7 сағат бұрын
16 сағат бұрын
14 күн бұрын
Пікірлер
@DavidSmith-oy4of 19 минут бұрын
I don't think exposure therapy is a good example of something being illogical but working. It's like eating the same food over and over again. Think of your favourite food, if you ate that only every day for a year you'd be sick of it. It's not illogical and certainly doesn't go towards proving we have free will. The fact that therapists need to create a safe space for patients when doing this demonstrates it requires outside forces and influences.
@koi3824 24 минут бұрын
Exposure therapy becomes a lot more logical when you understand the psychology behind it. Just because it isn't intuitive doesn't mean it's illogical. Also E=MC^2 isn't just applicable to our use of matter and energy, but helps us understand the relationship between mass and energy more generally within natural processes as well. In terms of free will, I think it's important to mention what type of free will we're talking about. If you're talking about libertarian free will, I think it's kind of ridiculous. Determanism makes the most sense to me, but I could see the case for combatabalism
@bharv2309 Күн бұрын
I just don’t think you understand what he’s saying.
@donotdisturb5755 Күн бұрын
really enjoyed the video! The production quality is excellent, but the mic quality could use some improvement. It's affecting the overall experience. Hope you keep growing and succeed!
@Face1essAsh 2 күн бұрын
Holy shit, all I needed was to vheck your channel and you are OBSESSED with this guy 😂😂😂 And I dont even like Alex lol
@Thecommentlab 2 күн бұрын
😅I actually find him fascinating
@brandonquirozzzz2124 2 күн бұрын
Well then isn’t it just a matter of question of who or what shaped those atoms in material objects to begin with?
@appleseedgames6934 2 күн бұрын
You can't just say "I don't know why God would do something so immoral and disgusting but because I've applied my own definition onto this unknown entity that it is the concept of 'pure good' then anything this unknown entity does no matter how disgusting or vile or immoral then it must be somehow good"... Doesn't work that way mate. But you can do better than that, you can definitely come up with a better explanation as to why God would do something so evil, you just gotta keep trying to think of it, keep trying
@iMrParker 2 күн бұрын
Music is not a material thing. You essentially said what Alex did
@CharlyCD93 Күн бұрын
Music is a material thing, it’s made up of matter. People don’t really grasp what matter is. Matter is everything. E=MC^2. Matter and energy are the same thing just in two different states.
@iMrParker Күн бұрын
@CharlyCD93 Not true at all. Music is energy, but not mass. E=mc² shows the relationship between the two. Music is energy that interacts with mass, but is not mass itself
@CharlyCD93 Күн бұрын
@@iMrParker I did not say mass, I said matter. Mass is a unit of measurement, not matter itself. Please explain how energy is music, I’d be interested in hearing your thought process.
@iMrParker Күн бұрын
@CharlyCD93 Matter is defined as something that has mass and other properties. And music is sound which are vibrations which is energy
@CharlyCD93 Күн бұрын
@@iMrParker yes, mass is a property of matter. Vibrations are not energy. When you pluck a guitar string the sting physically bump into the air molecules around it and it’s a chain reaction. Each molecule bumps on to the next with a little less force because of factors such as friction. That’s why the sound can only reach a certain distance. The string oscillates back and forth which dictates the way in which the molecules move, “vibrate”, in relation to the string. You tighten the string or loosen the string and it changes the rate of movement “vibration”. When the air molecules reach our ear drums they move, “vibrate”, which is processed by brain.
@Natalia-s7q 2 күн бұрын
I think you didn't fully understood Alex's point. He diferentiate between material and non-material objects and arguments that minds are the non-material objects (as music, love, thoughts and so on). He didn't say that minds are the only material objects in the world. You say that you don't agree with Alex, but I don't see any aspect where you don't agree with him. His point is that there is real distinction between non-material objects, which you talk about, taking music as an example. Sorry for bad english, I'm not fluent yet.
