Atheism Logically DISMANTLED (Using Morality, Mathematics & Reason!)

[@Malick333]

If I were a nihilist, I certainly wouldn’t waste my life debating people about anything.

[@midimusicforever]

If you were a nihilist, what would wasting your life even mean?

[@mrhyde7600]

Thank you for telling everyone what YOU would do in another situation. I will cherish these words...these useless meaningless words...not because of nihilism, but because no one cares what you would do as a nihilist.

[@SandwichDoctorZ]

​@@mrhyde7600 it's seriously a good point though. if nothing you do matters, then even replying to these comments is pointless. Even atheists being so angry at Christians about this doesnt make much sense. If you dont think God exists and it wont matter anyway, and there's no heaven or hell to direct people away from or toward, why be mad a christian wouldnt believe you? It's irrational for the atheist to care, and only rational for the Christian to care, because at least from the christian pov your conversion would have eternal consequences. From the atheist pov there's no eternal significance, only temporary annoyances perhaps with people you'd think are fooled. And if it doesnt matter either way and it's all relative, removing yourself from the discussion altogether is seriously more logical. When atheists don't, all they do is prove their position isnt as rational as they pretend. Their actions and worldview are often in opposition.

[@ExcaliburCool]

@@midimusicforeverthere is no such thing as wasting your life

[@ExcaliburCool]

@@SandwichDoctorZwell this seems like it’s based on a flawed idea of what nihilism means. The nihilist believes nothing has inherent value. The nihilist, however, is still human. Humans have preferences. A nihilist might prefer peace to war. They might prefer happiness to suffering. They might want to reduce suffering for other people. Not that it matters when it’s all said and done, but if the nihilist truly does not care about anything, they would remain still wherever they are until they die of starvation and their body would rot there. This is why we often say there is no such thing as a practical nihilist, merely a philosophical one. Personally, I don’t believe there is inherent value in the world. If suffering did not exist, there would be no reason to do anything. If life didn’t exist, there would be no such thing as good and bad. Everyone gives their own personal meanings to “good” and “bad”.

[@artstuffandmore...8956]

He said that we “don’t really need to trust reason, and consciousness” but he’s here trying to convince people he’s reasoning and consciousness in this debate.

[@thirdmonkeyent_llc]

Exactly. That's the biggest problem they have. There are no objective facts is a factual statement.

[@Harpazo_to_Yeshua]

Atheism is the utmost of irrationality. It defeats itself if one is honest. Atheists are just trolling when they get into a debate.

[@ExcaliburCool]

⁠@@thirdmonkeyent_llcthis is a really stupid point. Alex is not trying to argue that there are no such thing as objective facts, he’s merely stating that rational processes can still be subjected to scrutiny. You can reach two completely different conclusions about the same thing using reason. Reason is subjective.

[@VRe-r3s]

@@thirdmonkeyent_llcand you do? Cause it says so in da bible

[@odinforce2504]

​@@ExcaliburCool If reason is subjective, why trust it?

[@michaelmacdonald1889]

Alex seems to miss the fact that we don’t create mathematics, it’s a language that we discovered and continue discovering.

[@Absinthe1923]

I can’t imagine he’s arguing in good faith when he says math is a human construct. He’s trying to avoid talking about a creator so he has to assign it to humans brains

[@michaelmacdonald1889]

@@Absinthe1923 I most definitely agree which is exactly what makes arguments like this from the atheists so ridiculous and ignorant.

[@Absinthe1923]

@@michaelmacdonald1889 do you think they have trouble, spiritually, saying “I see all your points and evidence of a Creator but I choose not to believe in God” It seems like that’s at least foundation to stand on. But to say “nah, doesn’t look like anything to me” sort of undermines their argument.

[@sixfootoneistall2002]

@@Absinthe1923 as an atheist, i haven’t seen any evidence that the universe was “created”

[@Absinthe1923]

@@sixfootoneistall2002 how do you apply logical and come to logical conclusions while surrounded by chaos

[@barrycallahan2512]

one thing i absolutely love about this channel is how you try to exclude yourself from the content your showing, while still putting your insights and clarity. It’s small but very impactful

[@SandyCheeks1896]

Can’t help but like Alex. I never heard of him until after I had returned to Christ and seen him in talks and debates with Christian’s. I’ve never once seen him be rude, condescending or hostile.

[@jacquesnouvel6436]

Yeah, it's his best quality as a debater I think

[@MrGodforPresident]

I have

[@aaronharlow2137]

I agree. As a Christian, I can't stand most skeptics because of their arrogance, but Alex has a more reasonable and calm approach. He's way more receptive.

[@VaughanMcCue]

@@aaronharlow2137 You can pick me as someone you can judge as too arrogant for you. I am happy to not be as perfect as some people imagine they are.

[@TheDragonageorigins]

From his more recent videos he's slowly dipping into the pool of derision and mockery it seems like. With his video title after talking to William Lane Craig, to his comments about having to suspend intellectual and logical faculties to believe on faith etc. When he talks to atheists he's less worried about critical.

[@Fed-tt6cp]

"Math is arbitrary and it evolves and changes." Remember when 2+2 evolved to become 5?

[@georgedoyle2487]

Exactly!! By this atheistic standard of “logic” Mandelbrot sets, the prescriptive laws of logic, 2+2 = 5 could have just been subjectively created by Mr “COSMIC SCEPTIC” if he was the last man on earth because they are all apparently “subjective” universal, objective realities - right? Yeah makes great “sense” and perfectly “sane”? Kurt Godels incompleteness theorems and Mandelbrot sets they are not a human construct they were actually discovered and Godel put the last nail in the coffin for logical positivism and verificationism. This argument that maths and logic is subjective is ridiculous and is the reductionist fallacy and the relativists fallacy!! The quantum probability wave and Mandelbrot Sets 2+2 = 4 were not socially constructed LOL they were discovered in reality. These fanatical atheists seriously haven’t done their homework!!

[@viperstriker4728]

Orwell remembers.

[@mrhyde7600]

@@Fed-tt6cp Fkn idiot. Early civilizations didn't have the number zero, they used alphabet characters, Arabians invented algebra, some cultures had base 60 rather than 10, there's a such thing as the square root of negative 1....yes, our mathematics have evolved.

[@jordanlilley6126]

Terrance Howard remembers

[@mrhyde7600]

@@Fed-tt6cp early civilizations did not have the number zero. Some use their alphabet characters as numerals. Not all had a base 10 system, some head base six and some head base 60. Algebra hasn't always existed and was invented by Arabs. There is a such thing as a square root of negative one.Yes, mathematics has evolved.

[@SpicyCactus]

"Its not random" "Okay, its random but so what" Derrrr de durrr?

[@timmyt1293]

It's not random. But they are different definitions of random.

[@LepusProd]

Came here to say this. Can't take someone that does this serious in a debate.

[@Kleithap]

@@timmyt1293 To my understanding mutations are random.

[@TheRealHaans]

Evolution strikes a balance between random mutation (a chance element) and non-random selection (based on environmental factors), making it a process that is neither fully random nor designed.

[@captainlockes2344]

Evolution isn’t actually random. It’s natural selection, where those that are the most fit to survive in an environment will survive and pass on their genes. Just because it’s not random doesn’t mean that God is directing it. It’s just the law of nature. It could be that God created the law of nature and let things freely play out. Whether evolution is random or not doesn’t really prove or disprove God.

[@ryanevans2655]

NGL, I know Frank is a pro at exposing college students thinking through fledgling atheism, but I didn’t think he could go toe-to-toe with and (IMO) outfox easily the most coherent and thoughtful Gen Z atheist like that. He’s good, hope his ministry and reason win some disciples.

[@toomanyhobbies2011]

Well, Frank is helped by the Holy Spirit, and his own life experience.

[@BaranKamali-dx4fj]

It’s far more interesting and fair to watch him debate a more experienced atheist than an 18 year old.

[@aisthpaoitht]

He did a good job keeping it simple here. Very nice.

[@kingdomcountryranch]

He has gone toe-to-toe with the best of the atheists, has been very good at maintaining his composure, and has won over many to his side (viewers, not debaters).

[@roberthoyle1971]

Where is frank god and why does he hide? God does nothing for anyone ever. No more miracles? Why is that or did they not happen back then. God could easily settle.this but chooses not to show himself.

[@gabrielbasiledelva8874]

"Reason is subjective". Well, is that an objective fact? No. Then, why should I even care about the statement if it is subjective?

[@DM-dk7js]

Because the world isn’t black and white dude. LIFE is subjective bro. Life is FULL of grey areas.

[@BornAgain223]

but it is actually an objective truth claim, and to not realize that shows significant ignorance.

[@EquippedwithStrength]

@@BornAgain223I think that’s their point.

[@claymanning2729]

@@BornAgain223reasoning is subjective. What everyone thinks and concludes is in the eye of the beholder. Whether things are true or not are objective facts, but reasoning is a human process and subjectively is used to make deductions.

[@Azoria4]

@@claymanning2729But that conclusion is objective - and you arrived there via reason. But if reason is entirely subjective how is that possible?

[@ExcelSeñor]

O’Connor conflates words with their meanings. He argues that math is subjective because the words we use to describe it can change or differ. However, the meaning being described by the words does not change. If someone asked me what a “fire” is and I simply wrote the word “fire,” I wouldn’t actually be showing them a fire or explaining what it is. This means that the word itself is not the thing; it only describes the thing. So, it doesn’t matter what language we use to describe it-A will always be A.

[@jimhughes1070]

That's how brains are supposed to work!! 💪 Well said!

[@rustyshadow7]

Reason will always be reason, and we have to use reason to reason where reason came from. I hope I don't sound too much like Kamala.

