with the best steel man arguments you can find on the pro Christian side and see if they hold up to scrutiny I’ve never found good reasons for the belief of atheism as being sufficient to explain why we are here, the universe, the mathematical probability we just exist by random chance Which the probability of that is what occurred makes even less sense. So I was never an atheist but I was agnostic for about 15 years.

@TheGreatAgnostic

Жыл бұрын

Well said.

1:43:33 No, it depends on *if* something is evil. I wouldn't accept payment from someone for them to do something I considered evil as it would make me complicit in the commission of that evil. In the case of arson there's a question of whether it's any different from demolition in this context especially when the payment is promised beforehand and the person's already thinking about the house they can build in its place.

He came out of the gate, admitting to "god of the gaps."

@Elnegro..

Жыл бұрын

Ignoring that your analogy isn't at all possible, (*that being 100 percent of dentist agreeing on what's the best toothpaste) God of the gaps is a false equivalence to crest toothpaste something you can buy and try yourself, that said your evidence point for Crest is true, if 100 percent of dentist agreed that crest was the best toothpaste that in itself would be good evidence that it is indeed the best toothpaste if not one of the best. The rest of your argument makes no sense to me, I think it's a false equivalence as dentist agreeing on something and a magical sky fairy isn't at all comparable as one as impossible as it is does make sense while the other is alot of baseless assumptions to assume a greater point. With the dentist we know they're trained in their profession and assuming they're not payed off by Crest and that they have 100 percent true and honest intentions then crest is likely the best toothpaste if not close to it. While god of the gaps is nothing but baseless assumptions.

@Elnegro..

Жыл бұрын

@@faithnreason446 It's impossible as it will never happen in reality, but it's fully possible for the sake of argument. Your point was fair however your equivalence to sky fairy making a universe in comparison to dentists is an utter false equivalence. While the dentist works the sky fairy bit doesn't. "Mocking" You never even addressed my argument and yet I'm the one with a week's augment because of perceived mockery? I'm not mocking anything god in the bible is a magical invisible sky man, I am or more apparently was pointing out the fact 100 percent of dentists agreeing on x toothpaste being the best toothpaste us good evidence that it is in fact the best, but a magical sky man isn't at all comparable to that theoretical argument as we know the dentist are real, are professionals who all universally agree that something in their field of expertise is the best, while we don't know how the universe came to be and have no evidence for a magical invisible sky god. Your argument is weak.

@Elnegro..

Жыл бұрын

@@faithnreason446 God of gaps isn't evidence. Theistic logic doesn't make ignorant assumptionss anything other than ignorant assumptions. Trees don't equal god, sky doesn't equal god, etc. None of that is at all evidence of anything pointing towards a magical sky man. Don't know what you mean by my "parsimonious position", but god of gaps is nothing but ignorant assumption to equal a greater point. You literally were, you literally made up two "similar" (* not similar at all) analogies to say fallacious arguments can be legit. I agreed with the dentist point, but your comparison analogy of God of the gaps isn't comparable. I'm not going to repeat myself a third time in an attempt to show you why "inductive reasoning" from what 100 percent of dentists believe in vs trees thud god! No it isn't mockery as that's quite literally what god of the bible is, that's equivalent to me calling Santa Claus an old fat man.

There are people like me who grew up surrounded by agnosticism being accepted, so basically adults around me said "we don't know what happens when you die, we don't know what's going on, but we ask questions and consider these things fascinating". I thought this was super interesting, but I was ok with not knowing. As I grew up I encountered religion but I never felt convinced by what people were telling me and I couldn't understand why people felt they knew things we clearly don't. Now, if you want to think my lack of belief is active resistance that's fine, but I love asking questions and looking for answers, and so far I believe we, meaning all of us, still haven't got answers. I'm ok with that and look forward to hopefully getting more answers in my lifetime. If not, I'd love to freeze my mind and bring myself back every 10000 years or so, just to check where we're at, whether any Gods revealed themselves, whether we understand reality and the universe in a significantly different manner, or discovered advanced Alien civilizations or some other amazing phenomena! So no, recognising that at this moment in time I still have no answer to life mysteries is not being resistant.

@Chapman1886

8 ай бұрын

​@@tafazzi-on-discordI've wondered why Christians say God died for our sins when he was resurrected within 3 days? He didn't in fact die then, so why make it out to be the ultimate sacrifice?

@Chapman1886

8 ай бұрын

@@tafazzi-on-discord Isn't God dying for our sins a fundamental expression of his love for us? If God, an Almighty entity, doesn't in fact sacrifice Himself at all, doesn't that cheapen His love? Jesus is now eternal and back to being God, so he did it for what? A token gesture without stakes? Why do Christians put so much reverence to God for his "sacrifice", when it was no sacrifice for Him at all? I'm deeply curious if this is ever discussed among Christians?

@Chapman1886

8 ай бұрын

@@tafazzi-on-discord We can't come to that conclusion because that would lessen Jesus from God to man, when he is both only as so far as God embodied an avatar, but was always God in human skin, so he didn't experience true death. Jesus was resurrected sometime within 3 days, so the the loss for God was nil, and can only be described as a gesture, not a true sacrifice with consequences. Yet, Jesus is heralded as making the ultimate sacrifice, even going so far as ridding us from sin and to quell God's wrath. I just find the framing strange, when Jesus is alive, eternal, present and ominpotent, according to Christian belief. I think it's something to ponder, because there's a lot of assumed guilt that believers should feel for our sins leading to God, through Jesus, having to die, despite not actually staying dead. If I was omnipotent and created an avatar to kill myself and tell my disciples that my sacrifice is because of their sins, knowing that nothing of me would be lost and it was all a play without real consequences, I'd think about why God would create such a scenario and guilt-trip his believers? I think I can understand why questioning such a fundamental part of the Christian belief won't be easily accepted, but calling it that he died for our sins is an overstatement as an eternal omnipotent being. Otherwise, we have to seperate Jesus from God, but that would create even more problems, and make the sacrifice even less understandable. It's an interesting question to consider, because of all the implications we can derive from it.

@petretepner8027

4 ай бұрын

@@Chapman1886 "Jesus as an avatar", "God in human skin", is a heresy known as Docetism, definitively rejected by the Christian Church in 325. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docetism The reason why "questioning such a fundamental part of the Christian belief won't be easily accepted" is simply that such questions have already been thoroughly discussed a very long time ago within Christianity. The problems involved in separating Jesus from God (the Father), and the precise way in which this should be done, form a whole sub-branch of theology dealing with the "hypostatic union", and are the reason why the doctrine of the Trinity has arguably been fought over more than any other in Christianity, and is so complicated and hard to understand (or nonsensical, depending on your point of view). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypostatic_union

Trent said he would need to be a vegan or defend factory farming. But that's a false dichotomy because a non-vegan can buy food and other products from local farms and farmers' markets. If I need to buy some products from a supermarket, I can buy only products that factory farms don't produce. When you have to buy groceries from a store selling factory-farmed foods, you have to see whether you cooperate directly or remotely with the factory farmers. Say I'll die if I don't buy a factory farm makes. Should I die because I'm against factory farming?