@Aizex1 2 күн бұрын
Yeah bro should definitely delete this video
@Aizex1 2 күн бұрын
nvm all of his content is garbage, he's a bootlicker shill who doesn't support democracy
@lauranschutjens7499 2 күн бұрын
Genuinely nice commentary, loved the video!
@archieaziz7999 4 күн бұрын
if you quoting bordan p jeterson then i think its over
@Thecommentlab 3 күн бұрын
😂 I see what you did there. It’s a way of thinking-maybe it’s right, maybe it’s wrong-but it’s a pattern that makes sense to me.
@pnarf 4 күн бұрын
Talking about the "best course of action", you can't just take a one sided perspective as you do. If you define god as the ultimate good, then this god would not take sides and only see the good from the perspective of a single group of people. If a god is the ultimate good, then regardless of the times, it should be able to give instructions on how to do the most good in any situation from a holistic perspective, not from a certain group's perspective. Why did god not command the "evil" people to be good? Does god not have any power? Oh yea, free will..... Why does god command things and give instructions if god is concerned with us having free will? Why does god want to tilt the scale? Seems unjust. The fact that I, and many others, can imagine a god that is way better than the one in the bible should tell you that the bible is not inspired, nor written, by any god that is ultimately good. No "holy" book seems to be written by anything holy. It is written by people, and people have flaws, and that's whay there are so many flaws in religious books. There is no "we can't always understand god's plan" argument. If god was good, and also had ultimate power and wisdom, then it would surely be able to convey complex ideas to us in a way that we'd understand. Unless god is not good and don't want us to fully understand. Or we can just apply the Occam's razor principle and conclude that there is not god, at least not one that is worthy of being called a god.
@EnricoFantini 4 күн бұрын
It's 2025, grow up and stop believing in silly fairytales.
@uuabbit 4 күн бұрын
your logic starts at the finish line and walks backwards, you're saying that this clearly terrible thing must be good because god is good and therefore anything he wills to happen must be good. you're assuming to already know the truth: that god is good, then using that as a way to rationalise everything you think, see, hear, and understand. if this is the biggest flaw you can poke out of everything brought up in the whole video, i think you should consider why you don't have more to say. also you really shouldn't use anything jordan peterson says to frame any point you ever make, instant loss of credibility. please keep your mind open, take care.
@diedrichfilms6437 4 күн бұрын
…you think it was the best course of action to genocide people…? Yeesh
@NkosinathiMudau-bt1wk 4 күн бұрын
As a Christian myself, I'd say you didn't actually answer what the flaws were on O'Connor's debate. To actual answer his question, you first need to distinguish between what is good and what is moral. Good will always remain good regardless of time, however moral changes as the world itself evolves.
@nofstarr 4 күн бұрын
cant put debunked in ur video if u didnt do much
@nofstarr 4 күн бұрын
humans describing what they think God is like is always funny to me
@waynerooney8278 4 күн бұрын
I disagree with your perspective. You say “at that time, that was the best course of action.” Does that mean God is constrained by time? Does it mean God’s morality evolves with man? There is no point in time where genocide is morally virtuous action.
@Thecommentlab 4 күн бұрын
It doesn’t mean that God is constrained by time; it means that our understanding of God is constrained by time. If God truly knows everything, the only way He can communicate with us is at our level of understanding, and that transforms with time. Think about it like a father communicating with his child-no matter what the father says, the child will understand it in a way that aligns with their level of comprehension. The father’s knowledge doesn’t change, but his way of explaining things adapts to what the child can grasp. That’s what I think.
@carlosvasquez6054 4 күн бұрын
@@Thecommentlabseems like ur putting your faith in the unknown not much of a debunk video lmao
@waynerooney8278 4 күн бұрын
@ Our level of understanding is exactly what God allows it to be. He could have given us a better understanding of civility thousands of years ago, but chose instead to command genocide. The analogy with the father doesn’t work because the father isn’t in control of the way the child develops mentally, whereas God is.