[@jimhughes1070]

@@rustyshadow7 🤣🤣🤣🤣 As long as you're not burdened by what has been 😜

[@MegaMerdeux]

Yep, pretty much. That's why I never understood atheist relativists types

[@philipmitchener28]

In math, there are numbers and there are numerals to describe them. Such as the English numeral “3”, and the Roman numeral “III”.

[@creedsc1399]

This is the moment Alex recognized that the best strategy when your arguments get you in the corner, all you need to do is start redefining meaning of basic concepts and words. Worked good for him, really.

[@robertd9965]

Goes to show how closely linked materialism and relativism are.

[@ujunwadike8746]

Yea

[@shadowform1264]

@@creedsc1399 yeah like "what's the meaning of 2+2? Bla Bla Bla.... it depends... 2+2 maybe 4 it depends....." So stupid arguments.....

[@Gdawg_10]

@@creedsc1399 what terms does he redefine?

[@zhenyakc3586]

​@@Gdawg_10When he starts to question basic math and overcomplicats the subject even though he knows full well what is being asked

[@YeshuaGOD-7]

😂 The guy just said: Mathematics is not objective, it‘s subjective.

[@uninspired3583]

@@YeshuaGOD-7 math is an abstract language we use to describe relationships in reality. Since it's descriptive, it's mind dependent and therefore subjective. Just because something is subjective doesn't mean it's flitting or inconsistent.

[@victorfinberg8595]

@@uninspired3583 right, so the next time you sit for a math exam, try using your subjective answers, and see how far that gets you

[@uninspired3583]

@victorfinberg8595 all the answers are subjective, correct and incorrect. You missed the point.

[@victorfinberg8595]

@@uninspired3583 no, i didn't "miss the point". you HAVE NO POINT. i merely illustrated that in a different way from the core refutation.

[@uninspired3583]

@@victorfinberg8595 you resort to gaslighting already? Running on empty so soon?

[@leuken6424]

Good back and forth. Alex is reaching hard to deny basic philosophical principles.

[@ProgressIsTheOnlyEvolution]

I have watched Alex debate a lot of times and he is always reaching hard, FAR too hard for someone who is convinced that all he is saying is subjective. Alex is a liar. Everything he says and does contradict the things he claims when he is debating. His reaching is very dishonest and by no means objective. He would admit that too, but if it is not objective then he needs to come out of the closet and be honest about what the subjective preference is which he cares more about than truth, philosophy, logic, math, free will and morality. For his free will is clearly reaching for something which is not there in anything he says or does.

[@RemnantDiscipleLazzaro-Rev1217]

Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through *****philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men,***** after the rudiments of the world, and not after the Christ.

[@OS-yg9fr]

nah, all you christians are coping hard in your echo chamber. pathetic.

[@jaideepshekhar4621]

Math is most definitely a human construct. Constants like golden ratio and Plank length are not. What do you not understand? Where is √16 = 4 in nature?

[@461weavile]

​@@jaideepshekhar4621 uh, what? No. Square root of sixteen is easily visible in nature. Math is certainly not an invention by humans.

[@sync2597]

Im an atheist and i have to admit alex fumbled really hard here

[@thomasmaughan4798]

You cannot BE an atheist. It is a thing NOT to be, says nothing about BE. Anti-theist is a thing; but even then, it must define the thing opposed.

[@mrhyde7600]

Would you care to not act like a Christian and give some actual examples?

[@sync2597]

@@thomasmaughan4798 why can't I be an atheist? What are you even trying to say 😭

[@thomasmaughan4798]

@@sync2597 "why can't I be an atheist?" Because it has no properties, no behaviors, no beliefs. There's nothing there; that's sort of the point. Do you have a flashdark? No? Nobody has one. Dark cannot be shined or flashed. Only light exists. Dark does not *exist* it is a word meaning absence of light. So you cannot BE dark; only not-light. So, the word atheist simply means not-theist. but what is that? Well, it depends on who you ask. So what is an atheist? Well, it depends on who you ask.

[@sync2597]

@@thomasmaughan4798 nice over obfuscation, why are you trying so hard to be Intelligent... All you're doing is spewing pseudo-intellectual nonsense that completely obfuscates the general idea and understanding of atheism. When someone says they are an atheist they are simply asserting their lack of belief in god(s), when I said I am an atheist I'm saying it is true that I occupy the lack of belief in theism. The word am isn't Grammatically incorrect at all when used in this context.

[@Rubberglass]

“Evolution is random.” “No it’s not.” “Either it’s directed by an intelligence or it’s random. So it’s random.” “Yep”

[@markh1011]

Evolution isn't random....Alex is going with Frank's definition. Alex is being charitable here because Frank doesn't understand evolution.

[@lovegod8582]

@@markh1011haha nice cope

[@markh1011]

@@lovegod8582 haha nice projection.

[@aarononeill3]

​@@markh1011is Alex granting intelligence to evolution? Or is he describing evolution as a tool that can be intelligently understood? (which then begs the question, why was evolution created?)

[@markh1011]

@@aarononeill3 No Alex is not granting intelligence to evolution. He's trying to explain that it's not random. However it's not guided by an intelligence. Frank has constructed a false dichotomy. He doesn't understand evolution. Alex goes along with his options.

[@kenchiken6338]

Love that there was no arguing/yelling. Great debate. Unfortunately it all falls back to we just don’t know. And sorry you can’t just say “we all know deep down that morality is not subjective”. That’s the whole point of the debate.

[@joosttencate]

Exactly. You can't say the Holocaust was wrong simply because even if society was 100% convinced it was morally justified, it would still be evil. But why? This is not an explanation for why morality is objective, but more a description of a reality in which morality would be objective. It only works in a reality where 1. God exists 2. Morality is objective, therefore it can't be a way to test if morality is objective or subjective. You can't ask why in this hypothesis.

[@raymondlink9081]

When Frank described the levels (ontology, epistemology, semantics)…that was beautiful! 🙌🏼

[@computeraidedyami]

It wasn't

[@AkitoLite]

That was literally what they were talking about, I'm not sure why he had to clarify himself tbh.

[@raymondlink9081]

@@AkitoLite then you evidently weren’t paying attention. The opponent was essentially attempting to say that nothing is objective simply because different peoples use different words for the same thing. So Frank had to clarify that yes people do use different words but that they’re still in reference to the same objective thing. When your opponent meanders and makes untrue claims, it’s important to stop them early and reclarify to keep the conversation relevant and on track.

[@MarkH-cu9zi]

@@raymondlink9081 _". When your opponent meanders and makes untrue claims"_ Where did Alex make an untrue claim?

[@MarkH-cu9zi]

_"When Frank described the levels (ontology, epistemology, semantics)"_ Wow Frank described some basic stuff! Lets all clap! 🤦‍♂

[@davideassis87]

If Christian Apologists were the Justice League, Frank would be without a doubt Batman.

[@onyx31914]

Would Cliffe be Superman? His kryptonite are folks that need to wake up and smell the coffee

[@BenDover-ic3ip]

John lennox would be the writer then.

[@SpaceCowboy46]

​@@onyx31914 you beat me to it...

[@victor-antonioali378]

Dawkins would be the Riddler b/c he's too lame to be the Joker

[@BenDover-ic3ip]

@victor-antonioali378 indeed lol

[@justmbhman]

Alex saying "Well it depends what you mean by 2" is too good. Jordan Peterson needs to show this clip when next time he converses with Alex 🤣

[@midimusicforever]

Matt Walsh will have to make a "What is a number?`" movie at this rate.

[@christophercain341]

Yea that was wild

[@christophercain341]

Yea that was wild😂

[@georgedoyle2487]

@@random-ks8et “Old arguments that have since evolved” Alex actually evolved into a hard determinist - right? Which is actually worse than claiming mathematics is a social construct and isn’t discovered - yes?. Cosmic Sceptics relentless attempt to prove that atheists are “superior” rational decision makers whilst claiming that freewill is illusory, that is whilst claiming that rational decision making itself is “illusory” is a walking ball of self contradiction and cognitive dissonance!!

[@schneit]

Quite frankly asking something like what do you mean by 2? Is not an insane question I’m a believer myself, and I see that his intent wasn’t to avoid the question but more to be on the same page as Frank

[@daniellevy2272]

Perfect conversation presenting the difference between post-modermism, and sanity.

[@ReginaCæliLætare]

"Does 2+2 still equal 4 if there are no humans?" Oh, brother...

[@GenericHuman54]

@@ReginaCæliLætare the idea is that some concepts are emergent and not necessarily objective as if they would exist for all time (or outside time for that matter). If you don't like the 2+2 example, I'll ask you a different question: is water Objectively H20? This isn't a trick question, I just need your response to this

[@ReginaCæliLætare]

@@GenericHuman54 Short answer: Yes. Long answer: Water is objectively H₂O because the molecular structure of two hydrogen atoms bonded to one oxygen atom is a fundamental feature of the substance we call "water." We use terms like "hydrogen," "oxygen," and "atoms" to describe it, but we use those labels to reference real, measurable things. The specific way these atoms bond gives us a compound with unique properties, and its identity doesn't depend on what we choose to call it.

[@GenericHuman54]

@@ReginaCæliLætare great response! Okay, now we take this "water", this H20 into a hypothetical nothing-universe, where the only thing that exists is this **one** atom of H20. Does "ice" exist in this nothing-universe?

[@ReginaCæliLætare]

​@@GenericHuman54 If there is no temperature, no pressure, and no other forces or particles to interact with, there's no setting for the single H20 molecule to organize into a crystalline structure. So no, ice as we know it cannot exist in such an environment.

