Analyzing 10 Atheist Slogans w/ Alex O'Connor (

[@CapturingChristianity]

I've had a lot of time to reflect on the last 30 minutes of the conversation and have some thoughts. First, I was hesitant to even include that section because I think I could have modeled the intellectual virtues a whole lot better. As some have noted in the comments, I came across stiff, robot-like, even defensive. However, instead of cut the clip out, I decided to keep it in as a lesson (to myself and others). Second, during the editing phase, I realized that I said some pretty cringe stuff (e.g., "how can something represent something if it's not identical?") that I didn't need to to make the point I was attempting to make. For some reason, during the time, I really believed that arguments couldn't even be represented by questions (I no longer think that). Third, as much as I'd like to say that, as a result of listening back, I now agree with Alex, I still have to say that I don't, at least in one important respect. Even if arguments can be represented by questions, which I'm now happy to grant, it doesn't follow that the two are *identical*. To use Alex's analogy, even if "the suitcase" and "un valise" represent the same thing, that doesn't make those two statements identical; one is English, the other is French. Nor does it make either statement (in either language) identical to a suitcase, a suitcase is a physical object, statements are not. My claim, my slogan, is a claim of identity. Questions are not identical to arguments. So ultimately, I still stand by my slogan. Fourth, I am happy to agree with Alex that what a question represents can be the thing that ultimately has the most value. Fifth, why are you still reading this? Sixth, I think what this clip ultimately does is show the value of doing philosophy slowly. That's another reason to include it. Had I slowed down and stopped to reflect on what Alex was actually saying, I potentially could have realized what I've come to realize now. Philosophy is best done slowly.

[@elijahsmith226]

Thanks for the honesty and humility!

[@Defiantclient]

Appreciate your honesty!

[@kennethanderson8770]

2 things on sin and hell. We go to hell because we sin not because we don’t believe in Jesus. Belief in him is the pardon from that sin. Second the reason belief in Jesus as God is required for salvation is because God wants a relationship with you for sanctification in life and for the mere relationship. If you actively don’t belief Christianity is true you most likely cannot have a relationship with the creator. That’s not to say if someone never comes across the gospel they cannot be saved after death, but I do not think that someone actively saying I don’t believe this will be saved.

[@jamesregli4754]

I’d support the statement “questions are not arguments” in the important context of informal debate forums such as online forums where the extra contextual facts/ assumptions should be readily clarified to create understand. Almost every atheist slogan needed to be unpacked, and plenty could be unpack in a variety of ways. Questions, just like slogans, oftentimes need to be slowly unpacked for clarities sake. Alex might be too used to talking with sophisticated speakers who are familiar and charitable with many arguments that a condensed question can assume most or all premises and need no clarification. This is ideal for streamlined communication, but rarely practical for plenty of kitchen table or online discussions. It’s incredibly easy to misrepresent or talk past each other without the clarity that demanding a question have it’s underlying assumptions express can give. Always be charitable with discourse, but also know what argument you are trying to say when asking a pointed question.

[@Romanlovesexy2328]

Not to play on words, but I had faith that if our comments were read, that an honest response would be given. I figured you or Alex would be too busy to really make any note of what we've (the viewers) had to say. I am happy but not surprised that a humble heart and mind would concede to the truth of a possible short coming. I do have to say that your acknowledgement or apology was kind of confusing, but please know I am not trying to nick pick. I thank you for listening to the comments. May you continue to have success professionally and privately. God bless you and yours.

[@saltoftheegg]

I love how Alex’s youth and extreme polite Britishness clash so beautifully in his speech. “Oh dear, it appears someone’s been dunked upon.”

[@marishasveganworld2240]

Agreed!

[@fqidz]

timestamp?

[@ogre4104]

😂

[@JiviteshBakshi]

average englishman

[@gingrai00]

Cosmic skeptic definitely has done his homework and he understands Christianity. His discussion about Universalism and inclusiveism and annihilationism was excellent.

[@Shitgotmegeekin]

Considering he has a theology degree from an Oxbridge school I’d think ”homework” is a bit of an understatement.

[@fluffysheap]

@@Shitgotmegeekin it was literally his homework 😁

[@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou]

Yeah he’s done his homework for sure. My only critique is his lack of understanding of Ancient Near Eastern culture in the Genesis/evolution discussion. 😬

[@victorjvanderwoude3102]

Cosmic Skeptic does understand certain types of arguments quite well. I wouldn't then claim he understands Christianity. For him, Christianity is a thought exercise and microscope specimen. Everything is subjective; the battle was already won by science and "reason" long ago. It's the theoretical/debates about logic and reason/ideas/philosophical arguments etc he enjoys. He's just an atheist with the same kinds of roadblocks caused by his worldview. He's just generally more respectful and more knowledgeable about a wider set of reasoning/subjects than most atheist debaters. I appreciate his willingness to converse. However this particular conversation was over run by the Cosmic Skeptic's excessive verbiage and ego. Cosmic Skeptic has a way of framing subjects that tends to spread so quickly in ideas that it becomes difficult to recognize when he's mixing concepts (which makes his arguments sometimes confusing), overlaying facts that are really opinions based on his worldview, and performs like a lecturer who overload his audience with excessive words. He played the teacher and it's obnoxious. For example, the argument that location determines religion (implying religion is a cultural attribute rather than a conscious reasoned choice for most believers - not based on truth). Cosmic Skeptic keep mentioning someplace in Saudi Arabia and Indonesia (I don't remember the details). That's not a reasonable example - he's exaggerating his claim by using extremes. It's like pointing to Vatican city. Yes some places are extreme but that not the norm. It's small points which fly by quick in which his Achilles heel becomes evident.

[@pasimajuri1209]

This is god >kzbin.info/www/bejne/eWqkgKibmduCpKs

[@dannyboi_663]

I highly respect this level of conversation on a such a touchy topic.

[@TheOpenCouchPodcast]

I really appreciate Alex being so respectful to Christianity! It honestly allows me to consider his thoughts 💭

[@marksandsmith6778]

Juck Fesus

[@TheOpenCouchPodcast]

@@Kastled5 it really doesn’t. It just means that I’m more susceptible to listen to a respectful person than someone who is condescending and rude.

[@TheOpenCouchPodcast]

@@Kastled5 one must be respectful before I take anything they say into consideration or at bare minimum, listen to them. That doesn’t mean I agree with them it’s just a human response to being “Ohk the dude is respectful and non argumentative. Sure I’ll listen”. Your Reading way too into it brother

[@bitcoinweasel9274]

@@Kastled5 Dude, that's a perfectly normal human response. We all have to use shortcuts for when to listen to someone's arguments and when not to (for instance, I won't listen to a wild eyed guy on the corner screaming incoherently about the end of the world). A very common one is, "I won't listen to jerks". They may have a valid point, but they're also very likely to be trolls, so I'll also happily skip listening to them.

[@TheOpenCouchPodcast]

@@peppr115 i believe the cosmic skeptic says pretty clear himself. He wasn’t always this respectful. He was pretty rude before and arrogant. But don’t hear it from me, Alex OConnor talks on his take of Christianity before actually studying it

[@mrmaat]

Cameron spent a bunch of money on his “Questions aren’t arguments” T-shirt’s, didn’t he?

[@bruisedviolets]

lmaooo

[@CosmicTeapot]

I love the argument made with your question :) I agree, I think it's definitely why he's sticking to his guns even in the update/replies in the comments, he definitely doesn't want to affect the sales by admitting that the slogan is intellectually bankrupt and only trivially/pedantically valid. 1 year later, I've just checked his shop and they are no longer for sale, so I guess he managed to clear his stock lol

[@ghostrecon3214]

Interesting, Jesus quite frequently answered questions with questions. I heard that from the late Ravi, and his point was that questions invite or cause the other person to grapple with the assumption of their question. It has stuck with me for 15+ years

[@josiahsimeth3681]

I think Alex has the better case regarding questions vs. arguments. Questions often communicate arguments quite effectively.

[@20july1944]

Strongly agree! Questions often communicate arguments quite effectively.

[@CapturingChristianity]

Yes, but communicating or representing an argument doesn’t make questions and arguments identical. (I’ve given this a good deal of thought since our conversation. I wish I could say I was persuaded by Alex.)

[@josiahsimeth3681]

@@CapturingChristianity If someone said "I've released 5 videos about this already" you could say "videos aren't arguments" and you'd be justified if you meant "none of the videos communicated an argument" but not if you were just pointing out that videos and arguments are different things.

[@RanchElder]

@@CapturingChristianity Questions and arguments aren't literally identical, so the slogan is trivially true. Alex's point is that the representational identity is what matters. If questions and arguments can both represent the same thought, Hemant's original video wasn't committing some grave error in presenting questions in the place of arguments. Likewise for others who use questions in lieu of explicitly spelling out a syllogism with every utterance.

[@noahwinslow3252]

@@CapturingChristianity no one says they're the same, that's the straw man you present

[@JohnVandivier]

Alex is brilliant and well-mannered. kudos.

[@Dhorpatan]

🤮🙄

[@victorjvanderwoude3102]

I won't give him "brilliant" but he is certainly well mannered and knowledgeable.

[@Lyonessi]

A bit fruity but aren't we all

[@MrHunterbuchanan]

Skeptic and non-believer here. I just want to give Cameron a shout out -- I haven't watched the last 30 minutes yet (I read the pinned comment and it sounds like it deserves careful consideration), but after seeing the rest of the video, I'm very pleasantly surprised. I haven't been the biggest fan of some of his work in the past, but these recent in-person videos with Alex have provided so much insight and thought-provoking discussion, and he's been really charitable and open minded. I will say that I also agree with the recent Rationality Rules response to the WLC discussion -- I'd love to see Cameron be as careful and charitable with his other content as he has been here. I feel like he has a lot to offer for open-minded skeptics, and I'd love to keep listening if he's more charitable with his other content in the future.

[@Sir-Chancelot]

Slogans discussed - 1. There is no evidence - 1:24 2. The Kalaam doesn't get you all the way to God - 9:52 3. If you had been born elsewhere you would not be a Christian - 16:19 4. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - 30:35 5. Claims are not evidence - 39:41 6. Science is the only reliable guide to truth - 45:00 7. Atheism is just a lack a belief in God - 54:10 8. I just believe in one less god than you do - 1:00:30 9. Evolution disproves God - 1:06:12 10. Who created God - 1:15:50

[@FakingANerve]

Thanks! Cheers.

[@NestorVass]

5. Might be on 39:41 instead of 36

[@samalander88]

Woot! Thank you!

[@andrewfairborn6762]

All valid defeaters for God and bible thumping Christians.