@snaptrap5558 4 күн бұрын
If your God isn't capable of coming up with a better solution than what everyone else did, or couldn't come up with a solution that was in-line with his own moral framework...then of what use is your god?
@hilbrandbos 4 күн бұрын
I completely agree with you here. With your line of reasoning we can throw away the bible because we've moved on as humanity. We've been moving away from the barbaric practices in the bible. If you think it still applies you might as well be a troglodyte. I like how you made the point that the bible and its god are completely irrelevant now, because we can see now that an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind and that the lesser evil doesn't make this god 'good'. If god were so good, he could easily have been better back in the day... There's no need for him to conform to human progress, he's supposed to be almighty for heaven's sake...
@oritemeit8815 4 күн бұрын
Icl bro you lack logic and rationality if you disagree with oconnor
@nicolasortiz4422 4 күн бұрын
So... genocide was justified back then because society was 'barbaric'... but when was God when the Nazi party rose in Germany? Why didn't he throw balls of fire from the sky, or flooded Germany completely? I'd argue that what the Nazis did was just as barbaric as any other example you can come up with
@Thecommentlab 5 күн бұрын
If you enjoyed the video, please consider leaving a like and subscribing to the channel. It’s great to meet you all!
@Thecommentlab 5 күн бұрын
If you enjoyed the video, please consider leaving a like and subscribing to the channel. It’s great to meet you all!
@hizzyhizzles8731 5 күн бұрын
The argument is "God commands genocide in the Bible" , that is objectively true. Doesn't matter what the living conditions were or how long ago it was. Your argument doesn't hold water because the actual best course of action was for God to create peace among those in conflict - that is the ultimate sign if goodness. So if your argument is that killing your enemy is in Gods will, then that means God is wrathful and vegeful; which in any case doesn't relate to the argument that God clearly ordered genocide and (if you believe in such), is still commanding it today, when he could easily create peace. Even if you break it down more and state but their deaths were quick and painless, this is not true, as we know the suffering caused by conflict. Most likely great pain was caused and innocent people were hurt, including animals. Good video but i think you are missing the argument entirely which is that "God orders genocide in the Bible" - and this is objectively true.
@Thecommentlab 5 күн бұрын
That’s true, I understand that perspective But when discussing right and wrong, I think it’s important to consider the context.
@hizzyhizzles8731 5 күн бұрын
@Thecommentlab True but under any context, it's wrong to kill as far as God being the pinnacle of goodness is, so I don't really think the context changes anything. The world hasn't even changed much since then, we still commit cruel acts even today. But I like your train of thought and appreciate your insights and perspectives 🙏
@808pierce 5 күн бұрын
You seem to touch on a new concept I've been toying with which is that the term God is an ideal reflection of our own belief systems, dependent on our cultural values and is not an independent being in the sky. So the phrase "God says that X is good." means "Our best understanding of what we believe is good says that X is good." This fits exactly with your analysis that the best conception of good that the people of the time supported ideologies that today we wouldn't agree with. Looking at God in this way seems to solve a ton of contradictions that come up. Great work on the video. Love the production value. Looking forward to seeing more. Keep it up :)
@Thecommentlab 5 күн бұрын
Thanks
@lirich0 5 күн бұрын
Yikes. Your argument is just moral relativism. Who’s the moral relativist now?
@Teddy-yq8ne 5 күн бұрын
nice idea, but this completely flies in the face of the moral objectivism that theists love to cling to. They claim that their moral system is not only correct, but objectively true in the fact that it comes from an all loving, all powerful and all knowing god. And killing, and definitely genocide, is included in said system. So, unless they are willing to admit that the millennia old word of god that they see in the bible is either: wrong, as ideas of peace and love in the new testament and the barbarism that is commanded by god in the old testament directly conflict with each other, or that the word of god is not infallible as it has clearly changed its message throughout the years, as it literally conflicts with itself, as seen in the above example, then christians cannot argue that their god is good, loving and infallible. It's the biggest crux of christianity: the power of evil+the inconsistent triad. Google it.