[@GenericHuman54]

@@ReginaCæliLætare I'll say this: doesn't it strike you as odd that to explain any "objective" phenomena of water, we have to actively step out of this proposed objective model of what water is in order to explain it? Water is H20.... But ice? You need temperature, pressure, and many more molecules. Water is H20... But cohesion? Adhesion? Literally any emergent phenomena of water? Suddenly we need to **significantly** broaden our proposed "objective" model to much blurrier lines. Is ice two molecules bonding together? Does that count as a crystalline structure? For that matter, if you zoom even further in, you find that electrons are essentially infinitesimally small probability distributions, and protons consist of a "sea of quarks" at the quantum level. We sure like to reduce things to models in hope that we can solidify them as "objective" but it seems to be the case that the universe doesn't like this, and is more than happy to overwhelm us with the absolute incomprehensible complexity of the things we call "objective" and unchanging. How objective is it really, and how much is from our limited perspective to impose constraints and definitions? All of which is to say that 2+2=4 has **so** many assumptions tied to it that it seems unreasonable to hastily label it as objective because "c'mon it's just so obvious, duh!". I mean sure, I'll grant that with a sufficient amount of axioms established and in use, then the statement is "true" but then it's a matter of if you accept that "trueness" the same way you would with any other thing you describe as "objectively true" My take on it anyways.

[@Nathan-vt1jz]

It really comes back to the old point that if you believe everything is relative then you have nothing to teach.

[@sixfootoneistall2002]

@@Nathan-vt1jz relative is different than subjective

[@johnx140]

@@sixfootoneistall2002 how

[@sixfootoneistall2002]

@@johnx140 moral relativism is the idea that each culture determines what is moral independently. moral subjectivism is the idea that morality is dependent on the minds of the participants (us)

[@ndimuafrica]

Is marrying more than one wife moral?

[@hermannehrlich4922]

You still can teach what pleases you without any grounding precisely because everything is subjective so you don't need to justify it.

[@James-od5eq]

If there isn't anything like objective truth at all, then we can't even say that there is no objective truth. The claim that there is no objective truth is an objective truth claim itself.

[@stefancoetzee8664]

Well said, and agreed!

[@markh1011]

_" The claim that there is no objective truth"_ Can you point to where Alex said this?

[@sidwhiting665]

​@@markh1011I'm not sure he said the words, because he knows that would be self-defeating, but that is the core premise of his argument. The minute Alex admits there is objective truth, his foundation crumbles. Alex is also arguing that we're all slaves to nature, since we are all composed of chemicals reacting only as we can. But he won't admit that either. The atheist must explain what he means that there is something beyond our biochemistry that allows us to react in ways that are not controlled by Nature. If he cannot, then tacitly he's arguing that we are all slaves to our makeup and choice is an illusion, at which point morality and reason go out the window.

[@DM-dk7js]

I don’t think anyone said there’s no such thing as objective truth. It’s morality that can’t be objective. Not truth.

[@markh1011]

@@sidwhiting665 _"I'm not sure he said the words, because he knows that would be self-defeating, but that is the core premise of his argument."_ It matters if he said it or not....and not your interpretation of what his core premise was. _"The minute Alex admits there is objective truth, his foundation crumbles. "_ Why? _" But he won't admit that either. T"_ I'm sure he would. That sounds aligned with what I have heard him say many times. _". If he cannot, then tacitly he's arguing that we are all slaves to our makeup"_ You don't seem to be aware that Alex doesn't believe in free will. _" at which point morality and reason go out the window."_ That's a total non sequitur. Whether you believe in free will doesn't exclude either of those things.

[@SouthoftheHill]

This is why society becomes demoralized and eventually collapses when we have institutions tell us, "morality is subjective."

[@mrbigboymemebigboy]

If God doesn't exist, when you think about it, nothing even matters. And that's a dangerous mindset

[@reesty7761]

@@mrbigboymemebigboy As an agnostic i disagree with you, i think that what you are saying here is that you want to point out that without a god i can do whatever crime i want like stealing. If i would steal something, then there would be consequences like jail, sanctions and in some countries even death. And i dont know like you but if doesnt heaven exist i wouldnt try stealing someting and be rest of my life in a prison. I get your point tho

[@mrbigboymemebigboy]

@@reesty7761 that's not what I'm saying. If everyone believes life is random, and nothing matters, and there's no plan, what's stopping people from thinking life is ultimately pointless? You need to find purpose yourself, but wouldn't it be a lot easier if we knew we weren't a random sequence of events? If we knew we had a creator that ultimately wants us to reach our potential, even if that potential is a short fall from his grace?

[@mrbigboymemebigboy]

@@reesty7761 Ultimately, what you're saying is no crime goes unpunished. This is the same philosophy of Monotheists, every inaction or self fulfilled desire or act or don't act on, will ultimately be judged at the end of your life. I think this is what scares atheists so much. Being responsible for your actions from a higher deity

[@Bashbekersjiw]

​@@mrbigboymemebigboyof you Need God to be good then you are a danger

[@infinitelyexhausted]

Frank Turek really is an impressive debater. He is such a clear thinker.

[@claymanning2729]

He never addresses the points though and just goes on his own tangent

[@jr8260]

Just don't ask him about slavery

[@gamelihlempofu8255]

He answered that one clearly here though. Racism is objectively wrong he said.

[@claymanning2729]

@@gamelihlempofu8255 that’s just an assertion and not an argument.

[@gamelihlempofu8255]

@@claymanning2729 an assertion would be more credible than an argument in any case.

[@k3nny235]

If Alex believes reasoning is subjective, he literally just tears down his own arguments 😂 At the very root of reasoning, there must be an objective standard we use to form conclusions in making truth claims. If our reasoning is truly subjective, who's to know who is speaking truth and who's speaking lies?

[@DM-dk7js]

Youre overthinking it. Epistemology is the best method we have for determining truth. So just use it if you’re concerned about what is and isn’t truth or lies. You’re welcome.

[@Btwixed]

​@@DM-dk7js infinite regress leads to intelligent design when it comes to metaphysics every single time. It isn't rocket science

[@ndimuafrica]

Who decides what objective reasoning is?

[@CornHolio945]

@@ndimuafrica By definition; nobody, not even a God. Deciding what is objective is a subjectitve process.

[@Btwixed]

@CornHolio945 "By definition, not even a god". That's a universal subjective claim by your own reasoning lol, you're contradicting yourself in two sentences.

[@Absolutetruth7742]

We will all find out these answers ... I choose eternal life..

[@RemnantDiscipleLazzaro-Rev1217]

Are you sure you are truly choosing eternal life? A rattlesnake bit one of my sheep in the face about a week ago. The deadliest snake that lives around. The sheep's face was swollen and hurt like crazy, but the old rattle did not know the type of blood that runs in the sheep. The antidote is usually made from sheep's blood. The sheep was swollen for about 2 days but the blood of the lamb destroyed the serpent's venom. I was worried, but the sheep didn't care. He kept eating, he kept drinking, and he kept walking because he knew he was fine. Don't worry about the serpent or his bite, just be sure that the Lamb's Blood flows through your veins. ~ _unknown author_ Board the John 3:1-21 Ark by the roads of Mark 1:15, 16:16, Luke 13:1-5, 24:47, Matthew 18:1-3, John 1:12, Acts 2:38, Romans 6:1-23, 10:9, Galatians 1:7-9, 1Corinthians 3:18-23 and parallel verses before it is too late - this day, because the door is closing and most will not escape the coming inescapable global flood of fire storm but a remnant and most so called true disciples of the authentic austere Scriptural Jesus the Christ _[God]_ clearly for now are exactly who the true Jesus referred to in Matthew 7:21-23 and parallel verses if you are not truly part of the John 3:1-21 qualified remnant. Selah.

[@OS-yg9fr]

@@Absolutetruth7742 christian cope

[@VaughanMcCue]

@@RemnantDiscipleLazzaro-Rev1217 Funny.

[@hermannehrlich4922]

Sorry but then you chose a fairy tale. Eternal life is not possible because Christanity is a hoax.

[@aidanya1336]

Its irrelevant what you choose. The only thing that matters is if its true. Either there is an eternal afterlife or there is not. Choosing it does not make it so.

[@corning1]

Turek is literally trying to teach wisdom to a child with such humility and grace in a loving matter. Truly a gift.

[@kal22222]

Lmao Turek is the most disingenuous apologist there is. Morality, in Turek's world, is subject to the whims of his god. If morality is objective based on Turek's god why is it that morality continues to evolve and is drastically different from the last time anybody has heard that god updated morality?

[@newcolonyarts]

@@kal22222 how has morality evolved? Gods morality is unchanging

[@DarkoDamjanovic-u4y]

Hahahaha Wisdom ? You mean he is monetizing Jewish myths from 2 000years ago? Ridiculous.

[@tvenjoyer6943]

@@newcolonyarts gods morality is unchanging, great so he supports slavery

[@therick363]

Except that Turek has shown many times he either purposely misrepresents and cherry picks things or is ignorant on matters.

[@theautodidacticlayman]

Chocolate objectively tastes like chocolate. Preferences don’t change that.

[@jimhughes1070]

That was pretty! 🎉

[@jasontaylor4802]

Except dark chocolate, that tastes like tar... Objectively

[@theautodidacticlayman]

@@jasontaylor4802 Haha! It’s just cacao with less milk and/or sugar.

[@katamas832]

...no? How do you know it objectively tastes a certain way? How do you objectively measure taste?

[@theautodidacticlayman]

@@katamas832 Because chocolate = chocolate. Chocolate is not lemon, and neither is bacon. The taste part is experienced subjectively, but the trigger is objective.