[@leahcimmmm]

@@andrewfairborn6762 Do you genuinely believe that?

[@TheSandurz20]

I think Alex's argument on questions as arguments is right. as soon as it was challenged I knew it was going to end up as a disagreement on language. because I'm a programmer, I like to think of it in terms of programming. in C there's something called a variable and a pointer. a variable is just a label for a specific piece of data saved in memory, and a pointer is the thing the label uses to indicate what bit of data it's representing. for instance, if I have a variable named "i" and had it pointing to an integer with the value "2" i is effectively referencing 2. now, I can also construct a variable "x" and also have it point to the same 2. the variables are distinct as I and x are different variables, but they're pointing at the same piece of memory. Alex was indicating that these questions and arguments are effectively variables pointing at the same state of mind.

[@binghiroy]

Alex really dropped the ball on this bit. There was no need for that endless back-and-forth. When a question is posed as an argument, it typically assumes the syllogism on which it is based. Most times it would be, as Alex pointed out, redundant and insipid to spell out the well understood syllogism. In such cases the question thus serves as a more succinct contraction--often the most potent form--of the argument. In short, the question can most certainly BE the argument. Even when that argument is weak, it's no less an argument. A spelled-out syllogism can also be weak. I guess he just might have allowed Cameron's intransigence to blindside him. It happens to the best of us. And perhaps Cameron, as @mrmaat and others suggest here, felt the need to protect his investment.

[@jzeppy1]

I think of the "question representing an argument" like compression in computer science, and "a question is not an argument" as a reminder that our compression can be lossy.

[@anthonydesimone502]

You could've made this point more straightforwardly by only talking about variables and how two variables can point to the same bit of data stored in memory. And pointers are a type of variable, not a separate thing.

[@benedictmclindon8090]

@@binghiroy why did alex drop the ball? i think he was extremely patient and polite despite cameron refusing to agree with the simple and proven conclusion "questions can be argument's" i know for a fact i would have gotten 1 minute and 30 seconds into that convo with cameron and instantly given up as he was obviously not wanting to admit it. but because of cosmic skeptics patience (and these comments) he wrote an apology comment and has changed his mind (somewhat) haha

[@mf_hume]

Regarding the whole "Questions are not Arguments" bit at the end, I think it's worth pointing out other places where questions play a role other than just eliciting information. If you call your wife and tell say "Honey, I'm stuck in traffic. Can you pick up the kids from school?" and then you got home and she hadn't picked up the kids, you'd be rightfully pissed if she retorted that "Questions aren't imperatives." Part of the conversational function of questions in the place of imperatives is to sound nicer and less confrontational. I think often that is what’s happening when someone substitutes a question in place of an argument. Furthermore, questions and arguments can be linked more or less directly. Perhaps most relevant to this point, questions could *embed* arguments: e.g., “What do you think of the argument [argument]?” Is that question identical to the argument it embeds? No, in the sense that the words and sentence structure aren’t identical. Is it going to play the same conversational role? Yes, exactly the same. I think another way of rephrasing Alex's points from the discussion is to say that questions can *implicitly embed* arguments (whereas in my above example the question *explicitly embeds* the argument). As long as the conversation partner recognizes the implication, a question can serve exactly the same role as an argument.

[@joannware6228]

These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world. John 16:33 (KJV) "Do you believe this? The standard human approach is, “Well, if God is omnipotent, then why doesn’t He come up with a better way?” Some things must be left in the hidden counsels of God, and this is one of them, but suffice it to say that suffering is a most effective school-master. Consider the Apostle Paul’s assertion…" (3) And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience; (4) And patience, experience; and experience, hope: Romans 5:3-4 (KJV) Ken Axelson "Thought For The Day"

[@joannware6228]

@Anon Ymous We learn and obtain the best things in life through suffering. If your goal in life is for it to be easy, comfortable, and wealthy and you are disappointed and bitter and ungrateful if things don't go your way then you are going to lead an unhappy and miserable life. If you try to avoid suffering the more you will suffer. That's the way life is. You can blame God but that won't change anything. What worthwhile have you ever accomplished that didn't take effort and some suffering? Do you think the terminal patients would like to hear how awful it is that they're dying? Would that comfort them? Life is very short and most of us die sooner than we expect. That's why it's foolish to place all your hopes and dreams on your physical life.

[@chrissonofpear1384]

Ah, and so that's why Mother Teresa neglected palliative care so much, in her hostels then, Jo Ann Ware ?

[@DoctorShocktor]

No, just no. Both your statements are simply statements of other forms of language. Has nothing at all about the formation of arguments or gathering evidence.

[@DoctorShocktor]

@@joannware6228 Perfect language of a victim there, Jo Ann - Here, you can have the BEST candy in the store if you let me BEAT you first. Sad and untrue. First of all, you jam a gigantic IF into your presupposition that wealthy and comfortable is a formula for being unhappy and miserable. Please supply some citations and statistics for that claim, thanks. Plenty of wealthy and comfortable people have fantastic lives, it’s not an instant formula for misery. Lastly, GOD if all powerful, etc. could easily have just created us all as balls of energy that experience nothing but pleasure and have no suffering at all. The hook, line, and sinker that you’ve swallowed, including disregarding the very short life you’ve lucked into on Earth for an unproven promise of something better is sad beyond compare.

[@dugw15]

I appreciate Alex. Such a thoughtful, careful, charitable thinker.

[@ReclusiveAshta]

Alex: "Can you give me that apple?" Cameron: "''Apple' is just a representation for the apple, it is not identical to the physical apple itself, so no, I cannot give you the 'apple'. Alex: " You know what I mean, just give me the damn apple!" 😅

[@unnefer001]

I want to make a t-shirt that says the Kalam Cosmological Argument isn't an argument.

[@ReclusiveAshta]

@@unnefer001 I'd buy it

[@amullac9207]

A short cut to an icon on a computer is not the computers icon it serves as a representative of an icon. You can delete the representation an the program would still function. The icon itself is a representative to the source code and function that the coding represents. One cannot escape the need for language to communicate the most fundamental functional requirements necessary to form an argument as a vehicle for communication. Number for example would still function logically but are only used mean fully when communicating them. I have just wrote this all out as a representative to meaning. There is an implied argument behind my words.

[@Killerkiki313]

Wow, two hours long but the time flew by on this one. Alex is awesome!

[@vincentsolis5149]

Cameron is really trying to weasel out of that last question, "questions aren't arguments". He'd earn more respect by just dropping it.

[@InShadowsLinger]

But that represents t shirt sales. So not easy to give up.

[@joannware6228]

These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world. John 16:33 (KJV) "Do you believe this? The standard human approach is, “Well, if God is omnipotent, then why doesn’t He come up with a better way?” Some things must be left in the hidden counsels of God, and this is one of them, but suffice it to say that suffering is a most effective school-master. Consider the Apostle Paul’s assertion…" (3) And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience; (4) And patience, experience; and experience, hope: Romans 5:3-4 (KJV) Ken Axelson "Thought For The Day"

[@DoctorShocktor]

@@joannware6228 Did someone request some fairy tale quotes? I’m missing seeing that anywhere.

[@WhatsTheTakeaway]

Alex and Cameron are operating off two different definitions of argument here. Cameron is using the philosophical definition of premises, conclusion and supporting evidence, and Alex is using the colloquial definition of "conveying thoughts". Hard to get to a resolution with such a divide as that.

[@WhatsTheTakeaway]

@@Kastled5 You believe "questions aren't arguments" to be Camerons most popular contribution? I don't. And it shouldn't be shocking that two people talk past each other when those two people are talking about different contexts. In all these comments, not a single person is asking a question, instead they are offering arguments for their position that "questions are arguments".

[@jonrendell]

Thank god for Alex O'Connor

[@joshuathomas512]

Thank god, the son, and the holy spirit

[@Edgarbopp]

I love how charitable Alex is.

[@mugsofmirth8101]

Which charities does he represent or donate to ?

[@ShastraDugan]

it couldnt be less charities than the christian god donates to unless its a negative number but also like thats not what he means by charitable

[@NordicFireDKK]

@@mugsofmirth8101 he means charitable in terms for arguments. He doesnt assume the dumbest version of the argument and doesnt assume cliches etc. So being charitable in an argument means arguing in good faith and giving the benefit of the doubt.

[@bruisedviolets]

@@ShastraDugangod donates to charities now? that’s a new one😂

[@BigHossHackworth]

@@NordicFireDKK Rare online

[@joebriggs5781]

If Alex was interested in “destroying” Cameron here…he definitely could have. He was on a different, higher level and Cameron really couldn’t compete. But I respect Alex because that’s not his intention, he’s a good guy that genuinely wants to have a challenging conversation. He’s going to have to search a little harder for someone on his level though.

[@qwektnn]

Frankly, it's difficult for religious people to win debate against rational thinkers because religion is full of lies and delusions by the root. It seems to work because it targets susceptible, naive, weak and dumb people, which make up majority of the population.

[@CrackingAce]

Cameron saying "I don't know what you mean by thought" is in serious danger of being taken out of context 😂

[@min24434]

I actually wanted to hear more about that but SAdly CC didn't go too deep into it.

[@kyle9933]

even in context he sounds like a complete idiot, but did we expect anything less...

[@cathyharrop3348]

In the whole time that Cameron was arguing that "Questions are not arguments" did he present one syllogism? Or did he spend his time asking questions and making assertions?

[@WhatsTheTakeaway]

He asked clarifying questions to better understand the argument. Notice, Alex presented an argument, and didnt just ask questions.

[@andrewklassen478]

This is a perfect example of why this type of conversation is so necessary. It's so easy to becoming so immovable in a perspective without understanding how we arrive at conclusions or articulate ourselves in a way that we dont end up dancing around the issues and each other in conversation or debate. I've found this is true of both Christians and non-Christians in debate. Its probably what makes debates really hard for me to watch

[@agusmolfino]

1:50:09 In my mind 'wanting people to think logically' is a charitable interpretation of the slogan 'questions are not arguments' (side note: Alex is very charitable with the apologists. Something I both love and loath about his style of conversation). To me, the slogan comes off as a slightly snide dismissive that insists on the academic construction of all claims. Sort of as a way to shut down common sense and skeptical conversation.

[@Dhorpatan]

Wow, that is amazing. Am I to presume you listened to 1 hour and 50 minutes of this? I just had a human being say he couldnt make it through my most popular video, and that video is a total of 7 minutes.🤣

[@LagMasterSam]

I don't know how you can deny that a question can represent an argument. Technically, nearly anything can represent anything else. The real question is how good is a question at representing an argument, not whether it can or not.