@Thecommentlab 5 күн бұрын
I think, if we’re being honest, as a species, we mostly practice moral relativism.
@Teddy-yq8ne 4 күн бұрын
@@Thecommentlab exactly, which is why christianity, with its moral code and absolute "divine rules", is wrong. they claim to be objective, but not only do they explain away inherent contradictions in the bible with moral relativism, but they practice it with their stances on pedophilia in the church, adherence to science and their cult like following of the orange man in office
@Kmcgonigle0 7 күн бұрын
Why are we surprised by god commanding genocide? He drowned the entire planet and turned a lady to slat for the crime of looking back
@nuttychuma 7 күн бұрын
But what was the reason for killing the animals then?
@Thecommentlab 7 күн бұрын
I'm not certain of that.
@LMak1989 5 күн бұрын
A god that is governed by the rules of a time period or the rules made up by people is pathetic and weak and definitely not almighty
@MadogWarrior 5 күн бұрын
@@LMak1989 read Leviticus 20:15 I believe perhaps this was one of the possible reasons
@WARP1G27 5 күн бұрын
@@LMak1989 If anything, the argument suggests that God is not actually real but rather a concept manufactured by people to promote a specific way of thinking and shape behavior in favor of the religious groups, in this case, Christians.
@charlottemills8610 5 күн бұрын
@@LMak1989I agree. How the “best course of action” could be the total annihilation of men, women, children and animals is beyond me. Further away from sense also is describing the events as good. I think it is more likely that Gods command here was fabricated to allow this genocide as it was possibly the best course of action, by that meaning most effective not best because it was good.
@arankagionetti2098 7 күн бұрын
That's is just the smallest question why bees have to die after sting you? No! Why children have to suffer great and die while they have no free will while they don't sin why god asking you to find enjoyment in your suffering ? What mother can find enjoyment on the suffering loosing they baby's they children to deadly diseases like cancer?
@Raioaep 7 күн бұрын
Suffering was man made. God didn’t make suffering. Man did when we first sinned. That “suffering” thing is so easily refutable.
@ryanskiles4052 7 күн бұрын
Who’s gonna tell him God existing is also just a hypothesis 😅
@Shytot-1 7 күн бұрын
You can believe whatever you like, but the day you die, all of your beliefs (and your gods) will die with you.
@ih8trumptards 8 күн бұрын
i think its more like why does god let an 8 year old child die from cancer ?? Why wont he cure the kid? Why does he let pedophiles exist and have sex with children and murder them? Imagine being killed at years of age, and then you would have to be 8 years old in heaven for eternity ??? Never have sex? Never get married?? People dont subscribe because it takes them the entire video to figure out that you are a christian, and if you havent kept up, here in america, christians are hated because they forced donald trump on the rest of us, and they love and worship him(more than they love jesus) and he is literally a rapist criminal, and racist to boot! So explain that! Explain how people who claim to be "christians" can worship someone like donald trump, and even call him their "new messiah"? Do a video on that and ill subscribe even though im an atheist and an american patriot who hates american christians
@ih8trumptards 8 күн бұрын
if god is so powerful why doesnt he kill satan lol
@Axehead5677 8 күн бұрын
4:30 Alex says that you could expect to see SOME LEVEL of suffering in a world created by a loving God, but he draws into question the gratuitous amount of seemingly unnecessary / unjustified suffering that exists in our world.
@rangolovesmangos 8 күн бұрын
You Christians are very miserable and hateful. Also delusional. The Atheist beat 25 christians LOL
@knightofwangernumb2998 8 күн бұрын
Problem of suffering is easy to rebuke. If God were to reduce suffering in every sense, we would be left isolated in our own reality. Suffering is a result of interacting freedoms with multiple free agents and laws which govern a single and only cohesive reality. Lets suppose God made it slightly harder to die, for example having diamond hard skin, this reduces suffering. However, we'd have to continue this line of reasoning for any and all suffering, the murderer who suffers in their mind by not murdering, the thief who cannot steal, their suffering would also need to be accounted for. We continue this line of reasoning further and further and show that the only way to eliminate all suffering is to make all free agents become their own god in their own separated and isolated reality. However when taking an overarching look at these realities we would find no consistency in ethics, it churns my stomach to think about what free agents or people's universes might look like. Furthermore by the very nature of reality there is only one reality. Therefore suffering is a manifestation of freedom which itself is a greater good that allows for connection and love towards others under one cohesive reality.