[@alexanderplain3398]

Great (short sections of a) conversation. I love the respect and care that all three parties display to each other. You can almost FEEL the anticipation of both Frank and the host WILLING Alex to reach the point in space and time where he finally says...enough running. As a former staunch Atheist, the mental gymnastics, hypocritical borrowing from God and straw man games get exhausting and eventually, if one is ultimately devoted to TRUTH rather than ideology, Christ is the ultimate answer. Thanks for sharing! I love your content. Frank is so impressive to be this sharp jet lagged. I'd be in bed with a pillow over my head. 😅

[@firstknight117]

I really appreciate the respect and actually civil conversation here. It's encouraging. I've seen a few former Evangelicals over the years renounce God, and declare He doesn't exist, "Because Them Bad Evangelicals Do Bad Things" (basically what Bruce Gerencser says.) A conversation like this tells me there's room for actual discussion.

[@VaughanMcCue]

@@firstknight117 If Frankenstein let Alex complete answering the question, you could have been right.

[@danielkrcmar5395]

1:54 "If you want my definition"... No, Alex I don't want "your definition", I want THE definition.

[@docgraal485]

@@danielkrcmar5395 there is no definition you idiot

[@CatholicHusband]

His worldview does not allow him to even believe there is THE definition. All he has is his own opinion, and he proved it beautifully right there.

[@Robusquet]

- Why is Reason subjective? - It's not: we lie. - So why do we lie? - 'Cause the Truth is objective, but our Ego tells it to f*ck off. Aaaaaand (drum roll) that's why we go to Hell. Ting!

[@blacksuburban2410]

1.) Alex at 0:07 … “Well, the first thing is that Evolution is NOT a random process.” 2.) Alex at 0:25 … “Yes, [Evolution IS a random process], so???” Ladies and Gentlemen, the arbiters of Logic, Reason, Science, and Intellectual superiority. 😂😂😂 Cheers to the future of our Godless Nation.

[@MarkH-cu9zi]

Frank constructs a false dichotomy and Alex lets him go with it. The way he said 'so' I think he was actually prodding him to make his argument. Evolution is not random. Turek doesn't get this.

[@MathewSteeleAtheology]

@@MarkH-cu9zi The things Turek doesn't get are a much smaller list than the things he doesn't want to think about. That's theism in a nutshell. "This is how I want reality to be, how it should be, and therefore, that's how it is, because I refuse to think about the alternative."

[@MrRidehard24]

Thank you, Brandon, for these videos! I enjoy them so much and use them to help train my children in apologetics. Have a blessed day!

[@RemnantDiscipleLazzaro-Rev1217]

Acts 5:29.

[@millennialharbinger2154]

For those who still watch Alex to this day, he would not agree with most he is saying in this interview. He might be embarrassed if he watched this interview, today. But Frank still did a great job!

[@BonusHole]

To be fair on Alex, he is a fantastically intelligent young man, but is up against and older man similarly fantastic in his intelligence.

[@Jordanpgates1]

You seem to indicate that this interview took place some time ago. If so, when was it made?

[@millennialharbinger2154]

@@Jordanpgates1 June 9th 2017

[@katiek.8808]

That doesn’t help his position. This is another reason that atheists are wrong. They don’t have truth. They have the popular theory of the day.

[@RemnantDiscipleLazzaro-Rev1217]

@@millennialharbinger2154 Thank you..

[@bquick7228]

Can we all just take a moment to give a hats off to Alex? He is so kind and so respectful, him, Sam and Christopher (even though Chris was more inflammatory) have done so much for my understanding of not just God but for logic itself. I'm a Christian but hearing these debates especially with Alex are so eye opening. Hope you see the light one day Alex but again much love for you having honest discussions.

[@stevebongiorno7047]

i love your stuff man. I'm a Christian and your daily doses of wisdom keep my doubts at bay.

[@twosheds1749]

Yes, wishful thinking is very powerful!

[@nickhancock5584]

I’ve listened to this conversation so many times, very fascinating. Frank was completely Right, Alex was completely respectful. ❤

[@jeremiahrichey4654]

Both the argument that I have reason and use it to derive the theory of evolution and then see reason is the best way to optimally control a brain and so reason is emergent and the argument that I have reason and since it makes sense I derive it must come from a god both start with the same assumption - we believe in the reasonableness of reason. So the argument you cant use that to derive itself undercuts both arguments.

[@gloriouspurpose_]

​@@jeremiahrichey4654 None of that meant anything

[@jeremiahrichey4654]

@@gloriouspurpose_ correct, the argument Frank makes is nonsensical and once you frame the reverse it seems so obvious that the statement seems empty

[@gloriouspurpose_]

@@jeremiahrichey4654 It didn't mean anything to me because it looks like something that someone would type if they're trying really hard to use intelligent words

[@prk30]

Reasoning is indeed subjective, but this young man did not realize that truth is not the same as reasoning. Reasoning is the tool to arrive at truth, which is objective. But even reasoning is not entirely subjective, it is only partly so, because one must start from objective premises in order to reason.

[@peterc4082]

The act of reasoning can be subjective. Heck maybe it is. But correct reasoning is not really subjective. There is usually only one correct answer. One can have different assumptions and come to different conclusions but the logic has to be valid. But the idea that assumptions can be different and logic has to be correct are two objective facts. If one assumes x=5 and y=10 then x+y=15 but if one assumes x=1 and y=0 then x+y=1 and yes we can then have different answers but that doesn't make our reasoning subjective.

[@chrismcaulay7805]

If reasoning leads to truth then it is "correct reasoning". If not, you are just wrong and you need to adjust the way you reason. Thus "correct reasoning" which we call "logic" is objective, but sure I guess every idiot on the planet can have their own way of reasoning, its just wrong if it doesnt lead to the correct answer...

[@bricaaron3978]

Reasoning is logic. Logic is not subjective. Logic is the only tool Man has with which to determine truth. If logic were subjective, it would be useless in that capacity. As *@peterc4082* explained, two people can both employ flawless logic and yet arrive at different conclusions. One person employs flawless logic --- and yet arrives at a flawed conclusion. This is because flawless logic operating upon flawed assumptions produces flawed conclusions.

[@MathewSteeleAtheology]

You don't have to start with premises in order to reason, unless you need to employ speculations that have no justification. We all start out as non-thinking humans, this is an empirical fact. Ergo, experience comes first.

[@bricaaron3978]

@@MathewSteeleAtheology I don't understand the relationship between "non-thinking humans" and experience.

[@levi3494]

I like Alex. He's trying hard, but Frank keeps helping him see the failure of his position with such grace and patience. Thanks for posting this Daily Dose of Wisdom!

[@babysealio]

I really didn’t think Alex was as ignorant as this but the math argument def showed his true colors of understanding 😆

[@dmfaccount1272]

This was before he completed a full degree in theology and philosophy from Oxford...

[@jimhughes1070]

"When everything you say is wrong"😎 Little buddy thought the propaganda he bought into was going to work on everyone 😭

[@phil7039]

This podcast was from like 7 or more years ago... he is much older than 18 today

[@bakedbeans5494]

@@dmfaccount1272Just a piece of paper.

[@jeremiah5319]

As Christian apologist Greg Bahnsen once pointed out, when the Atheist shows up to debate using reason and logic, he's already lost the debate. If Atheism were true, there'd be absolutely no point in debating anything, and in fact, would be impossible, since reasoning and logic are immaterial.

[@jacoblee5796]

I’d argue that reasoning and logic are human concepts. Is your god just a human concept?

[@teasdaye]

Without god, a game of football would be impossible, because a game is immaterial.

[@autisticphaglosophy7128]

@@jacoblee5796 Did the law of identity exist before the human mind?

[@jacoblee5796]

@@autisticphaglosophy7128 No

[@EamonBrennan-f2j]

@@autisticphaglosophy7128 No, it did not. Nor does it exist now. It only exists at the point of use. Or perhaps you can show us where we store the law of identity when we are not using it. In the attic perhaps?

[@Jupiter1423]

"If there are two rocks on the world, and no people. Would it still be true that there are two rocks?" ...."Well it depends what you mean!"

[@Jak-5]

Of course he doesn't know what the rocks identify as, one of the rocks could identify as 2 rocks making a total of 3 rocks, makes perfect sense

[@sidwhiting665]

Yes, that was a cheap dodge. Regardless of what words we might use, the fact is there are still 2 things. He might as well have said, "Well, it depends on what you mean by rocks." No... 2 rocks are 2 rocks. And whatever one could possibly mean by 2 rocks is still there even if human minds aren't. A monkey will pick up those two rocks, one in each hand, and know that having 2 rocks is different than having 1 rock in one hand.

[@jaideepshekhar4621]

Math is most definitely a human construct. Constants like golden ratio and Plank length are not. What do you not understand? Where is √16 = 4 in nature?

[@rileymorgan2801]

@@jaideepshekhar4621 where isn't √16 = 4 in nature?

[@jaideepshekhar4621]

@@rileymorgan2801 Where do you see √16 = 4 in nature. That's what I asked. Where do you see polar coordinates or algebra in nature?

[@markharrison5321]

The textbook definition of evolution is it is a process that starts with a random mutation. From the University of California Museum of Paleontology "Understanding Evolution" web pate: "Mutations are Random."

[@markh1011]

The mutations are random, the selection process is not. That's the point biologists are trying to get through to people.

[@markharrison5321]

@@markh1011 It can't not be random. If the entering arguments are random, the process cannot be non-random. That is logic 101. Some random beneficial mutation happens, and it works better and propagates, it does no change the fact the entering argument was random. I'm sorry, but I am an engineer by education and I understand process pretty well.