[@m.danielmills7091]

Two smart, inquisitive young men having a great conversation. Love to see it

[@joshuathomas512]

Except only one is actually smart

[@Steelmage99]

Well, you are half right.

[@snufkinsnufkin2528]

the other one is makibg terrible arguments or no arguments at all until the very end where all logic goes out of the window and is quite embarassing

[@anthonymich5184]

You can bring a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink. The last bit of the video is a slog. No matter who it is, watching someone in real time avoid thinking about another’s person’s ideas and merely repeat themselves without even the barest engagement is tedious in the least, and often, disheartening.

[@PAWiley]

Lead, it's lead a horse to water. lol. I agree wholeheartedly. What I think I've known for quite some time but have only very recently pinpointed is, from my perspective, a crucial difference between the genesis, the motivation and approach of these two individuals. Where Alex seems to be driven by, and focused on, what is evidently more true, by what seems undeniably to make more sense, Cameron seems driven by what he's already convinced is true or, more specifically, what he feels ought to be true, what he truly believes is best for everyone if true. I've only just started trying to put this into words and, clearly, I'm still working on it. Does this make sense, though? If so, is there a better way to explain it?

[@norsketilbakeblikk3717]

@@PAWiley I agree with you. But it’s also clear to me that the two people conversing are not in the same intelligence bracket.

[@skeptic_al]

“It can’t be representative because it’s not the same thing.” WTF?! That’s what it means to be representative. If it was the same it would be the thing, not representative of the thing. Representative: adj. : Standing for something else

[@RomanNumural9]

I sided with Alex a lot on this video. Formally I'm pretty deep into mathematics and that's given me the illusion that I'm also deep into knowledge about rhetoric. But this video has helped me realize that mathematical and logical truth are not everything there is to discussion and debate. I think i've been too stiff and defensive when discussing things with my peers. In particular, in math you don't have to worry about what someone means by a statement. Everything is so formalized that there is no ambiguity. I think this has lead me to do this outside of math as well, where I refute someone's words rather than the thought those words represent. I think this causes me to stifle discussion and silence my interlocutors more than it should. I feel this is contrary to the essence of what debate should be: a theatre to enhance understanding and learn new ideas. So thank you for the discussion, this has been a wonderful video. I hope some day to be on Alex's level of communication and clarity. Capturing Christianity, you did a great job creating a good environment for this discussion to take place, well done!

[@charltonrodda]

Learning to respond to the intent behind a statement rather than the statement itself is important. I used to constantly point out anything I saw as an error, and thought I was doing a great service, much like the wiggly red line under a word. But... that only makes sense if you are preparing something to be seen by others. If you are in dialogue, then unnecessarily correcting the minutiae tends to be disrespectful of everything else the other person put into their communication to you. If their mistake is large enough to be relevant to the point they were making, then mention it only as much as is necessary to steel-man it, and then respond to the steel-man.

[@alfonso9983]

I feel like referring to a talking point or argument rebuttal as an “Athiest Slogan” may not be the best way to start a dialogue. In truth, every argument/evidence Ive ever heard is difficult for me to take seriously. However, for the sake of conversation, I am obliged to sincerely contemplate any claim. I would never label them as “slogans”, because it would offend the interlocutor. If that were my intent, I would simply throw rocks at them and say terrible things about their sister.

[@noahwinslow3252]

"A question isn't identical to an arguement so how can it represent it?" 1:32:13 Please tell me that you're brighter than this @Capturing Christianity

[@CapturingChristianity]

Yeah I cringed pretty hard listening back to that…

[@YAWTon]

@@CapturingChristianity Don't worry, this was by far not the most cringe-worthy that I have heard from you. Admittedly, the last 30 minutes were a bit painful to watch, but overall this is one of the better CC clips.

[@wakkablockablaw6025]

@@YAWTon Why are you kicking someone while they are down? Kind of a dick move

[@BatmanArkham8592]

@@CapturingChristianity hey Cam Could you please arrange a formal devil's advocate debate between Alex and Joe on God's existence

[@PilsnerGrip]

That "no evidence" is kinda semantics, because for most people "bad evidence" means no evidence. Because in court, if there are bad evidence, they are inadmissible and therefore no evidence for the case.

[@mkano7434]

Interesting, I'd use a court analogy to say the opposite - in court we often establish someone's guilt despite the existance of evidence hinting at innocence. So it's silly to hold the word "evidence" to such a high standards if the courts acknowledge that evidence doesn't even have to point to truth.

[@toxiccc777]

Besides that, when christians talk about "evidence for god", they are usually talking about things, that would nowhere else be considered "evidence" except in theology. For example stuff like "personal experience". If there really was evidence for a god, it would have been easy to mention it here in this discussion.

[@mkano7434]

@@toxiccc777 Testimonies are actually considered evidence in court.

[@toxiccc777]

@@mkano7434 That is not true for testimonies of things that have no empirical basis. No court in the world will accept a testimony like "a ghost did the murder".

[@HillBelichick]

​@@mkano7434the unreliability of eyewitness testimony is likewise a thoroughly studied phenomenon in human psychology.

[@MrLeadman12]

Alex is a more able interpreter of Scripture than most Protestants. His discussion of inclusivism, annihilationism, the difference between a mere nominal acceptance of Christianity vs actually doing the will of the Father, this is almost to a T how I make sense of the Scriptures. Too bad he’s not a Christian. I hope he will be one day though! Blessings on you Alex. Thanks for this interview to both of you!

[@aaronlawrence6350]

I think this conversation perfectly encapsulates the difference between someone who has a degree in philosophy and someone who doesn't. The clarity and force of thought coming from Alex is just in a difference league.

[@victorjvanderwoude3102]

I get the point but that doesn't equate to a win or lose for either position. It's simply points out Alex is a better philosophical thinker. The underlying argumentation doesn't really change that much except in precision of language to express those views.

[@jangohemmes352]

@@victorjvanderwoude3102 I don't think Aaron meant to say Alex "won". I do however think Alex's arguments were better, not just worded better. But hey, that's personal, this is not a sports match, just a friendly philosophical chat

[@victorjvanderwoude3102]

@@jangohemmes352 Ok. I appreciate your reply.

[@Beyond_Right]

I thought he was still studying for one?

[@raphyd1466]

Absolutely delighted by Alex's point that people usually aren't being extremely careful and syllogistic when they offer objections. If you want to be wise, treat arguments charitably, steelman them to find out what they're getting at. Otherwise, you'll toss out a lot of important babies with the bathwater.

[@kyle9933]

Definitly thanks for keeping the ending in, even though it wasted all our time debating something that was blatantly obvious. Alex is so patient in talking with someone who doesn't understand what the word 'represent' means. It's just so painfully 1st grade language it's hard to understand how he's struggling with it. 30 min could've been better spent but we get a great insignt into the minds of the christian believers it's actually a great showing of how the christian mind can resist logic and foil itself in the presence of a better argument

[@jcbquark8037]

Alex is awesome; totally fair to the Christian side without strawmanning ! CC is being sincere and also with great points, the last 30 notwithstanding. Always appreciate when a person is sincere and admitting errors! Very interesting chat

[@martifingers]

We should not forget that The Life of Brian had a sequence that supports Alex's hypothesis about alien abduction!😊

[@malgrosskreuz01]

Alex: Casual skeptic. His entire outfit: Am I a joke to you?

[@AndrewofVirginia]

O'Connor's response to the"one less God than you" slogan was on point.

[@brennanho9282]

I think the ending just comes down to employing a principle of charity. Cam could steel man the question to the form of an argument and respond to that. This is especially applicable if you know youre interlocutor well and he/she argues in good faith. Also, "questions are not arguments" probably does more harm than good by encouraging people to take a defensive posture in discussions. Its a tool that easily allows you to dismiss what otherwise could have been an insightful and penetrating question (that would bring the conversation forward).

[@noahwinslow3252]

It is possible as a human for Cam to steel man... but after watching his responses, I'm not sure Cam has it in has capability to understand criticisms of what's being said towards his slogan. Its like saying "Apples aren't pears" and the atheist is like... yeah, but we're talking about fruits in general.

[@pasimajuri1209]

This is god >kzbin.info/www/bejne/eWqkgKibmduCpKs

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

Unfortunately, people generally do not debate in good faith regarding deeply held beliefs like this. Atheists don't, yet they think they do. It's a subconscious thing because they're psychologically deceiving themselves into thinking they don't believe God exists when in reality everyone knows God exists. So there's a lot of subconscious self-deception going on with this topic, it's unlike other topics.

[@noahwinslow3252]

@@lightbeforethetunnel in reality you know God is a made up lie that you deceive yourself into believing. See, I too can claim I know the inner workings of your mind!

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

@@noahwinslow3252 The difference is: What I said accurately represents the Christian worldview, while what you're saying does NOT accurately represent any Atheist worldview. So, in other words you're just being deliberately dishonest just because you aren't debating in good faith just like my post says Atheists do.

[@BelieveTruthDisbelieveFallacy]

You absolutely did NOT "lose the audience a while ago" - I love listening to these kinds of conversations. Would love to see this kind of dialogue more often from popular creators.

[@DartNoobo]

Maybe there is just not enough people like you. Or people en masse prefer heated debates where opponents DESTROY or OWN each other.

[@Chicken_of_Bristol]

I think the biggest takeaway here is that most of what we would call "slogans" are people being sloppy and careless with their language. Behind most slogans there exist a stronger version of the argument that could be made and it benefits everyone if in your discussions, you try to speak as precisely as is (reasonably) possible for the context.

[@phoult37]

Agreed

[@adamc1694]

" in your discussions, you try to speak as precisely as is (reasonably) possible for the context" Yes, I've pointed this same thing out to atheists many times that this "lack of belief" definition is ambiguous. It couldn't distinguish whether it is a chair, a dead person, a baby or a living man's conscious decision of lacking. It doesn't tell how much it is lacking, 100%, 50% 0%. "people being sloppy and careless with their language" No, on the contrary new atheists invented this "lacking" definition so that they can leave room for themselves to dance around later, to switch the burden of proof to the other side. Alex when he was young made a video claiming atheism IS a lack of belief. Now that after some higher education, he learned that the academic definition is belief of no God or gods, not merely lacking.

[@babs_babs]

@@adamc1694 i’m not following your point on the “lack of belief” definition being ambiguous. me not believing in god seems very straight forward

[@leo--4341]

@@adamc1694it’s then ambiguous to say you believe in god while also knowing there’s no way of knowing for certain. youre just choosing cause… you just choose

[@adamc1694]

@@leo--4341 Kiddo get some education first. You don't even have the basic reasoning skills.

[@sygarte1]

Brilliant conversation. Very informative and enlightening.