@ramzi4251 7 күн бұрын
Then what about the world before the fall? Were Adam and Eve sinning necessary for a better world? Because I believe in the Bible it is emphasized the world we lived in is corrupted. If suffering is necessary then I think it's inconsistent with the Bible.
@knightofwangernumb2998 7 күн бұрын
@ramzi4251 It is necessary in the sense it must exist due to agency, however it's still only the causation of having free agents living a cohesive reality. Adam and Eve could have chosen never to eat the forbidden fruit. God is the perfect example of having free agency but always choosing good because he is good by his very own nature. Humans however can either draw goodness from God or turn away from God where goodness is not.
@TheNoobzoid 7 күн бұрын
@knightofwangernumb2998 No, Alex O'Connor is right. Suffering is needless, for example, a newborn suffers and dies. Where is the freedom and agency the newborn got?
@knightofwangernumb2998 7 күн бұрын
@ That situation is deeply sad but it doesn't negate the argument, the argument is about living in the confines of a cohesive reality. For even just two free agents to coexist there must be laws of reality which would allow their freedoms to interact, these laws are true regardless how many agents enter into reality and these laws are what we would perceive as the physical world. So because of this cohesion as a result of multiple free agents necessitating it there are unfortunate side effects of some free agents suffering immediately or more than others.
@sartway 8 күн бұрын
Bible Forgery Verses -------- 1. Matthew 28:19 The Trinitarian formula is questioned due to its absence in early Christian writings. Retained in Esv, Niv, and Kjv, but questioned. --- 2. 1 John 5:7 Known as the "Johannine Comma," absent in early Greek manuscripts. Removed from Esv, Niv, and Nrsv. Footnoted in Rsv. Retained in Kjv. --- 3. Acts 8:37 Absent in earlier manuscripts. Removed from Esv, Niv, and Rsv. Footnoted in Nrsv. --- 4. Mark 16:9-20 Labeled as a later addition. Bracketed in Esv and Niv. Footnoted in Rsv and Nrsv. Retained in Kjv. --- 5. 1 Timothy 3:16 Changed from "God" to "He" based on earlier manuscripts. Adjusted in Esv, Niv, and Nrsv. Retained as "God" in Kjv. --- 6. Colossians 1:14 The phrase "through his blood" is missing in earlier manuscripts. Removed from Esv, Niv, and Nrsv. Retained in Kjv. --- 7. Hebrews 1:3 Doctrinal shifts in later manuscripts. Adjusted in Esv, Nrsv, and Rsv. Retained in Kjv. --- 8. John 5:4 Absent in early Greek manuscripts. Removed from Esv, Niv, and Nrsv. Footnoted in Rsv. --- 9. Luke 23:34 Missing in early manuscripts. Removed from Esv and Nrsv. Footnoted in Niv and Rsv. Retained in Kjv. --- 10. Matthew 27:52-53 Heavily debated as potentially legendary. Retained in Esv, Niv, and Kjv. Footnoted in Nrsv and Rsv. --- 11. Mark 15:28 Absent in early manuscripts. Removed from Esv, Niv, and Nrsv. Footnoted in Rsv. Retained in Kjv. --- 12. John 21:24-25 Questioned for stylistic differences. Retained in Esv, Niv, and Kjv. Footnoted in Nrsv and Rsv. --- 13. John 8:1-11 (The story of the adulterous woman) Bracketed in Esv, Niv, and Nrsv. Footnoted in Rsv. Retained in Kjv. --- 14. Revelation 22:18-19 Noted as a possible late addition. Retained in Esv, Niv, and Kjv. Footnoted in Nrsv and Rsv. --- 15. Romans 16:24 Absent in earlier manuscripts. Removed from Esv, Niv, and Rsv. Footnoted in Nrsv. Retained in Kjv. --- 16. Luke 22:43-44 Missing in early manuscripts. Removed from Esv, Nrsv, and Niv. Footnoted in Rsv. Retained in Kjv. --- 17. Matthew 6:13 The doxology is absent in early manuscripts. Removed from Esv, Nrsv, and Niv. Footnoted in Rsv. Retained in Kjv. --- 18. 