[@markh1011]

@@markharrison5321 _". If the entering arguments are random, the process cannot be non-random. "_ Lets say you do job interviews. You get 1000 applicants. There is a random element there. You pick the best one. Was it a random selection? Was the hiring purely random? No. That is analogous here.

[@markh1011]

@@markharrison5321 _". I'm sorry, but I am an engineer by education"_ I'm not the least impressed by your credentials. You don't understand evolution or logic. Try again.

[@markharrison5321]

@@markh1011 you are suggesting their is some kind of intelligence in selecting "the best one." Are suggesting their is some kind of biological intelligence involved? The idea of evolution is if a mutation provides a benefit for survival and gene propagation, the mutated genes are passed on. Webbed feet on waterfowl, for example. Opposable thumbs on tree borne animals. This is not about intelligence, it is about a random mutation being beneficial. An opposable digit on a duck is useless. Webbed feet on a chimpanzee is useless. A giraffe length neck on a grass grazer in a hindrance. White fur on a grizzly bear or black fur on a polar bear would be a problem.

[@kise_ryota]

I remember watching this one almost 2 years ago (I think). Thanks to it I got to know Frank. I think Alex was 18 years old when they did this. It was my first encounter with the moral argument. After that, I have been following Frank (Cross Examined) and he helped me a lot.

[@hermannehrlich4922]

Congrats on joining a cult

[@JackPullen-Paradox]

Mathematics is not primarily a language. Primarily, it is a way of finding knowledge. It is the way of seeking truth about the world of ideas; while science is the method of finding knowledge about the physical world.

[@jhonathantejada3345]

Lets say no language exist, how do you comunicate math?

[@JackPullen-Paradox]

​@@jhonathantejada3345 You don't have to communicate mathematics. Mathematics as a human endeavor is the set of rules, techniques for manipulating the rules, and the mindset for discovering the rules and techniques that applies to patterns inherent to particular subjects of study. Mathematics as a collection of techniques or as a mindset requires a person. But the rules (definitions, axioms, and theorems) are simply built into the subject of study. One can say that mathematics exists in everything. To define Language is another matter. I believe that one can gain knowledge and manipulate it without language. But what is language? I could see Euclid proving the truth to himself of many of his theorems from only visual modes of thought. Are we to call visual thought a form of language? The language aspects of mathematics are more the result of a secondary phase of theory development in which the mathematician seeks to find useful symbolism and modes of expression. It is at least one way that mathematics is creative. Think of the Voyager space probe's Golden Records, in which mathematical knowledge was represented in the form of drawings, charts, and written symbols. Here a volume of mathematical facts were communicated with little or no language.

[@arkyudetoo9555]

In order to completely defeat atheists, all you gotta do is prove the existence of your god/gods and that's it. And just because an atheist lost to a debate, that doesn't necessarily mean that theist were right and vice versa. The problem is that people losely define atheism to suit their needs.

[@nathanpfirman625]

Absolutely agree. To lose you need to utterly prove without a shadow of a doubt that they're wrong. Not say there arguments are incorrect. Saying it's incorrect just means there arguments are bad. To make a christian truly lose you need to prove another god exists or there are no gods not prove the bible is edited.

[@arkyudetoo9555]

@@nathanpfirman625 I completely agree. You have to prove that god/gods doesn't exist or that it is not possible for a being, that can be defined as "god", to exist. While you can rely on hard data/facts on science, these data/facts were gathered for a completely different purpose therefore these shouldn't be your "ace", this is something I learned as an atheist having countless discussion with theist. While you can, of course, attempt to prove/disprove god/gods, reaching 100%, no, even 95% certainty is not possible especially when we consider humans as the interpreter of the data. As an atheist, as far as I'm concerned, there's nothing wrong if you're an atheist or a theist. Even in a heated debate about the topic, I would give respect to any theist, that I debated, if they are doing it for the sake of the debate and not to make me realize that I'm a sinner, according to their doctrine. If I'm wrong, tell me why I'm wrong and not "because someone says so". Being an atheist for almost half of my life, having a lot of experience debating (formally, informally) against theist, makes me realize that the "independency" that atheist has been fighting for, has already been realized especially in western countries (I live in a 3rd world country in SEA where being an atheist is a concept alien to most people). My respect doesn't discriminate of whether or not you're an atheist or theist. That's probably the reason why I was the go-to atheist to a group of young Christian Fundamentalist here in our town. Because I was "very respectful" during my debate and I asked them where do they find these atheist that they select to represent on a public debate.

[@mickeylax9975]

So you only believe things if they are hundred percent proven, do you? Logical positivism strikes again.

[@arkyudetoo9555]

@@mickeylax9975 I tried to read the statement that I made just to make sure that I didn't made any mistakes that could lead to misunderstanding however, there's nothing in my comment that states I only believe in things that are 100% proven. Besides, the point that I was trying to make was completely different. Even if I don't believe what you believe in there's actually nothing bad about that. So, yeah maybe you misunderstood my statement, English isn't my first language so it could be my fault as well. I even stated that full certainty is practically improbable to begin with, even amongst theist.

This is a great conversation. I am so glad that people are debating and discussing important matters in a respectful way. One thing they don't include in the debate is, no matter what belief you have, you only have access to morality via the subjective gut, feelings and thought. Everything is experienced through one self.

[@mikefp3]

“Professing themselves to be wise…” that’s all I can think of when I listen to these people who take the most simple of concepts and try to make them difficult so they don’t have to deal with them logically.

[@dog7881]

Yep. It’s so pathetic

[@mrhyde7600]

How is he not dealing with them logically? This entire convo is entrenched in philosophy and logic - and I suspect you don't know what logic is. That's the likely problem.

[@mrhyde7600]

That's all you can think of because you're not educated enough to follow the conversation. Moreover you're probably not even trying to understand Alex's argument because you already know he's wrong, just like when I was a kid and I heard evolutionists and Catholics talking about all their heretical ideas and it didn't make sense because it wasn't supposed to.

[@arcguardian]

​@@mrhyde7600bro tried to make the number 2 subjective... u mad cause ppl are pointing that out?

[@mrhyde7600]

@@arcguardian Did i mention the number 2? Nope. Sure didn't. Have people been pointing that out to me? I don't see anything. You delusional boy? Feelin alright?

[@hezzi3283]

Having more than one ways to solve a math problem is not being subjective.

[@goodbug53]

tbh i have no idea what they were saying, feltl like they kept repeating them selfs lol

[@hezzi3283]

@@goodbug53 they did and that's what circular reasoning causes, but the argument of objectivity vs subjectivity is whether something is true without us or if its true because we say its true.

[@goodbug53]

@@hezzi3283 Yep cool man!

[@jimhughes1070]

He even stated the obvious... "You come up with the same answer" 😎 If your reasoning is correct! 🤣

[@mevybevy6221]

Thanks brother God is Good.

[@Drdward]

This is great stuff, it's wonderful to see how far Alex has gone from this as well. He seems much more aggressive and quick in these older clips but fast-forward to now and he's incredibly well-paced and thorough with all of his responses.

[@markh1011]

I still think Alex easily handled Turek but I'll admit that I may be biased there because I usually think Turek's arguments are poor. But what astounds me here is how old Alex was. At that age I was reading comic books and playing computer games.

[@taylorbrown7625]

For most athiests, its not a head issue, its a heart issue. Most of the time their heart is rubber and God's word just bounces right off it instead of it being a sponge.

[@EquippedwithStrength]

Was thinking this. In many ways it’s enabling his heart to stay hardened. He just gets better at staying in his head. Let’s pray he gets sick of hearing his own mental arguments and he relinquishes long enough to hear God knocking on his heart 🙏🏻

[@ndimuafrica]

Which god?

[@aidanya1336]

For most Christians, its not a head issue, its a heart issue. Most of the time their heart is rubber and Allah's word just bounces right off it instead of it being a sponge. See how ridiculous this sounds.

[@mrhyde7600]

Don't speak for most atheists bc you are not a mind reader. Youre human, act like it. You do not know the inner workings of ANY other human much less millions of strangers across the globe. You DONT know the reason some or a few or all or most think ANYTHING. Remember what you are, go find some humility.

[@EamonBrennan-f2j]

@@aidanya1336 No they don't see how ridiculous this sounds. I think that's the problem.

[@KFish-bw1om]

Without God, everything you understand about reality, including your understanding in and of itself, collapses into oblivion. "For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together." - Colossians 1:16-17

[@mrhyde7600]

No it doesn't. My reality has persisted in the transition from Christian to non; I think it actually became more real.

[@KFish-bw1om]

@@mrhyde7600 Oh really? What year is it?

[@mrhyde7600]

@@KFish-bw1om Reiwa 5.

[@KFish-bw1om]

@@mrhyde7600 The fact that you knew that you had to answer that way only proves that you know that I'm right. The fact that you thought it was actually a good way to avoid the inescapable reality of Jesus Christ, is amusing. Japan uses the same calendar as us, meaning their time also divides squarely on the shoulders of Jesus. They just also have and alternate way if denoting the year which is associated with their emperor. It still references the exact same year as us though. Which is still being counted from the incarnation of Christ Jesus.

[@mrhyde7600]

@@KFish-bw1om Am I wrong? Yes or no.

[@Simple.BibleTruth]

Fantastic video. Thank you. I hope to produce content helpful as yours one day.

[@ralphy3393]

Atheism = chaos; so much to the point where Alex couldn’t even agree that 2 rocks plus 2 rocks equals 4 rocks.

[@markh1011]

Where did he refuse to agree on that?