[@nietzschescodes]

I love the last part. A crash course in philosophy of language and semiotics. It reminds me the good old days when I studied those topics. Boy did Alex was patient. lol

[@m-yday]

I must say, your pinned comment is very respectable, especially those first two paragraphs. That shows some real introspection and self-awareness. Made me appreciate you a lot, as a person who did come from Alex's channel. I like to see intellectual honesty like that - which is why I've liked Alex so much ha! this is something that really makes me give someone the benefit of the doubt or a second chance when it comes to things that feel strange But regarding your overall point that they're still not identical - which I do grant and do agree with, they're not identical - my question is: Why is it that they should be identical? (heh see what I did there) My point being - if they have served the same purpose and truly have communicated the premises and represented an argument fully, why is it important that we ensure that they're identical? The slogan 'Questions are not Arguments' seems to be specifically in response to the use of a Question as an argument. It serves to _indiscriminately_ diminish the power of the Question. (big Q to represent a question representing an argument, as opposed to referring to questions of any type) Because of this, it easily falls to feeling like a 'shut-down' button. One which can be used indiscriminately of the actual care your interlocutor is putting in (if they are arguing in good-faith or not). At the end of all this I feel like this slogan is left seeming from imprecise and dismissive, to dishonest and pedantic. I don't get a feeling of actually delving deeper into the arguments when I hear that. It feels more like the shutting of a door, which I'm sure is not your intent. I'm sure your intent is to probe deeper into the logic of the Question, but with the way in which it was represented here... I can't honestly hold that viewpoint and feel satisfied that I'm being fair

[@BubbaF0wpend]

Can we have an "Analysing 10 Christian slogans" next?

[@whydontyoustfu]

look at the tree 🌲

[@cyfour]

@@whydontyoustfu it’s a tree

[@youtubespag]

I didnt come from a monkey

[@youtubespag]

Yall just want to sin

[@youtubespag]

You're like the philistines. The bible says so.

[@EpolynPaprica]

Thank you to the both of y'all for this conversation! Re: "Questions aren't arguments" When this slogan was first mentioned, I, not being familiar with Capturing Christianity's content, thought of how it is used by believing Mormons to try to assuage the anxieties of Mormons who are struggling with their faith. I've had conversations like the following so many times: - Questioner: I'm just really worried that the church might not be true because there are lots of hard topics in the church's history and teachings, and **I have a lot of questions**. - Believer: Yes, there are some things that are difficult to understand. But you have to remember that **questions are not arguments** against the church. Just because you have questions doesn't mean the church isn't true. We're not going to know all the answers in this life, and that's okay. - Questioner: But some of the questions I have are really, extremely serious. For example, why did Brigham Young teach that "we must believe in slavery?" - Believer: Look, he was a man of his time and he was mistaken. And we don't know why God let him teach that. But just because we don't know that particular answer doesn't mean the church isn't true. We know the really important stuff: that God loves you and that this is his church. The only thing you need to do is hold on to the spiritual witness that you have.... etc etc So in my experience, when believers have said to me, "questions aren't arguments," what they seem to mean is: you shouldn't allow your questions to make you think the church isn't true. Doubt your doubts before you doubt your faith. When used in this way, it seems like what exmos like to call a "thought-stopping technique" meant to discourage questions. I'm curious if other Christians have similar experiences with this kind of conversation? But I know that's not what Alex and Cameron were discussing here, so, moving on: I'm not sure what Cameron's point is when he says (1:51:30): "Questions can represent arguments, but that doesn't mean they *are* arguments." I second Alex's idea that some linguistics is needed here. What do you mean by "questions"? Do you mean linguistic utterances that are in interrogative form? Or do you mean "questions" the way someone means it when they say, "I have questions about this church?" By "Questions aren't Arguments," do you mean: Just because someone confronts you with [question = a linguistic utterance that is in interrogative form] doesn't mean you should worry that they might have found a convincing argument against the existence of a god? (that's kinda circling back to my initial assumptions about the slogan...) Or maybe: Don't let skeptics off the hook if all they've done is ask questions and they haven't properly formed and conveyed a formal argument. ? Thanks again xx

[@parkers3700]

Interesting example with the Brigham Young thing. I think that this is actually an example of a question that represents an argument, even though the questioner doesn't necessarily believe what the argument is suggesting. I can imagine someone asking the same question simply because they are curious if there is already a known answer to the this puzzling question. But in your example the questioner seems to already know that there isn't a good answer and it is shaking their belief, so while they may have many arguments for why the church is true, they have just found an argument for why it isn't true and are presenting it in the form of a question. As for what Cameron actually means by 'questions', I have to assume that he means questions that are meant to represent arguments. He didn't actually ever explain what he meant by questions in the video I think, but they pretty much were hung up on the same types of questions for the whole discussion. And the slogan itself, "questions aren't arguments" implies that the 'questions' can be mistaken for arguments. There wouldn't be a point in him meaning questions like "where is the bathroom?" because nobody is confusing that for an argument.

[@pasimajuri1209]

This is god >kzbin.info/www/bejne/eWqkgKibmduCpKs

[@lendrestapas2505]

Just had a quick thought that would count against the Kalam argument and I‘m interested in hearing your responses. Let‘s say we accept that the universe had a cause. Craig then proceeds to argue that cause must have caused all of space, time and matter and must therefore be immaterial, space- and timeless. The only plausible answer he says is that a conscious being must be the cause. But. Next to space, time and matter, consciousness is also a part of the universe and reality. Conscious creatures exist, consciousness is a part of the universe and therefore we could conclude that the cause of the universe cannot be conscious. Otherwise there is no reason why the cause could not also be in time, space and consist of matter. If the cause brings into existence everything that exists, which includes consciousness, then consciousness cannot be part of the cause, because then it wouldn’t be creatio ex nihilo. Any thoughts on this?

[@milofettpants8229]

It seems sound. Not to just discredit something without reason, but the fact that I’ve never heard it before makes me feel skeptical. However, at least at first, this seems like a very compelling objection that defeats the argument.

[@profpurge]

The other issue is the whole "timeless and spaceless" bit, which is nothing more than a handwave. Even if we accept the idea of a consciousness untethered to any matter/energy (the latter of which also exists in space, remember), how does ANYTHING occur without time? How do thoughts occur without the element of time? How can an act of creation take place, without TIME? When confronted with this, Craig does his inevitable slip and slide-"well, the creation of time AND the act of creating time were simultaneous"-oh, so THAT cause didn't have to precede THAT effect, eh? Then why couldn't a natural explanation suffice as well, since clearly time DIDN"T need to already exist for creation to begin.

[@interloc1290]

Okay a couple of things to my eye as a none expert: 1. Your argument is valid as you have presented it based on Craigs own claims. 2. Your arguments soundness are where I suspect objections will be raised: 2A: Craigs premises seem to have always been potentially unsound. So any arguments that features them would suffer from the same unsoundness. He has never had proof -that I have seen in the probably 15+ hours of listening to him- to support his claim that everything that begins to exist has a cause. Alex actually did a video that touched upon this topic a while back regarding causes and infinite potentials etc. Also when trying to determine IF the universe even HAS a cause (that he calls god) stating that "EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS(another way to describe the universe) has a cause" always seemed circular to me or begging the question. 2B. CONSCIOUSNESS even existing is unfortunately not a closed case. Like even trying to define consciousness just to start the discussion on whether or not it exists seems to have confounded people much more informed and invested then me, atleast when I listen to them discuss it at length. But if we accept those 2 premises then I think the argument is convincing. Because if consciousness (GOD) existed before consciousness (US living creatures) then it undercuts or defeats his own syllogism that GOD MUST be timeless and immaterial etc. 3. LASTLY I suspect there will simply be special pleading used against such an argument. Obviously it is fallacious and BAD but opponents will almost certainly say GOD(consciousness) is a SPECIAL case. Like GOD exists outside of time and so can create time WITHIN .....not time? GOD exists outside of MATTER and so must create matter out of .....NOT matter? BUT because we theist (CHRISTIANS most likely) and our religious suppositions only MAKE SENSE if GOD is already conscious then the idea that an UNCONCIOUS GOD could create consciousness out of.....NOT consciousness will NOT work and so will be discarded as absurd without justification. At least I imagine that is how the arguments are likely to go.

[@Onthewayover]

If I'm getting your argument right, it's saying: P1: Every attribute we observe is an effect of the prime cause. P2: The prime cause cannot possess any attributes it causes. C: The prime cause cannot possess any attributes we see. I have concerns with Premise 1, but Premise 2 certainly doesn't work. It's not just possible for the prime cause to possess attributes we observe, it's necessary. For example, the attribute "able to cause effects." The prime cause certainly doesn't have to possess all those attributes, but to say an untimed prime cause must also be unconscious, because both are caused, is incorrect.

[@profpurge]

@North Korea Is Second Best Korea "Creation" infers time, as it requires time even to form intent to create. Even WLC admits this, and so does special pleading-either creation took place simultaneously with the "first instant" (so no causality) or the Christian God doesn't require time to think/act/create. But the first resolves any need for a creator and the second is naked special pleading.

[@worldpeacepatriot9448]

I am always most impressed at the brilliance and profound insights of Alex O'Conner in his debates and discussions with others on these religious subjects !

[@victorjvanderwoude3102]

"Brilliance" and "profound" is over the top. If your familiar with the topics and argumentation than both these words are overkill unless he's a "atheist superman" in your mind. He's a great debater and knowledgeable for sure but his arguments aren't particularly new just well stated.

[@JNSchneider]

With regards to the final half hour, I think some concepts from pragmatics might come in helpful. If my guest tells me, they're hungry, that isn't formally a request. However, I should still realise that they want to eat and are asking me whether I could offer them something. If I reply "The fridge is in the kitchen", then that is not formally an offer that they can go to the kitchen and help themselves to what they find in the fridge, however they would most likely understand it as such. These kind of things are called implicatures, things that are communicated even though they are not explicitly expressed. In the same way, if I make an argument and someone asks a question in response, this question can implicate an argument that attacks the argument I just made. That's just efficient communication. Maybe saying that the question implicates the argument wouldn't rub Cameron the wrong way as much as saying that they are "representative" or "identical in function"? I'm actually a bit confused as to what the slogan is supposed to get at. Alex gave a few examples of questions used in a debate to convey an argument. Does Cameron have a problem with questions being used in that way? Unfortunately, he didn't give any examples of problematic ways that questions can be used. Is he talking about questions with incorrect premises? Or is he really just trying to make the trivial point that questions are not identical in form to arguments? They mentioned that the intent is for people to think critically. I am not sure if that is conveyed efficiently with that slogan.