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 Debated for interrupting the flow of the text. Footnoted in Esv, Rsv, and Nrsv. Retained in Kjv and Niv. --- 19. Matthew 17:21 Absent in early manuscripts. Removed from Esv, Niv, and Nrsv. Footnoted in Rsv. Retained in Kjv. --- 20. Matthew 18:11 Absent in early manuscripts. Removed from Esv, Niv, and Nrsv. Footnoted in Rsv. Retained in Kjv. --- 21. Mark 9:44 & Mark 9:46 Repeats part of Mark 9:48 but absent in early manuscripts. Removed from Esv, Niv, and Nrsv. Footnoted in Rsv. Retained in Kjv. --- 22. Luke 17:36 Absent in earlier manuscripts. Removed from Esv, Niv, and Nrsv. Footnoted in Rsv. Retained in Kjv. --- 23. Acts 15:34 Absent in early Greek manuscripts. Removed from Esv, Niv, and Nrsv. Footnoted in Rsv. Retained in Kjv. --- 24. Acts 24:6-8 A portion of the passage is removed. Footnoted or removed in Esv, Niv, and Nrsv. Retained in Kjv. --- 25. Acts 28:29 Absent in early manuscripts like Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Removed from Esv, Niv, and Nrsv. Footnoted in Rsv. Retained in Kjv. --- 26. 1 John 4:3 Some early manuscripts dose not have "that Jesus has come in the flesh." Adjusted or footnoted in Esv and Nrsv. Retained in Kjv. --- 27. Revelation 20:5 Some early manuscripts dose not have part of the verse about the "first resurrection." Footnoted in Esv, Niv, and Nrsv.
@themagicwizard7244 8 күн бұрын
Even tho we don't actually know what it would take to build a perfect world with flying monkeys (i'd love to see one tbh) in doesn't really matter when facing an all mighty and all loving god which could create anything he wants to. If he can't create a world without any unjustified suffering then he's not all powerfull and I don't see why we should warship him.
@Dizerner 8 күн бұрын
The problem is people's idea of what "justifies" a thing. If God thinks something "justifies" a thing, it is no guarantee his creation agrees.
@carimaelfarrah7800 8 күн бұрын
@@themagicwizard7244 God can create a world without suffering and He has, it's called Heaven. But what does God's goodness have to do with the evil decisions we make? The fact that this world is full of suffering does not detract from the goodness of God. Imagine an architect who designed a beautiful house in Gaza. Then along comes a war criminal and destroys it. Is the architect responsible for the destruction of the home? No. The one who did the crime is responsible. Is the architect's reputation affected by the crime commited against him? Not at all. Next you might say, but if the architect was all powerful he could have prevented the destruction of the house. ok...then we are not talking about his goodness, we are talking about his powerfulness. So then you have to ask yourself....is it unreasonable to conceive that God created a world of suffering as a test? That it is through the contrast of good and evil, that we understand right and wrong. And the test is to see who will act righteous and who will do evil. This is a perfectly logical reason why there is suffering and why it serves a divine purpose. So it's not because God is incapable of creating a perfect world, or not able to intervene to prevent every evil, rather it is the case that He has created this world exactly how it is with a purpose, and that is to test us.