[@AcidGubba]

Well, for me personally, belief in a god has the same value as belief in a flat earth. There is no evidence for either, just allegations, but believers feel attacked when you show them how irrational their belief is. Maybe people will start to question why they believe in the Christian god and not in Allah or Zeus. I think education is extremely important, as is the willingness to question things instead of filling in the gaps in knowledge with faith. It is no coincidence that more intelligent people are more likely to become atheists than less intelligent people.

[@AcidGubba]

@ The first sentence says that this is my opinion. Then I'll give the example. You can look at studies that show that atheists are generally better educated than religious people. If I said I can talk to animals, would you believe me? The burden of proof lies with the person who makes the claim. Religious people believe in something without evidence. Intelligent people would never believe in something that has no evidence. If there was evidence for your God, it would be science, but belief in a God has just as much evidence as belief in a flat earth, namely zero. Is it even important to you personally whether your belief is true?

[@melissasw64]

There are people out there who will support Alex regardless. These people have simply chosen to not believe. They will get this forum and argue, mock, and ridicule. It's bananas how much they hate the idea of God.

[@JackSparrow-uh7zv]

So true. I see atheists hating on Christians in comments all the time... Trying to throw shitty arguments. If they truly didn't believe in God, they would've even wanna waste a single second of their life on something they believe doesn't exist.

[@timmyt1293]

Religion is the biggest mockery of God.

[@jaydennguyen-xk1yo]

If I’m not wrong Alex was not even 18 years old here and I do disagree with some of his arguments here but turek’s argument isn’t so good either

[@Shane_The_Confessor]

Nice to see someone presupp Alex

[@Baller4life2001]

@@Shane_The_Confessor very young Alex here so I think he’s changed a lot especially since college. Praying that he can come to the faith but sounds like it is a problem of divine hiddenness which is probably the hardest aspect to convince an atheist

[@claymanning2729]

Presupp is circular trash. “Logic exists because God invented logic”

[@lpadron13]

Alex is a good dude. Always respectful, has a good sense of humor and listens.

[@MH-il1lk]

What Alex explains only works on radio shows and the university, not the real world.

[@siafok6960]

what theist say only works in church not in real world. you can say million times that gods exist but they just don't appear.

[@Jabitte867]

Avoiding points by talking quickly and profusely, trying to use logic to dismiss the concept of logic itself, being owned.

[@texican95682]

Is the "atheism dismantled" in the room with us?

[@VN1X]

All the time.

[@lrvogt1257]

Something can be objective if it is: as according to Merriam-Webster's, "... independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers." If the larger groups agrees to something sufficiently that there is a lack of individual thought about it or if everyone in the group assumes it to be the case so that individuals tend not to doubt it, it would be considered objective reality for that group. Morality is, after all, a human construct. It's basically the wisdom of society developed over time to minimize conflict and promote harmony and security. Do not do to others what you don't want done to you.

[@ErikPehrsson]

“Evolution isn’t a random process”…… whaaaaat?? 🤯🤯🤯

[@sixfootoneistall2002]

the mutation process is random, the selection process is not

[@jdubbizness]

​@@sixfootoneistall2002Genuine inquiry here. If selection is not random, then what is causing it to act? What gives it its agency? I think Turek's use of the word random means that it is not guided by a reasoning mind... In other words, it's simply happening by chance as it were. If selection is not happening by chance, then what is causing it to happen the way it does? I just didn't understand the claim that selection is not random.

[@sixfootoneistall2002]

@@jdubbizness when i use the word random i mean something is lacking plan, purpose, or pattern. take lizards for example. if you dropped two lizards that have the same patterns, habits, etc into the same environment, they’re going to have roughly equal chances of surviving and reproducing. however, if one of those lizards is able to slightly change its color and pattern to match its environment, it gains an advantage. therefore, the selection between the two lizards is far from random. it’s not non random in the sense that it’s being guided, it’s non random because there are distinct patterns in the selection process

[@Butonfly]

@@sixfootoneistall2002 Selecting for survival, but it will still beg the philosophical question of meaning of why survival once you take another step.

[@sixfootoneistall2002]

@@Butonfly can you rephrase that

[@RadwanParvez-gn6gm]

I think Alex first considered the word 'random' as the way usually people use it, in the sense that theres no way you can predict what will be the next event in some phenomena. But later Frank redefined what he meant by random, (which is justified) that, if the world is not the creation of an intelligence, then its random. It's justified because Frank is trying to say IF whatever caused the physical laws (and subsequently everything happened due to those laws effect) is not the action of a Will-full agent, then it is random. I think this is more deeper dualistic understanding of 'random' in the sense that " If it is in control, it's not random, If it is not in control, it is random".

[@arcguardian]

Thanks for sharing i agree. We could say nature did X, but that would still count at random as Frank described it, yet as u said it's a matter of agency.

[@moesephanubis]

It sounds like Alex should consider reducing down to the beginning and wrestle with the idea of creation - how can something come from nothing if not for a creator. Praying for you, Alex.

[@Absinthe1923]

Atheist hurt themselves by skipping this step. The are either blind to the creation that surrounds them or disagree there is a creation at all. Couple that with saying morality is subjective, I don’t quite understand why they feel the need to argue. Principa discordia. It’s all chaos. So why take a position at all?

[@timmyt1293]

Your fantasy is not God. God despises you for being an ignorant loser. Just FYI.

[@CornHolio945]

I've only ever heard this "something from nothing" point coming from the theist side. Who's claiming that something did come from nothing? I think at this point in our scientific understanding of the universe, it's impossible to tell how the universe got to the way it is. There are several hypotheses, many secular and even more religious ones, but to prove any of them, we'd need some pretty substantial evidence, which we do not have as far as I'm aware of. They could repeat that discussion every time they they talk about other things, but at some point we have to agree to disagree, since arguing about things we can't know (yet) would take up a lot of time. If this were to be reversed, Turek would have to prove the bible and all its claims to be correct before discussing anything. Pretty unproductive.

[@aidanya1336]

You missed an option there. It came from nothing (which i think isn't even a coherent statement), an eternal creator made it. Or it itself is eternal.

[@theslugboiii5969]

Assume there is a creator. Why does that mean said creator is Christian god?

[@InquisPrinciple]

Confusing sufficient and necessary conditions here; If someone thinks morality is objective, that does not mean we cannot assent to some things being subjective, like taste preference. If someone think morality is subjective, that does mean one necessarily assents to everything being subjective. Even if I granted that someone disagreed, the atheist would then need to bridge Hume's is-ought gap, because they'd only have limited minds to reason to, not an omniscient being of being itself.

[@danielanthony8373]

E=MC2 whether humans exist or not

[@toomanyhobbies2011]

How naive. Energy and mass equivalence exist, but e=mc2 is, at best, just a first order approximation, and a good guess. Do some reading.

[@lucasdarianschwendlervieir3714]

@@toomanyhobbies2011 philosophical point still remains independent of that. You can substitute E=MC2, the Einstein Field Equations or the unkown laws of quantum gravity. Physicists in fact assume such independence when they talk about an unknown 'theory of everything' that is to be discovered.

[@pcdeltalink036]

@@toomanyhobbies2011 What about astronomy in general? Planetary orbits, gravitational forces, objects colliding in space, that's all mathematics based last I checked and that happened long before humans ever realized it was happening out there in space.

[@richardthomas9856]

Both of you should read Frans de Waal on morality in animals. It evolved!

[@VaughanMcCue]

RIP Return if Possible. F de W Died recently. Great scientist

[@Ronnie-n1m-l3b]

Alex is playing word games and trying to present nuances that just arent there.

[@arnoldvezbon6131]

But he has a posh British accent so he must be correct!

[@Ronnie-n1m-l3b]

​@@arnoldvezbon6131😂 I was thinking the same thing.

[@VaughanMcCue]

@@Ronnie-n1m-l3b Is your jealousy part of every believer's repertoire, or only yours?

[@BibleSongs]

His entire M.O.

[@fellinuxvi3541]

Words are were nuanced is stored. The whole point about maths is very important and gets dismissed for no reason.

[@masonleblanc6726]

Can we appreciate how respectful this conversation was

[@rhuelsteyn7708]

I have a lot of respect for both of these gentlemen. How rare is it to find good character displayed by both candidates in a debate like this.

[@Gk2003m]

I wish the guy responding to the Bible thumper were more intelligent. It’s easy to win an argument when you choose an unworthy opponent. It’s like Charlie Kirk going around debating high school students. He ‘wins’ those debates, because these young people are not well versed in refuting his discussion methods. But any time he’s up against a smart, well informed person, he’s lost.

[@alexanderwalter2700]

I find moral relativism to be utterly unconvincing and one of thecmost off putting atheist arguments. It makes the atheist seem childish.

[@sixfootoneistall2002]

relativism and subjectivism are different things

[@DM-dk7js]

Well it’s a fact. Assuming by moral relativism you mean the fact that morality is subjective.

[@sixfootoneistall2002]

@@DM-dk7js moral relativism is the idea that each culture determines what is moral and one culture’s moral values have no more weight than any other’s. it’s distinct from the idea that morality is subjective

[@Jake-mv7yo]

Morality is just a made up concept. What you think of as morals are just power and fear. Even the morals in the Bible are based on fear because you go to Hell for not following them. In reality you should simply fear revenge from those you cause harm to. However since we have property and civilization we have delegated the job of violence to the police and the government. The government must also fear the people though so it doesn't take advantage of this power. That is why the 2nd amendment and a well-armed population is important.

[@Btwixed]

​@Jake-mv7yo so morality is force. No modern society has been structured under that belief. Athiest nonsense produces anarchy and nihilism at scale and it isn't even arguable .

[@somechrisguy]

Dishonest to use a recent photo of Alex in the thumbnail and then use this old clip of him. He has been a lot more sympathetic towards Christianity recently.