[@dominichowles9092]

Good on CC for putting this up but at the same time it reminds me why I don't watch his channel anymore.

[@GospelSimplicity]

As soon as Alex started talking, my laptop speakers blew out... Is this a sign? Yes. Yes indeed. A sign I need a new laptop.

[@docmatthy]

Kalam: We simply do not know that the universe had a beginning. That's just an assumption, which is not proven. The argument is dead on arrival.

[@darrenrichards2610]

This is his go to and it’s terrible. He used to throw out his Kalam tweets and watch them get debunked without even a reply

[@charbelbejjani5541]

Cameron should know better about Questions not being Arguments, especially since he uses Bayes Theorem. The questions are observations to which you have to test your hypothesis and compare it to your competing hypothesis. If the observation is not expected to occur for your hypothesis, it will lower the probability of your hypothesis being the correct one. As with Alex's example, if someone said that the disciples of Jesus stole the body, and then I answered "so how come they were willing to suffer for this belief?", this question/observation is not expected under the hypothesis that the disciples stole the body and so lower the probability of this hypothesis being true. So yes, questions can be used to affect epistemic probabilities of competing hypotheses.

[@TechyBen]

"My daughter, I believe her immediately." I worked in a shop, someone's daughter claimed the TV broke "just by it's self" perfectly with a PlayStation controller shaped hole in the screen. You tell me... ;)

[@noorzanayasmin7806]

Right. I thought the same thing. like they clarified, a claim require further context. A claim itself can be evidence if the person telling is not lying. But the lying or mistake part is hard to say. You cannot say outright a claim is not a evidence but also you cannot say a claim is 100% correct all the time either.

[@marcinkanski2878]

I’m kinda surprised I haven’t seen this video till now haha, thought I watched all decent philosophy stuff on internet god debate channels. And yet there r still little gems like this one. The clash between pragmatic thinking (pro question-argument hybrid alex) and, from a lack of better word imma use, “literalism” (reluctant capturing Christianity) at the end there was delightful, and as a philosophy student I can’t fully express how warm and fuzzy it made me feel during summer break to hear a proper debate getting further and further unhinged over a silly wording disagreement

[@scottmckeown1729]

As a language learner I am acutely aware that mentalese is a thing. When you first set out to learn your target language you have no choice but to translate from your native language into your target language. But as you progress and get better you become more and more aware that you are translating directly from mentalese directly into your target language. Translating from English into Japanese is a much clunkier, slower and more difficult process than going straight from mentalese into Japanese. If mentalese wasn't a thing, even the very best bilingual people would be significantly slower when they talk. And if that didn't convince you consider this: If mentalese doesn't exists, then how would it be possible to accidently say something you didn't quite mean to say if there wasn't a thing you had meant to say? And yes I did the very thing they were arguing about. kzbin.info/www/bejne/p3uTm2SCmr2shK8

[@ryanthomasjones]

I feel like you two were so close on the relationship between questions and arguments. I would argue that questions can imply arguments. When the implied premises are obvious, and when we agree on them, then Alex's position is accurate. But when the implied premises are either unclear or not agreed upon, the representation that Alex is asserting breaks down. To build on Alex's comparison, if the character of the President and the Vice-President are substantially different, then it becomes very important to parse out in which sense exactly they do and do not represent the United States. When Hemant presented those questions, I take it that Cameron was objecting to hidden premises that he thought were rhetorically unfair. The classic example is the question, "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" The implied assumptions are that the person being addressed both has a wife and has committed domestic violence. Especially if one of both premises are false, it becomes obvious how questions are not arguments. This i accept Alex's assertion that questions represent arguments, provided that the implied premises are both obvious and agreed upon. When they are not, as in the case of Hemant's video, it is not unfair to ask him to spell out exactly what arguments his questions are meant to refer to.

[@ParadoxProblems]

Most, if not all, of the questions Alex proposed were questions requesting Clarification, which I see as different from questions requesting information that the questioner has no way of getting at themselves. "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" Is not a question that implies a contradiction in any proposed argument. It does imply the evidential premises "you have a wife" "you beat her in the past" "you might still be doing so now." The question "Why did the apostles suffer?" requests clarification between an understood claim (that the apostles were lying) and the asker's idea (if they have no reason to suffer, what could have caused them to lie).

[@victorjvanderwoude3102]

I appreciate your language and writing skills, and reasoning. I agree with your position on questions and arguments (balanced). It was a pleasure to read your reply. Your paragraphs are beautifully written. Thanks

[@ryanthomasjones]

@@victorjvanderwoude3102 I think this is the most affirming KZbin comment I've ever gotten. Thank you so much for your kind words!

[@SakutoNoSAI]

Alex is, I think, my favourite Atheist apologist, because he understands God, belief in God and Chriatian theology and philosophy in a charitable way. He's not an enemy, he's a seeker.

[@mil401]

Can it ever be possible that someone is neither an enemy or a seeker?

[@fluffysheap]

@@mil401 of course, they could be an ally, or a bystander. But if you mean someone actively on the other side of an argument, then only if you want to argue the definition of "enemy." Which is a bit strong of a word, I'd say "opponent" or maybe "adversary".

[@Jockito]

Matthew 12:30 He who is not with me, is against me, and he who does not gather with me, scatters

[@NeutralMjolkHotel]

@@Jockito so if one seeks to be “with” god, but still finds no way to do so, is it god who picked that person out to be their enemy?

[@Jockito]

@@NeutralMjolkHotel That would seem like a fair conclusion to draw to me in such a case

[@Trader-z7x]

Alex O Connor is a very knowledgeable man. As a Christian I respect his knowledge and pursuit of more knowledge. I hope one day he encounters the love and power of Christ.

[@FakingANerve]

So, according to Cam "claims are not evidence" is laughably faulty, but "questions are not arguments" warrants a long discussion to defend how true it is... sometimes? 🤨

[@carlthewellendowed]

The most frustrating thing to me about Cam bringing up "claims are not evidence," is that he clearly still completely misses the point Dillahunty was making, even though Matt has explained it on more than one occasion. It feels like Cam is purposely not understanding at this point.

[@ringodax12]

The question argument disagreement seems to hing on literalism. The question seemed to become is a question and argument rather than can a question be used in a logical argument to engage with another person. I had a similar problem when I was teaching English as a second language. Importantly where I was teaching critical thinking had been stamped out of the curriculum and as one result of that, everyone was very literal. I taught the kids about cognates in French and English and said it made learning English much easier because so many words in French and English are the same or very similar. The kids wouldn’t have it. They said no pratique was NOT at all the same as practice and even when the words were nearly identically written they weren’t pronounced EXACTLY the same so they are not the same. While literally true that cognates are identical, they are functionally similar enough in the context of an English class. I feel like questions in a debate are similarly used. It’s used similarly to an argument so can stand in for one. I also think that adherence to logic in this way can be bad. I generally think questions in a discussion are the most effective form of communication. It shows you are paying attention and engaging and not just thinking of your next argument. Like if more understanding can come from asking questions then why would he limit their use? Then it just seems to be about winning and not about connection or understanding.

[@Theomatikalli]

I almost classify "Questions are not arguments" as a form of Ad hominem :D I think someone would actually say this as a cope out. When I ask questions, I'm usually trying to help someone to use logic by guiding them through a thought process.. Now if the person asks why I'm asking the question, I can then take them through what I'm getting at and the possible conclusions that can be drawn from each answer and hence drive the point from there but if instead they answer the question honestly, they might end up discovering the holes in their own logic by themselves, which I think is more potent. A weak example of this could be me asking whether a person expects to find polar bears in the middle East. Using their own brain they would possibly say no. Then I'd ask them whether they think Noah went to the north pole to fetch them and how he went there and how he captured and kept them from freezing and from eating other animals collected in Noah's around the world in 80 days trip. all these questions would be part of a "reductio ad absurdum" case being built against Noah Ark Story and Young Earth creationism. Of cause a person could just magic away all my concerns if they wanted. My point is dig deeper rather than just saying "questions are not arguments". it doesn't sound like a progressive stance.

[@Imjustsayin99]

My question would be, did Adam name all bear kinds or just ‘bear’? Given a few thousand years after Noah’s flood we see how quickly species can adapt. We see evidence even today, and it doesn’t take an absurd ‘millions of years’ fairytale made up by Lyell and Darwin because of their disdain for biblical records in their day.

[@Theomatikalli]

@@Imjustsayin99 Like I said, this was a weak example. Most fossil research shows that polar bears were already present 70000 years ago.. but my guess is that you are saying that, he didn't bother bring polar bears on the trip because he could just get them from brown bears or something like that. Most scientists regardless of religion, agree that a thousand years is not enough. even very minor changes can take a 100k years to develop. but even if I grant you your hyper evolution theory, there is still a lot of points to defend.. Where do dinosaurs feet in your ark story? What about parasites that can only live in a host and kill their host? how did that work? What about catering/food for the animals? how were animals kept from eating each other not to mention the volume of feces that would need to be.disposed of. I might not do this rebuttal justice so take a listen to this and let me know what you think. kzbin.info/www/bejne/oJClq4qLqr-Ba9k or kzbin.info/www/bejne/f2OVZomZqJiLZsk

[@amullac9207]

A short cut to an icon on a computer is not the computers icon it serves as a representative of an icon. You can delete the representation an the program would still function. The icon itself is a representative to the source code and function that the coding represents. One cannot escape the need for language to communicate the most fundamental functional requirements necessary to form an argument as a vehicle for communication. Number for example would still function logically but are only used mean fully when communicating them. I have just wrote this all out as a representative to meaning. There is an implied argument behind my words.

[@Theomatikalli]

@@amullac9207 how are you. Sorry, I've successfully missed your point.. Would you mind explicitly pointing it out so I can give you a meaningful response that addresses your exact point?

[@amullac9207]

I am more or less agreeing with you. There is an implied meaning in a question that is “symbolic” of/to an argument.

[@elijahhouchens7166]

Thanks for putting this on Cameron! I am a Christian and I agree with Alex that questions are arguments. The fact that they are identical is irrelevant to the point of the conversation. With that I think you still did a good job. It’s really challenging to convey your thoughts on the spot and defend them. Please continue to bring Alex on the channel.

[@amullac9207]

A short cut to an icon on a computer is not the computers icon it serves as a representative of an icon. You can delete the representation an the program would still function. The icon itself is a representative to the source code and function that the coding represents. One cannot escape the need for language to communicate the most fundamental functional requirements necessary to form an argument as a vehicle for communication. Number for example would still function logically but are only used mean fully when communicating them. I have just wrote this all out as a representative to meaning. There is an implied argument behind my words.