@themagicwizard7244 3 күн бұрын
@@Dizerner suffering should be at least justified, but we'd have to understand how, otherwise the justification doesn't take place If someone were to shoot you out of the blue and then you asked him "why did you do that" and he responded "you can't get it man", i think you'd be quite pissed
@themagicwizard7244 3 күн бұрын
@@carimaelfarrah7800 the architect example isn't right in my opinion, since in that example he's not all powerfull. The right example would contain the fact that the architect also instructed the bombers to destroy the house; and then i think that'd be his fault and his reputation would be impacted. The second part of this message is kinda uncanny tbh, i don't want to feel like a sims character and be chosen out of how I act. And to be honest even war criminals could go to heven if they really repent their actions and go back go god
@Dizerner 2 күн бұрын
@@themagicwizard7244 We do not gauge ultimate cosmic universal justice from what makes me pissed. That's enthroning my emotions as God.
@solomonthegrundit8737 8 күн бұрын
I understand the neurosurgeon analogy but I disagree with you. The issue is God is not constrained by ANYTHING since he is all powerful, therefore "what it takes to create and sustain life" is no cost to God as he can simply eliminate these costs
@Dizerner 8 күн бұрын
Yes, we cannot say God is hindered in ability, so his reasons must not be concerning an inability.
@SoldierGeneral64 8 күн бұрын
The problem is if God is all powerful then he could create a world where free will exists while lessening the amount of suffering or even eliminating it more or less. He could make it so everyone has free will yet still comes to the conclusion of God exists etc.
@sanni-m6i 8 күн бұрын
It either means the entity is not as powerful or doesn't exist@@SoldierGeneral64
@UltraComboEdits 8 күн бұрын
I don’t believe in any religion, but if I had to argue this the deer argument, I’d propose animal have to suffer so they know of danger, if they didn’t suffer then they’d never be careful because suffering wouldn’t exist and then they’d be prone to predators! Also if predators had compassion then they wouldn’t eat! The ecosystem would fail!
@h.s.4474 8 күн бұрын
But why is it, that god created a dangerous world? A word in which animals have to eat other animals?
@Killersam776 8 күн бұрын
Alex asks in this same video why god didn’t just make all animals herbivores. The existence of carnivores in and of itself, leads to suffering for prey. The point is, why did god make a world where suffering exists when he could have made it without all the suffering?
@UltraComboEdits 8 күн бұрын
@@Killersam776 I’ll say it once more, I don’t believe in god, but I do believe there’s a purpose and reasoning behind everything. So I believe that all suffering has a meaning like everything has a meaning and plays a part on earth. But just because we don’t understand or can’t grasp the reason it doesn’t mean that there isn’t one! But if I was going to make the argument for god I’d say, maybe he isn’t all powerful, maybe he has restraints and can only create life within certain boundaries The only way to figure this out would be to create a computer simulation exactly how earth is right now. Then change all the animals into herbivores and end suffering, then speed the simulation up and see if it has negative effects on life on earth. If it has negative effects then religion could argue that god had to make life exactly how it is for life to flourish, if it doesn’t have any negative effects then it proves god doesn’t exist
@UltraComboEdits 8 күн бұрын
@@Killersam776 also come to think of it, if there was absolutely no suffering it would make no sense! it would mean we can’t age! Or do we just stop aging at a certain point and everyone’s just the same age. Then the world would be over populated really quickly! It would mean there couldn’t be anything dangerous in the world, trees, cars, big animals, trains, literally none could exist because what if a tree falls on you? Trampled by an elephant, Or we just don’t feel pain? So if we don’t feel pain or depression which is suffering, we would have no need to be careful, trees falls on you. Crushes your arm, doesn’t matter, you’re still happy with one arm because there’s no suffering If we can’t be sad, does that mean we can’t be happy. The concept of emotions would be none existent!