[@461weavile]

That's your complaint? That's a bit frivolous. Maybe suggest that the date goes in the description or title.

[@VaughanMcCue]

A Christian site doing something dishonest. Jn11;35

[@fellinuxvi3541]

​@@461weavileIt's not frivolous at all, all of these are points he wouldn't make today.

[@georgedoyle2487]

@@fellinuxvi3541 “All of these are points he wouldn’t make today” Exactly!! Since this video “COSMIC SCEPTIC” is dining on juicy steaks as he soon dropped his vegan fan base like a lead balloon, especially once his subscriptions had increased to half a million - yes? “Cosmic Sceptic” even admitted in a debate with Trent Horn that he would actually go full on cannibal and eat his cabin boy if he was going through the “existential crisis” of starvation - right Since this video he’s even admitted to being a determinist which is one of the most controversial philosophical positions out there. Moreover, you do know that “MR COSMIC SKEPTIC” is a determinist - right? Sorry but if I ever actually met a genuine “HARD DETERMINIST” I don't think I could resist the temptation to just repeat every word back to them that they say like an annoying parrot, and then kick a table over, scream like an enraged ape take my shirt off and run around and stick a banana in their ear until they get so ENRAGED and then shout at me to get a grip and control myself - right? And then ask them if they really still believe that freewill is “ILLUSORY” and that I’m not responsible nor accountable for my actions - right? Because according to strictly reductive materialists, atheists or philosophical naturalists like “MR COSMIC SKEPTIC” everyone is completely DETERMINED - yes? Because apparently we are all nothing more substantive than ultimately meaningless, hollow and soulless, biological and chemical robots who allegedly don’t even have real control over our actions - right?. Sometimes, the best way to meet LUNACY is with more LUNACY. Alex is a determinist!! Sorry but determinism, that is the belief that ultimately meaningless, hollow and soulless, chemical and biological robots can access any kind of real “TRUTH” and “VALUE” is synonymous with the belief in MAGIC!! I’m biased against beliefs that are synonymous with the belief in MAGIC!! I tend to doubt that they are rational!! Do you have actual evidence or not that MAGIC is real? I’ll wait!!

[@Thomas-ps9qk]

@@fellinuxvi3541it’s not dishonest. Unclear maybe, but not misleading or dishonest.

[@luccasdubai]

It’s quite simple, no body refuted anyone in the end, both said their piece, it’s a matter of opinion, essentially, it’s not possible to prove one or the other is right or wrong.

[@kylecrowson1417]

The person keeps fighting agasint reason being subjective, and claiming it is objective. But its actually intersubjective. Thats where our subjective experiences of objective things (objects) can be shared through understanding. The real objective world is not the same as the intersubjective language of it (math) for instance, every value of 1 is the same. Nothing in the world is the same as anything else (nominalism). If you have a rock, and put it with another rock, it is 1+1=2, but the rocks are not the same as eachother, and are not actual equals like the value of 1 to the value of another 1.

[@davidbourne8267]

The argument isn’t that expressing the concept of 2 + 2 = 4 in different ways makes it subjective, or that 2 apples + 2 apples could somehow equal 5 apples. Rather, the point is that the concept itself is subjective. The number 2 is not an inherent, objective property of two apples; it’s simply a useful concept we apply to describe them.

[@spacesciencelab]

Sure, the mathematical jargon is invented, but not the objective things underneath that it's describing.

[@davidbourne8267]

@@spacesciencelab Oh, I didn’t mean for my statement to imply that the objects themselves are subjective. The presupposition is that there is indeed an objective world that exists independently of us, and this objective world is perceived subjectively by humans. We use concepts that are useful to us to interpret and make sense of it. Since he compared 2 + 2 = 4 to being as objective as morality, I’m pointing out the possibility that 2 + 2 = 4 might itself be a subjective concept. This, in turn, suggests that our sense of morality could also be subjective, not requiring an external metaphysical law or lawgiver to account for its existence. My first comment was also out of concerned that people might think when he (Alex) says math is a subjective language, they might interpret it as him meaning 2 + 2 could equal whatever we want it to. However, even though the concept is subjective, we have rules for the concept that are anchored in our consistent and shared subjective perception of the objective world.

[@spacesciencelab]

@davidbourne8267 I don’t think you were considering that, my friend. What I’m getting at is that although mathematics is a human creation, it still reflects something deeper and more fundamental about reality. Sure, people might interpret Alex as suggesting that "x can be b," but instead of looking at it that way, consider Frank’s point about how a book remains a book, even when described in a different language. Alex, in my view, isn’t saying that the underlying objectivity is up for debate-just the language we use to express it. However, I believe this point is somewhat irrelevant because, from my perspective, Frank and Alex were largely in agreement. They just seemed to get sidetracked by debating which concepts genuinely describe things and which ones don’t, missing the fact that they were closer in their understanding than they realized. Frank makes also good point that Alex's subjectivity is self-defeating because, if true, it would be objectivity. Though, to be fair on Alex, I would like him to respond to that. How would you respond to that?

[@jimhughes1070]

Actually, two apples are two apples... I don't need someone from Mogadishu to agree with me! 😭 It's two apples. When we depart from reality in order to appear wise... 😢 Extrapolating from within reality can lead to amazing discoveries... Fantasyland leads only to fairy tales.

[@davidbourne8267]

@@jimhughes1070 What part of the argument that I attempted to clarify seems like a fairy tale? Could you elaborate on what you mean by extrapolating from within reality leading to amazing discoveries? Do you thing the argument is not based on how the mind works in reality? My comment seems to be valid within the context of the debate as it attempts to explain how no metaphysical law of math needs to exist. The language of math could be purely subjective in the sense that it only exists as a concept in the mind. Like I said, our concept of 2 might not be an objective property of 2 apples, though the presupposition is that whatever it is we subjectively perceive as the 2 apples does exist objectively. Our subjective perception and concept of them don't seem to require metaphysical objective laws. I assume you do know that our perception of the world is subjective - ex: seeing color is a subjective experience. For example, the color red is not a property of the lightwave that causes us to perceive red. Being that this is the case, I'm confused as to what part of what I'm saying could be considered fantasy.

[@dannettepeters1507]

A loving GOD does not allow evil. HE allows free will, with caveats. Free will by its very nature involves choice. It is in the arena of choice that we are confronted with good and evil, as well as our mandate to choose.

[@velkyn1]

no free will per jesus and paul, Matthew 13 and Romans 9. This god has already chosen who it will allow to accept it and then damns the rest for no action of their own.

[@dannettepeters1507]

@@velkyn1 Absolutely INCORRECT!! GOD knows who will and who won't, choose HIM. HE still says; John 3:16!! GOD desires that ALL would choose HIM and come to the knowledge of TRUTH! GOD sees the past, present and future, at the same time, thus HE KNOWS who will reject HIM and cling to their own will. Do not try to blame GOD for man's choice.

[@DM-dk7js]

No. He allows evil lol. If we have the free will to bring evil into the world….then he quite literally is allowing it. You just didn’t think hard enough about what you said.

[@Queenofthesouth808]

That’s partially correct. God did not and does not CREATE evil. But He certainly does WILL evil to exist for His ultimate redemption and glory. If God did not will it it would not be.

[@dannettepeters1507]

@@Queenofthesouth808 Guess we will agree to disagree. GOD'S reasons and purposes are so far beyond our capacities to properly explain that I think it's pointless. Yet, all of GOD'S Creation, HE deemed Good, until iniquity was FOUND in Lucifer. Apparently, angels are endowed with choice as well.

[@myronmire4463]

It’s all a Test to See who belongs to Truth / Love That’s the only thing that will remain the rest of burned with Fire 🔥 forever

[@EamonBrennan-f2j]

Funny that the truthy lovey contingent are so willing to celebrate the eternal torture of everyone else.

[@myronmire4463]

@@EamonBrennan-f2j turn around, I Love You, I hate Sin / Pride

[@EamonBrennan-f2j]

@@myronmire4463 You love me but celebrate my torture. Nice to know.

[@EamonBrennan-f2j]

@@myronmire4463 You love me but would celebrate my eternal torture.

[@VaughanMcCue]

@@myronmire4463 Are you the overpaid Myron on Pine Creek's payroll?

[@jameslogalbo7161]

If you're explaining your worldview, and you have to say, "Well it depends on what you mean by TWO", you might have to re-examine some things lol. Good, practical philosophy follows reason. Appreciate the respectful convo here and always appreciate Dr. Turek's apologetics.

[@bryanbigham3761]

There's an argument to be made that if morality is subjective and just a byproduct of evolutionary "lessons" throughout human existence, then slavery wouldn't have been abolished in this country (or anywhere else for that matter).

[@balticeejit9076]

Why wouldn’t it have been abolished?

[@cabbagebaker]

There is an argument to be made that if God is the moral law giver, why wasn't slavery prohibited long, long ago?

[@jaydennguyen-xk1yo]

No, morality as a byproduct of evolution actually fits because we slowly evolved to learn that slavery was bad. An objective moral law would mean slavery would always be abolished

[@bryanbigham3761]

@@balticeejit9076 Short answer is that there is no evolutionary advantage for the enslavers to free the enslaved. The notion that all humans have dignity and self-worth directly contradicts the laws of evolution.

[@bryanbigham3761]

@@cabbagebaker Sure, someone could make that argument. But he'd run the risk of coming off as a complete moron because he'd be making an argument that has been addressed and answered many, MANY times throughout history, and it would be insanely obvious to those he's making the argument to that he doesn't even possess a rudimentary, kindergarten-level understanding of the Bible or Christianity. But yeah, I suppose someone could make that argument.