[@YuGiOhDuelChannel]

I think questions are not arguements because they do not lead to a conclusion. A questions can be very deep and pressing but it does not end with "therefore x"

[@WhatsTheTakeaway]

Yes, I think it is very apparent that questions requesting more information is NOT the same as presenting an argument. If someone asks a "rhetorical" question, and their interlocutor doesn't understand the rhetoric, an argument is going to be needed. It seems to me to be quite obvious that questions are not to replace arguments. Arguments set the dialectic, and questions ostensibly carry forward the dialectic.

[@philosophicaljay3449]

My issue with the slogan "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is that we must start off by asking what is it that makes a claim extraordinary. For example, if I tell you that I am going to Japan this weekend and that I will see you in a week, that does not seem that extraordinary. Now, if this was 200 years ago and I said that then you would be right in thinking that I am out of my mind somehow. What this does is establish that what makes a claim extraordinary, rather than ordinary, is how it relates to things external to itself. Once you start going down this rabbit hole you come to realize that the only justification for saying a claim is extraordinary is by pointing to justification we have to find the truth of the claim to be unlikely. In essence, an extraordinary claim is a claim that already has evidence working against it (that evidence being used to determine the prior probability). And so "extraordinary evidence" must simply be evidence enough to overcome the already existing evidence against the claim. That seems well and good, but we are also justified in asking if the evidence against the claim is, itself, valid. Essentially, what are those reasons that make the claim unlikely and are those reasons actually justified? However, simply calling a claim an "extraordinary" one causes those very reasons to be often overlooked, but those reasons could very well be crucial in the pursuit of establishing the truth of a so-called extraordinary claim. So, while it might be a somewhat accurate slogan, I find that it is not particularly useful, as there is no guarantee that what one considers in their head as a contributing factor to the prior probability is considered by others as well, and thus the priors are also subject to debate and discussion.

[@mil401]

That’s how I think about Sagan’s slogan as well. It works well rhetorically because the person using it might inadvertently smuggle in a low credence for the idea under question. But often in conversations with deep disagreement - such as with politics or the God question - even the prior probabilities of various things form a part of what’s being disputed. In such cases, whether or not something is extraordinary also stands in need of justification.

[@anthonypalo8191]

'Extraodinary claim requires extraordinary evidence' if this logic is true, does an extraordinary crime require extraordinary evidence? No it just needs evidence. An evidence is neither extraordinary nor ordinary.. it just is, its evidence. The slogan is not law nor theory, its just a snappy catchphrase.

[@mil401]

@@anthonypalo8191 There is _some_ kernel of truth to the slogan though. If someone thinks a proposition has a high prior probability they’ll need more and/or better evidence to be convinced of it than they would if they believe it has a low prior probability. The problem with Sagan’s slogan is that it can be used to implicitly assume that both people in a conversation share the belief that something has a low prior probability; but calling a proposition extraordinary (i.e. saying it has low prior probability) is itself a claim, one that two people can very well disagree on, especially when it comes to things like philosophy or politics.

[@mil401]

@@creatinechris But that’s just the thing, not everyone has the same experiences and/or agrees on what are the things people experience. If two people are disagreeing about whether say, a God exists who interacts with people, neither person gets to require that the other start with their (the first person’s) prior probability that “there’s a God who interact with people” is high or low: _because that’s one of the things under disagreement!_ Sagan’s slogan can sometimes be used to smuggle in a low prior probability in the thing under question, but in some instances - especially when it comes to politics, philosophy etc. - the likelihood of the thing itself is also being contested alongside whether it is true.

[@mil401]

@@creatinechris The best way to lower biases is just to talk and engage charitably with people one disagrees with, and to do so a lot. Doing so helps us understand _why_ others have the the credences they do, and can give us pause. Anecdotally, I’ve found that the more people have friends and/or interact with others who disagree with them philosophically, politically etc. the more likely they are to hold their beliefs tentatively and be open to belief revision. Is the whether or not something is an extraordinary claim discoverable though? Some propositions have intrinsic (objective) probabilities than can be discovered (philosophers of science call these a proposition’s “propensity”). For example, the proposition “a fair coin will land on one side” has a propensity of 0.5. Some propositions though don’t have propensities that are discoverable, and some may not have a propensity at all. In such cases, all we have are our subjective assessments of prior probability (often called “credences”), which stem from our existing web of beliefs. If we think something is likely (we have a high credence), the amount of evidence we need to be convinced is less than if we have a lower credence. Does “God exists” have a propensity or not? I honestly don’t know. I’m still thinking about it. What I do know is that people can disagree about propensities, and in such instances we ought to at least make a case for why we assign something the propensity and/or credence we do. Using Sagan’s standard to assume something has a low propensity without making a positive case for why it does might be rhetorically effective, but it’s not very charitable.

[@quidam3810]

Great video ! Around 19', when Alex point that there appear to be a connection between being saved and geography, the big problem is the theology of salvation. He has a very restrictive view of salvation which is necessary for his argument to work. But that is only one possible approach. The catholic tradition, for instance, teaches that someone who does not believe in Christ through no fault of his own but live his life according to his conscience can be saved, and hence is purely and simply is not touched by Alex's argument.

[@phoult37]

Funny how Catholic theology always holds up best against an atheist's criticism... 💪

[@jadondavid8272]

He does address something similar slightly later on

[@jonathanhenderson9422]

Cameron, I think your confusion over Alex's arguments RE representation shows a gap in your knowledge in regards to linguistics. Of course, this is a completely a/theist neutral field but it's a very useful field to know something about since thought (including reasoning) is mostly expressed linguistically and is extremely relevant to any field that makes heavy use of language, as of course both philosophy and apologetics do. Alex is basically arguing that questions, despite being different from syllogisms, can still represent the same kinds of thoughts that syllogisms do. To me, the argument against this isn't that they can't represent the same things (they can), the argument against it is that each will have different effects in the mind of a listener. So even if they can represent the same thing in the mind of the person asking the question/stating the syllogism, they might have radically different effects in the minds of someone hearing each one.

[@jonathanhenderson9422]

@@macmac1022 As to your questions, I think your third question ("Or more like a person...") gets closest to what I had in mind. Basically, this questions Vs arguments thing is really a matter of rhetoric, which used to be a much more popular area of study than it is now. Rhetoric is all about the effective use of language. Now we tend to only think of rhetoric with negative connotations: as language rehearsed in order to convince someone of potentially specious points; but rhetoric is really about the effective use of language, period. As to whether questions or arguments are more effective, I very much think it would depend on the subject and the listener. It could very well be that a question could be more effective to one person while an argument could be more effective for another. Take me: I have a mild form of ASD, so any language that relies on connotations and intuitive "fill-in-the-gaps" elision is less effective for me than a clear argument; but I'm atypical and I can imagine for others a question might provoke more contemplation in an attempt to answer it than an argument might provoke that same contemplation (and comprehension) in an effort to rebut/refute it. Either way, I think it's a pretty non-controversial point that the kind of representative form something takes (a question, an argument, something else) will indeed have different effects in different listeners.

[@agusmolfino]

This is an interesting point. Can you think of an example where a claim stated as a question changes the average acceptance of that claim? (vs. when it is stated as a syllogism)

[@jonathanhenderson9422]

@@macmac1022 I don't think we're disagreeing about anything anymore. If you reread my OP you'll note I already agreed with you that both questions and arguments can refer to the same thing (as Alex said). My contention was that if Cam wanted to dispute that the better course would've been to argue that they won't have the same effect in the minds of listeners. Personally, I wouldn't say that in all cases a question wouldn't do just as good as an argument, but I'm not good at picking up on tone and connotations: people with ASD tend to be very literal-minded. Even when it comes to poetry (a subject I've studied) the hardest part for me was always analyzing tone.

[@jonathanhenderson9422]

@@agusmolfino As I said to Mac Mac I don't think one can make universal claims about either. Whether a question or syllogistic argument would be more effective would depend on the subject being discussed, the listener, and exactly how the question was phrased. There's too many variables. I do think in casual conversation questions can usually serve just as well as full syllogistic arguments, but they are more prone to leading to confusion because the explicit elements of the syllogism are left out.

[@aurorausagi3235]

Lovely close. Slogans seem to be to language what stereotypes are to visual images. I would say they are good depending on what you do with them.

[@AndyReichert0]

dang! i really admire and appreciate how much Alex knows about ways of approaching Christianity thoughtfully.

[@SketchySquirrel]

Love the video. I thought I would just quickly jump in to give my perspective on that last debate around 'questions not being arguments'. I think that this comes down to an issue of defining terms. To use the suitcase analogy, it seems that Alex's definition of 'an argument' would be the equivalent of the physical object that is the suitcase. This is not dependent on language to exist, rather the word 'suitcase' or 'valise' are simply two valid formats in which to express the idea of the physical object. While the object in not dependent on language, the words are dependent on the object, without it, both 'suitcase' and 'valise' are just meaningless sounds, so in every practical sense, they are the same, even if expressed in different formats. Meanwhile it seems that Cam's definition of an 'argument' would be the word/format 'valise'. With this definition, even if both words represent the same object or idea, the one is not the other. When it comes to the practical use of discussing with someone of the opposing view point, I am convinced that Alex's definition is far more useful, as without the format independent idea behind the words, the words themselves are meaningless, whether they are in the form of an argument or a question. :)

[@Davotheledge]

I really wish Alex would do another discussion with Matt Dillahunty and bring these levels of nuance to his consideration.

[@JamesRichardWiley]

I am a 75 year old atheist who examined religion but did not care for it. I prefer to live as an independent who enjoys watching what people say about their beliefs.

[@adamc1694]

Antony Flew was a military atheist until 80's he finally woke up and realized that 'believing there is a God' and 'religion' are not necessary together the same thing. He wrote a book "There is a God" then and described how his hatred to religion particularly Christian clouded his mind.

[@ShastraDugan]

@@adamc1694 fair enough i could see myself believing in some sort of god but probably not the christian one

[@mashah1085]

Dostoevsky's "I'd reject the facts in favor of Christ" comment is a common thread with most Christians. Some of whom when shown a Bible contradiction or fallacy STILL say "I don't care, I still believe it's the inerrant Word of God."

[@mashah1085]

@@jokinghazard4022 One contradiction or error in the Bible and Christianity falls apart...because it means other passages, specifically the Gospels, can be questioned.

[@mashah1085]

@@jokinghazard4022 "Substantial" contradictions are completely subjective. How about a contradiction in the Gospels concerning the Resurrection...would that count as a substantial contradiction?

[@mashah1085]

@@jokinghazard4022 Sure...according to Luke, John, and Mark...how many people were resurrected? Now, how many were resurrected according to Matthew?