@prodcio 8 күн бұрын
@UltraComboEdits God having contradictory qualities (all knowing and all loving) is what makes him unlikely to Alex He also does mention that God could be evil as mcuh as he could be loving, i think the point Alex argues is taht an omnibenevolent god is unlikely You are saying to defends God's purpose of suffering is to suppose he isnt all-knowing, but if we are goign to go against what he is believed to be, you can also say for suffering to exist, maybe god isn't omnibenevolent and merely doesn't care
@kazvanrooij 8 күн бұрын
So he cant propose a hypotheses to create an argument? The existence of god is also an hypotheses. Nobody factually knows. Throwing the use of hypotheses out of the window is a move against believing in the existence god
@Thecommentlab 8 күн бұрын
Not necessarily, he was talking about the afterlife. Nobody knows anything about the afterlife, so he definitely can’t use that as a justification because the afterlife is 100% unknown. Most people use existence as evidence of God’s existence; that’s different because at least existence is a fact.
@kazvanrooij 8 күн бұрын
@@ThecommentlabExistence itself is not evidence for God-that's not how evidence works. Just because existence is a fact doesn't mean it automatically serves as proof of God's existence. That remains a hypothesis, not a fact.
@HenryWright-q4j 7 күн бұрын
@@Thecommentlab Existence hypothesizes gods existence, and god's existence makes the afterlife a fact. To say the afterlife is 100% unknown is to say that God is 100% unknown. To say that Hypothesizing as a debate format is incorrect is to say that all religions are incorrect, as all religions are hypothesis to debate the existence of higher beings. Also - Alex wasn't even using a hypothesis? It's not a hypothesis that a deer got caught and suffered and died painfully, that's just a fact. He uses that fact to disclaim the Hypothesis which is god. A lot of self exploration needed here.
@moisesbaca3663 8 күн бұрын
Happy to see someone actually able to understand the assertion Alex put forward and respond in kind 🎉 Although I think it wouldn’t have gone amazingly to go to a debate with your main counter being “Nobody knows”
@wepster 8 күн бұрын
I was open to listening to actual good statements...30 seconds in and bro made the high iq move to say that using any hypothesis is wrong😅
@Thecommentlab 8 күн бұрын
A hypothesis cannot serve as a definite justification for something because a hypothesis is an educated guess or proposed explanation that still requires testing and evidence. Justification, on the other hand, requires solid reasoning or proof.
@mannenilsson7103 8 күн бұрын
@@Thecommentlab im atheist. and your logic follows well, but to say that you cant use a hypothesis in arguments about god. you HAVE to, since you cant prove anything about god.
@maxrowe1671 7 күн бұрын
@@mannenilsson7103 I get that, maybe I misinterpreted but I thought he was more talking about the unjustified hypotheses. Like the guy he showed talking about how animals could get rewarded in the afterlife. Where is the evidence for that in scripture? He is just making up an unfounded claim to try to avoid the issue. It's also a pretty half baked claim considering that he is now proposing a God that causes animals to suffer but rewards them afterwards so that's ok... Why???
@mannenilsson7103 6 күн бұрын
@ well in that case i misinterpreted his point a bit haha, thx
@akohisrael5982 10 күн бұрын
😊😊😊
@JonoGotye 15 күн бұрын
Good video, look into getting some foam panels in the room you record in to help with the echo sound. Thank you for the video again
@Thecommentlab 14 күн бұрын
I’ll do that, thank you!
@DamienDean-p5i 15 күн бұрын
Same old arguments between thiests and athiests. Im christian and know that there is evidence but not 100% proof that is why we're called to faith. There is a reason for this and why God allows doubt so that his sheep that recognize him are strengthen. Also the 5 % that is not alighened with the new Bible is it just punctuation placement in a sentence saying things backwards like other languages we should just say it follows the message with 100% accuracy.
@ewhulbert 15 күн бұрын
Stick to your day job dude. You cannot make claims like, "something is word for word accurate over 1,000 years," when it is not even remotely true. The truth is actually quite remarkable, the fact that it changed so little over 1,000 is amazing. But to assertively say it is word for word accurate is either showing that he is lying, or not even remotely the expert that he is positioning himself to be.