[@mashah1085]

@@jokinghazard4022 So Mark, Luke, and John just "ignored" hundreds of other resurrections?

[@mashah1085]

@@jokinghazard4022 Hundreds of people ALSO engage in the miracle that would be a resurrection from the dead....and Mark, Luke, and John "chose not to include it"??? And you can't even say "Well, Matthew got that part wrong, it didn't happen"...or the other three Gospels become dubious, right?

[@joannware6228]

"Those who hold to the resurrection of the body are those who are most effective at working for justice and peace in this world. If you are a complete materialist and secularist, you hold that everything and everybody, in the end, just fades away. But if you believe in the resurrection of the body, then everything in this world is destined for redemption. Everything matters" Bishop Robert Barron "Daily Gospel Reflection (11/19/2022)"

[@McCaffreyPickleball]

for me, the last 20 min (the part where Cameron said 'we've lost the audience') was the best.

[@deuslapis5247]

17:00 On the point of the geographical distribution of christians, I noticed that the places outside of Europe that have high densities of christianity are those places that were colonized and converted to christianity forcibly. It is important never to forget that our current geographical distribution is subject to our history, and christianity has a history of colonization and forcibly spreading their religion upon those they've colonized.

[@nathanjohnson5088]

Hey Cameron, I just finished the vid and loved it! I have to say I was very impressed by how you handled yourself. As someone who has mostly seen you partnering with William Lane Craig I was presently surprised by how different you were with out him in the room so to speak. I usually walk away from William lane Craig content with a bad taste in my mouth for how blindly charitable he is to Christians, and how shrewdly hostel he is to non-Christians. Just thought id reach out to see if I'm doing something wrong here. Am I missing the empathy of WLC, or do you also feel like he is a bit harsher than you would like to be? Also did any non-Cameron people in the comments have this same thought, or i am just on an island of one over here?

[@emiliawisniewski3947]

I think he's about as charitable as he needs to be. WLC comes up against atheists that if not directly call him deluded and evil for being a theist (or in some cases a philosopher), they at least imply it. WLC pushes back where he needs to. I think the challenge with some atheists who are less thoughtful is that they put the Christian in a special bind. The Christian is required to actually express charity, it is afterall the Christian thing to do, but because materialism or naturalism is so common sense or reasonable it's simply not necessarily to waste your time with Christians. Asking the atheist to be charitable is asking them to be the weaker person in the argument, giving Christianity an inch where it doesn't deserve it, or pandering to its whim in some manner. A bit like trying to explain why elephants aren't pink, why waste your time on that? This of course is not generally true of the more thoughtful atheists but if you push them hard enough they do crack - Alex does this quite a bit when he proposes moral arguments against Christianity, "but surely Christianity is unethical because X", that's when his lack of charity shines through. So both sides play this game fairly.

[@charlestownsend9280]

The first one would be better as no good/strong evidence, which is probably what I meant by no evidence.

[@noahwinslow3252]

Yeah, I've never heard anyone say it as Cameron phrased it. Was there charitability when choosing these slogans or just the most inflamatory versions?

[@Sfenx_Muenchen]

Creation is not mumbo-jumbo Whoever has read and understood Bergson knows that creation is necessarily evolutionary, and that this does not refute the Judeo-Christian understanding that creation is based on the will (Bergson's 'elan') of a creator. But a first essential point often overlooked here is that creation necessarily involves a self-restraint of the creator. Because without the transfer of autonomy to creation, which is observed, for example, in the spontaneity of life or the freedom of man, but also in the laws of nature, a new reality 'of its own' cannot arise at all. Without any autonomy, creation would at best be something like a 'prosthesis', a kind of prolonged arm, i.e. an extension of the Creator. It is in the logic of creation that to the extent that it becomes autonomous reality, the creator necessarily restricts his 'scope for action' - especially when there is life, liberty and, before all, natural law (rationality) in it. A second feature is closely related to this first character of creation. Despite (or precisely because of) its obviousness, it is often forgotten (which then apparently leads to a contradiction to biological evolution; cf. below): The further the creation progresses, the more it becomes a 'wrestling with matter', a grappling with the autonomy and peculiarity of the present, i.e. the already existing - all the more if this is lawful, alive (i.e. spontaneous) or even free. This obviously affects every kind of creation. For example, once a painter has decided to paint an oil painting, he must take into account the characteristics of the paints he has mixed - and which of course require different techniques than, for example, watercolours. These qualities offer a certain 'resistance' to his work. The French philosopher and Nobel Prize winner Henri Bergson speaks of the 'résistence de la matière brute', the 'resistance of raw matter'. In God's creation, this resistance can show itself, for example, as the spontaneity of life, or as a result of human freedom. As a Creator, God eo ipso accepts that paths are blocked or detours are forced on him. All of this obviously has an impact on what the proverbial 'omnipotence' of the Creator does certainly NOT mean: The omnipotence of God, which Jesus Christ once referred to with the sentence: "With God nothing is impossible", obviously cannot mean that ANYTHING is possible for Him - especially nothing that contradicts the inner logic of His creation. The Christian God is not a 'master builder' and creation is not the implementation of a ready-made plan, because for God planning and creating are one and the same. Nor is God a great 'magician' who rules the world with hocus-pocus. He is the Logos [Jn 1.1], in his creation things happen logically. Which of course doesn't mean we understand everything... Bergson shows in his major work "Creative Evolution" that creation, especially when life is concerned, is necessarily evolutionary. This essentially follows from the second quality of creation mentioned above. It is therefore not a contradiction to creation [ as Harald Lesch meant in a lecture on Darwinism; see kzbin.info/www/bejne/emTHhWdqn61jn6c ], if for example whales have anatomical relics of land mammals. Worth reading: Henri Bergson, »L'évolution créatrice«, recently retranslated into German as »Schöpferische Evolution«, Meiner-Verlag, ISBN 978-3-7873-2688-4, cf. meiner.de/schopferische-evolution.html . [ English is not my first language, please excuse my mistakes ]

[@justinbond9467]

Cameron repeating “unicorn in the garage” in Alex’s accent killed me

[@MaverickChristian]

"Questions are not arguments" A point/counterpoint analysis: Point: Questions can refer to arguments. Counterpoint: Yes, but the question still isn't _identical_ to an argument, even if it refers to one. Point: So? The question and the argument are representing the same thought. Main Counterpoint: it's important to remember that questions aren't arguments so that we can _analyze the actual argument being referred to_ and not take e.g., the inability to answer a question as sufficient grounds to accept the referred argument that hasn't actually been analyzed. Example: an atheist asks Sam this question: if God exists, why does he allow evil? Without seeing the actual argument, Sam might think his inability to answer a question constitutes a reason to disbelieve in God, but when the referred argument is fleshed out, it's less impressive: (1) If God and evil existed, Sam would know why God allows evil. (2) Sam doesn't know why God allows evil, and evil exists. (3) Therefore, God does not exist. The argument is valid, but (1) is dubious. It doesn't quite follow that God has morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil only if we have some idea of what they might be. (This is not to say that _all_ arguments from evil are bad or unsuccessful, but _this particular version_ doesn't appear to be a good one.) The question might seem rhetorically impactful initially due to one's inability to answer it, while having much less convincing force when the argument being referenced to is analyzed. An important point about "Questions are not arguments" is that one should think logically. Even if the question _refers_ to an argument, _it is the argument itself that should be analyzed,_ and that _one's inability to answer the question_ isn't necessarily a reason to accept the referred argument. One should think logically and analyze the actual argument.

[@momergil]

I agree, but I'd add/complement what I think is the main problem (and almost stated in your observation): questions may shift the burden of proof. If I have an argument, the ideal is to present it and give the warrant for each premises, but if instead I conceal it in a question and throw it backwards to the listener, I'm basically giving him the burden of proof for disproving the argument I'm supposed to defend. So, to pick your example, when the guy asks "if God exists, why does he allow evil?", what the person is implying here is something like "if God exists, evil wouldn't exist, but you theist is saying that both do, so tell me why I'm wrong", but wait, the proponent is the one that is supposed to tell the theist why "if God exists, evil wouldn't exist", so a fallacy of shifting the burden of proof ends up happening.

[@williambecker5811]

Who cares if it isn't in the form of an argument? How many times does Oppy have to keep repeating the role that arguments actually play in philosophy of religion before it actually sinks in for people? He always lays out his view of arguments and nobody ever pushes back or they even outright agree with him, and then they go on to act like they didn't just hear what he said about arguments. It's straight up bizarre.

[@hidayaamani2904]

Questions are means to expose holes and anomalies in your worldview.

[@docmatthy]

A god that wants a personal relationship with everyone in the world relays on Europeans to spread his message in the Americas. And with his message comes illness and war and brutality. And it was necessary that these Europeans were able to build ships big enough in oder to become missionaries, 1500 years after Jesus was born. That's strange for a perfect being that could easily communicate with anyone anytime anywhere who looks for a personal relationship.

[@baskeptic1161]

I enjoyed the conversation, but I find Cameron’s quibbling over the meaning of “atheist” frustrating. I identify as atheist because I don’t believe any of the God claims I have heard. Most of these claims are unfalsifiable so I do not claim I can disprove them. I can’t disprove the existence of leprechauns or bigfoot either. I just don’t believe they exist. It’s not that hard Cameron.

[@20july1944]

@skeptic: Do you know any science, ideally physics?

[@daviddeida]

But you believe there is someone who can believe ?.You are more than what the brain tells you you are.Or do you believe you are just a mental construct ?

[@JM-us3fr]

I feel the same. It’s like, call me whatever you want, but we should focus on the arguments/criticisms.

[@russ4moose]

I think that the "lack of belief" framing has been used in bad faith argumentation by people like Matt Dillahunty in order to evade burdens of proof. That's why it's unduly frustrating to Christian apologists like Cam. AO'C (lol) doesn't engage in such behavior, so I fully agree with him on this topic.

[@Apanblod]

@@20july1944 Same old 20july1944! You are a pillar of sturdiness in an otherwise unreliable world. 😪

[@jarrett7541]

This was a great convo, thanks Cameron.

[@BT7M]

"Reasoning is reasonable" wow, that's such a deep insight Cameron 50:30

[@Volmire1]

I (Christian) would say that Cosmic Skeptic is looking for the words "testimony". The claim is not a testimony (which is evidence), because anyone can make this claim, without it being a testimony. But the fact that the daughter is testifying that "she got hit" is both a claim and a testimony, and it is the testimony part that is the evidence, not the claim.

[@Volmire1]

@@dannyslag Testimonial evidence is probably the worst form of evidence, because it is anecdotal. Unless we have reason to believe you, why would we believe such an outlandish claim about yourself, unless you said you were going to rise from the dead and then did it or something.

[@beanbrewer]

1:32:05 "it's not identical so how could it represent it?" Homie a representation by definition is not identical. If a representation were identical to the thing it represents it would not be a representation, it would be that thing

[@paulmagnuslund7096]

Alex is spot on when it comes to representation, and I’m glad Cameron changed his view in the comments. As humans we can only see the world and God through representations. As a Christian my relationship to God is through symbolic representations. Even my relationship with my wife and children (on a different level, but still). Everything is reprentation.

[@TheTruthKiwi]

Yes but your wife and kids demonstrably exist. God does not.

[@daviddeida]

I concur.

[@lrvogt1257]

-To be convincing, a fact must have quantifiable evidence. -The Kalam is based on an unsubstantiated premise that the universe had a beginning or a cause and a special pleading fallacy that something preceded it that didn't have a cause. -Religion is socialization like language, it depends on your family more than where you're born but that is an important factor. -As Alex said; Any claim must have sufficient evidence. -Just as in court, a witness can be evidence but that someone simply says something happened is not. You then have to verify the witness's story. Were they there? Are they trustworthy? - The scientific method is the most reliable guide to "facts". Truth is also a matter of belief. Facts are important to verify the premises for conclusions to be valid. Conclusions based on what one simply believes to be true are unsubstantiated. Logic (P cannot be and not be) is "undeniable" because we define it as such so we can be specific. "Parallel" is defined as the same distance apart to infinity. It's conceptual not actual. It doesn't have to exist in the real world to be a fact. Geometry is made of points which are "a geometric element that has zero dimensions and a location determinable by an ordered set of coordinates". Points don't exist. They are places and yet all solid shapes are defined by them. -Atheism was a pejorative invented by theists. It can mean anything from lack of evidence to a definite belief. I prefer the former because there could conceivably be evidence we don't know about yet... but until there is there's no reason to believe it's factual. -Evolution has nothing to say about the supernatural except that evolution doesn't require it. Creationist etc insist the science must be wrong because it conflicts with their beliefs. - There is quantifiable evidence that the universe exists. There is no quantifiable evidence a god exists. If the Kalam is to be valid then it can't add a god on as a special pleading fallacy so it becomes self-contradictory. It's like saying "Nothing can come from nothing so obviously it was created by something that came from nothing. To say something is outside space and time is to define it as non existent. "Nothing doesn't exist" :-) -Slogans are not arguments. Are questions arguments? Not necessarily but they can be. To question an argument is an argument. You say: "2+2=5". If I ask... "But is it?" I'm actually saying. "2+2≠5" which is a claim and then I lay out 4 coins and say these two and these two are four. Which is an argument.

[@MatthewFearnley]

I think one sense that questions might not be arguments is when they contain a false or controversial premise. Someone might ask, “how can a fictional book count as evidence for your beliefs?”, or “how can nothing create everything?” But the other person might not agree with the premise of the question. In a sense, they then have to mentally break apart the question and bring out the premise they disagree with. So the effect is that it can hinder or trip up the discussion, and obscure efforts to find the truth.

[@ShastraDugan]

true theyre loaded questions in that case although in the second case of"how can nothing create everything?" tneyre more so assuming a belief the other person holds while the first example is assuming something about reality itself so i guess technically only the first one is loaded but yeah theyre both presumptuous

[@s1Lence_au]

I think many (including myself before watching this) conflate evidence with proof.

[@NAYTER]

I absolutely think he refuted your T-shirt statement and you probably should stop making shirts with that saying

[@alexp8924]

It was going well until Cameron started to share his thoughts.

[@peterfryxelius9576]

@23:30, regarding "Your beliefs statistically depend on your geography" objection. Alex poses the problem very, very elegantly. Much better than any answer to the atheist objection I have ever heard. Good job, Alex! (On the negative side, Alex does not understand why men go to Hell, at all. More Ray Comfort evangelization, Alex!)

[@Tyler-hk4wo]

I like the fact that even though Alex is an atheist, he'll sometimes help his debate opponent and make some arguments against his own claims. He seems to be very charitable about this. He doesn't let his ego get in the way of his dialogue. That doesn't mean he completely believes in the arguments against his own claims but he will leave these breadcrumbs that people can take as an out.

[@lesmen4]

Both partcipants are in thier climax of- Alex accepting Christianity and Cameroon accepting Catholism .

[@j2ko1]

Im a Christian and agree with Alex on the question debate east the end

[@majm4606]

The Kalam objection I use when I (a) ask someone for evidence of a god, but (b) they provide the version that concludes with a cause. 13:59 oh, and then I reached the point of the video where Alex describes that the context matters, which is this exact reason. The "stage 2 case" does conclude with a god, but is filled with problems; for example if Bob from Accounting simulates a universe on a computer, Bob experiences time, occupies space, and is composed of matter. He can't be spaceless, timeless, and immaterial _of the space, time, and matter of his simulation,_ but that doesn't mean he's completely spaceless, timeless, and immaterial. So stage 2 trying to establish attributes matching God's claimed attributes isn't successful. Extraordinary claims. I can see both sides (Alex and the guy he mentions Mackey) to this one. For example in this comment I claim to be human. With one perspective, we consider that a "weak claim" because we have tons of evidence of humans existing, communicating in English (and in comments). The other perspective is to treat all claims as equally strong, _but then that entire body of evidence of humans existing, communicating, etc, is part of the evidence of this claim._ So it feels like a difference without a meaningful distinction to me.

[@tobiasyoder]

It’s totally speculation that you could simulate consciousness in a computer, science is yet to have any real understanding of the nature of consciousness. Additionally, if bob did make such a simulation then if the subjects in the simulation proposed the Kalam then bob would also be part of the big U universe and thus not being the cause they are referring to.

[@majm4606]

@@tobiasyoder 1. The point I made didn't require conscious individuals. It only required a demonstration of how the cause of one universe isn't necessarily timeless, spaceless, and immaterial. 2. Kicking the can down the road doesn't help things, because our knowledge stops at our universe. For example imagine Bob's universe is Super Mario World with sentient people. The people in his universe would be _wrong_ to draw certain conclusions based on how they saw their universe operating, because the very laws of nature are different (the Marioverse doesn't have thermodynamics, among other things). So everything that seems logical to us because 100% of our universe operates that way might not apply outside our universe (if anything exists there; I'm not saying it does I'm just pointing out how we can't assume things work the same). 3. You're forced to agree they can't work the same. After all, you need time for events to happen, so clearly you can't have a timeless cause outside our universe, right? So to me the only rational position is admitting we don't know.

[@tobiasyoder]

@@majm4606 the reason I said conscious was because for bobs universe to be analogous to our situation and thus discredit the Kalam it would seem to need to have possibility for conscious creatures but I see your point there. The point I was making is that it’s not fair to call current mathematical computer simulations as universes and we don’t have any foreseeable ways of doing so. To your second point, it seems to essentially be a form of Cartesian skepticism, with the general idea that just because we can see things to have been true so fa doesn’t mean they hold true everywhere. I’d argue with the loose definition of universe we are using to allow for multiple universes in the San physical works, there isn’t a reason why this Cartesian doubt shouldn’t apply to our own day to day life as well. The point being I think your committed to the belief that we can’t be sure our basic logic inferences are necessarily true just because they appear to be, after all the kalam is really an abstract deductive argument so the empirical laws don’t even matter. You can take that perspective but he’s some broad implications. To the final point about needing time to do something, it seems your arguing that time is infinite, which is a pretty bold assertion. But also I’d argue that a cause for the universe precisely must *not* by subject to time since time is a property of the Universe that’s being created per Kalam stage 2. Again in the Mario example, I consider bob and Mario to be in the same universe.

[@majm4606]

@@tobiasyoder The scientific consensus is the laws of physics were created during the big bang, so we have reason to believe they can vary even without mentioning simulations. So while I think your point isn't necessarily bad about not knowing whether simulations correctly _are_ another universe, certainly they share a lot of the same traits,. I mean _theists' arguments_ are based on some of these things, like how Fine Tuning is partially based on the idea the laws of nature _could_ have been different and Cosmological Arguments often mention how the cause of our universe couldn't be made of the time/space/matter of our universe (it's just that usually these make the mistake of thinking that's true to the extreme: that the cause must be entirely timeless/spaceless/immaterial). Bob's simulation perfectly represents those things, so it doesn't seem that far-fetched to treat it as a useful analogy for universes. As for "Cartesian doubt" if what you're saying is we don't have a reason to believe the laws of nature will just magically chug on as static unchanging things forever, then sure I'd agree with that. We only call them laws because they're some of the most constant things we're aware of. But with borders _between_ universes we have stronger reasons to think laws may differ (because they started at our universe's big bang, and because these simulations that seem analogous to universes also seem to show how laws could _wildly_ differ). Why are you saying I'm arguing time is infinite? I'm not the one claiming to know this stuff (the origin of everything, etc). I'm simply pointing out that people claiming to know the cause of our universe who're saying it happened without time are making a claim as big as....well as big as the claim you thought I was making that time is infinite! _They're_ the ones assuming something is possible when our knowledge of how things work in our universe doesn't seem to logically allow for it. _I_ haven't claimed to know things beyond the boundaries of knowable knowledge. They have.

[@tobiasyoder]

@@majm4606 Again realize that in the Kalam the term "Universe" would include the whole multiverse should it exist so it doesn't make sense to talk of other universes with the way its used in this context. Another point worth noting is that logic is not the same as the laws of physics. Its conceivable that you could have a possible world where all manner of laws of physics are radically different, but it seemly truly impossible to have a world where there is a married bachelor. Arguments like the Kalam don't depend on physical laws other then that time moves forward which I guess maybe your point is that it can't be known to be true for anything outside of the Big Bang till now. When I said you were implying an infinite regress I was responding to this part: "After all, you need time for events to happen, so clearly you can't have a timeless cause outside our universe, right?" If you can't have a timeless cause, then implication is that the cause must be subject to time too. If that's the case, then cause of that cause must be subject to time, and so on. The way I understand it is that the only way to avoid an infinite regress of time is if there was a cause outside of time, and this you were denying that a cause outside of time is possible then the I thought you were implicitly positing an infinite regress. I could misunderstood your point.

[@lajk85]

U didn't lose me! Continue the conversation! Continue!!! 😊

[@MartijnMuller]

Extraordinary claims require an extraordinary amount of evidence. I may have misinterpreted the point of this conversation, but unless the point was to critique the use of language in scholarly papers, as Alex pointed out in the Kalam segment, it's far more interesting to consider what is trying to be said. 34:26