[@surikata247]

Puts logically in the headline, proceeds to commit a logical fallacy in the first 30 seconds. Amazing

[@ΟΜΑΚΕΔΏΝ-ο5λ]

Almost all mathematicians would throw him out of the room if he said mathematics is just a human subjective construct that without us humans the laws of mathematics would not exist. I give him respect for biting the bullet. He is a real atheist and is consistent with his worldview.

[@jaideepshekhar4621]

Math is most definitely a human construct. Constants like golden ratio and Plank length are not. What do you not understand? Where is √16 = 4 in nature?

[@ΟΜΑΚΕΔΏΝ-ο5λ]

@@jaideepshekhar4621 it’s an observation in nature. These are patterns in nature that are described in the mathematical language are you even intelligent enough to understand ? The symbols and numbers that are used do not play any role it’s about the patterns that we observe and we describe them. You cannot say it’s subjective the laws of mathematics. We are talking here about the laws of mathematics

[@ΟΜΑΚΕΔΏΝ-ο5λ]

@@jaideepshekhar4621 golden ration by the way is an observed phenomena. When you don’t know something about a topic stop talking about it

[@jaideepshekhar4621]

Where do you see (a+b)^3 = a^3 + 3ab(a+b) + b^3 in nature?

[@jaideepshekhar4621]

@@ΟΜΑΚΕΔΏΝ-ο5λ Exactly. That's why I said these constants exist.

[@korvonfrancis6552]

Old debate and Alex has become a lot wiser toward the Bible. He's nearly there.

[@mlwilliams4407]

Yes he is. This discussion was roughly 7 years ago. This video is helpful to see the common self-defeating logical fallacy with atheism, and why that is.

[@VaughanMcCue]

He now has uni qualifications in that mythology.

[@VaughanMcCue]

@@mlwilliams4407 If you do not see Zeus, Thor, and others as gods, you have become a selective atheist. See how easy that was.

[@mlwilliams4407]

@@VaughanMcCue Yes, "an imperfect human only believes what that imperfect human sees" is also an inferior approach to existence, but is not the common self-defeating logical fallacy with atheism that's in the video.

[@VaughanMcCue]

@@mlwilliams4407 You are probably describing someone other than me.

[@anotherperspective8263]

Alex does NOT represent Atheism.. He is just an atheist with his own beliefs.. Atheism has absolutely nothing to do with ANY beliefs.. It is simply not believing in gods.. Absolutely NO beliefs are associated with Atheism.. So ANYTHING that he believes is his own belief and 100% separate from Atheism...

[@andrewspeed7442]

The mental gymnastics you have to do there to end on “so there is a god” is amazing. I cant get how having objective morality just automatically proves there is a god.

[@zlange22]

Morality = God, Math = God, Logic = God, Order = God, Sky is blue = God, Water is wet = God, You = God. How can you deny all of these facts?

[@trankwillity]

If morality, which in some cases hurts survival chances of humanity as a species and thus goes against evolutionary theory, is objective then there must be an intelligent designer that instills this upon us. Morality is in a sense a 'human construct' and isn't displayed in the same way in any other species (primarily talking about morality which hurts species survival), so if there is objective truth in said morality then the only explanation could be to say that there is a higher being (what we call God) who sets those truths since it wouldn't make sense from a natural perspective.

[@zlange22]

@trankwillity There are cases where implied morality could boost survival, like with sexual selection, for example. Morality exists so God exists is just such a terrible conclusion and is really just grasping.

[@alcapone7319]

The Indwelling of the Holy Spirit is Absolute Proof of The Lord's Existence.

[@jimhughes1070]

All day long🎉...

[@AustinCDavis]

8:21 He doesn’t understand objectivity. If there are objective truths “about” reason and logic, that makes them objective.

[@Jak-5]

Those odjectives were identifying as subjective at that time so what he said there was correct. It's pretty clear.

[@MatthewEyre-q1k]

Feel like Alex had by far the better of the debate

[@mickeylax9975]

Probably because you agree with him, I’m guessing.

[@JayBonisolli]

“It’s much more obvious that sexually abusing children is wrong than ‘atheism is true.”

[@1ooAcreWoods]

1:18 Everyone is always aiming their guns at the Catholic Church...

[@GMurph2336]

People are always going to come after those with authority.

[@vincentmcnabb939]

Yup. And it will always be so.

[@KFish-bw1om]

Well, it's not like they haven't earned it.

[@cornfedlife]

Why does the Catholic Church even still exist? The pope recently stated that all religions are paths to God. if this is true, then why bother going through all the rigmarole that is Catholicism

[@derekstallwood3673]

Matthew 18 16_14. It's an abhorrent issue that must be rooted out. It's a serious issue. That is not to dismiss the good done by the Catholic church.

[@Thaijler]

"Evolution isn't a random process." Who here chose their DNA? Raise your hand.

[@Papa-dopoulos]

Lol, witty, but come on. Very easy to refute. Did you build the house you live in? Did you pave the street you live by? What about the clothes you're wearing? Aha - they all evolved!

[@Thaijler]

@Papa-dopoulos That's evolution due to human intervention. That's ingenuity. You don't choose your genetic mutations. And you can't control your environment( weather/climate/resources.)

[@aidanya1336]

@@Thaijler Evolution is a 2 part process, one is random the other is not. So evolution as a whole is not. Random mutation is random (duh). Natural selection is not random. Together (along with a few other things) its an unguided non-random process.

[@Thaijler]

@aidanya1336 What are you talking about? If half of the process is random, that means the process is random, and really, it's more than half. All the variables are random then species duke it out, which also has randomness to it. A species didn't survive because it chose a better path in life. It was given a randomized mutation that gave it an edge. Furthermore, if it wasnt random, we would all look the same. Evolution states we started as prokaryotes. Through random mutations, we ended up with millions of species.

[@aidanya1336]

@@Thaijler You are confusing randomness with unguided. Randomness means it doesn't operate according to any rules. its completely random. Evolution isn't that. It follows the rules of natural selection. Those better fit for their environment will come out on top. Put a polar bear and a brown bear in a forest and the brown bear will consistently out compete the polar bear. Do the same on the north pole and its the reverse. How can you think such consistency is random. But there is plenty fun stuff we can do with random stuff to make it not random. Pick any random 3-digit number. Reverse it. Now subtract the lower one from the higher one. Reverse your answer and add it to the answer. Did you get 1089? So random inputs do not always give random results.

[@JKDVIPER]

9:40 guy on the left PLAIN ENGLISH. Basic truths. Guy on the right, his argument isnt strong because it looks like READ BETWEEN THE LINES is too heavy for me to contemplate his ideology. Seems like hes trying to sound superior by sounding like HIS TEACHER. He keeps using his emotions by puzzling him instead of answering a question or making a statement.

[@DustyBooks2020]

This conversation makes my head hurt, but I am thankful there are Christians that can debate it.

[@Shabuyabuyabuya]

I cant believe that I watched this whole video just to hear you say that "morality is objective because deep down it we feel it to be truth" - maybe not 100% in this worda, but it is undeniable that you literally used how you feel to demonstrate logic and it is crazy, defintley not even a single point of wisdom here. How in the world this whole comment section can't seem to see that? They actually mentioned epistomology (how we know things) here but still referred to feelings as a logical process, which of course is 100% false.

[@pwharman]

Begging the question, morality is objective because morality is objective 😀

[@jimhughes1070]

I see you missed most of the video😮

[@Shabuyabuyabuya]

@@jimhughes1070 I watched it all of course, where they dispute what I say?

[@Arven8]

This is something the atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel struggled with and was unable to circumvent (not the issue of objective morality but rather the issue of whether reason can be trusted if it is merely the product of evolution, which prioritizes survival not truth). You can tell Alex is getting cornered because he starts talking real fast mid-clip. He's a good guy, though. I appreciate him engaging with Christian apologists respectfully.

[@ToastEr-f3b]

how would it being a product of evolution mean it cannot be trusted though? And if it is or isnt. I dont get how it matters to the question of gopd

[@Arven8]

@@ToastEr-f3b Because if the only principle guiding the development of our thinking is survival (per Darwinian evolution), then reason - which seeks truth and will sometimes thteaten survival - is not trustworthy. The products of thought would have survival and reproduction, not truth, as their guiding principle. It's a complex idea but that's the best "in a nutshell" version I can give you. The argument about morality is something else entirely. They were skipping arpund a lot. Those are two separate issues.

[@ToastEr-f3b]

@@Arven8This argument doesnt really seem to have merit though. Because we can prove if our reasoning is logical and conclusive with observations and logic+reasoning. A theist could say its because of god and an athiest could say its a by-product of evolution. I feel like this argument just throws out the fact that human reasoning can be logical and conclusive and thats been observed. I can look at a pile of rocks and determine how many rocks are in that pile via counting.

[@carloscruz1285]

​@@ToastEr-f3b evolution cannot reason because by evolutionary "protocol" it does not take into account reasoning. There would be no reason for bacteria to evolve into anything else. Theres no reason for civility or a thought process to avoid "murder" or predatory actions to protect a random species so that it can have millions or billions of years to evolve to then become sophisticated enough to reason. Evolution is antithetical to reasoning due to evolution being a by-product of randomness. Randomness does not need a reason, just the environment and certain conditions are enough for evolution to theoretically succeed. Basically, to think evolution can produce reason is absurd, not to me, but to evolution itself. Evolution if it could speak would tell you that its nonsensical to think it needs a reason to do anything when what it does do is use random acts to then cause random unintentional conclusions that are nothing more than "happy accidents". Morals and reason do not and can not come from subjective worldviews. This is why atheism collapses in on itself.

[@Arven8]

@@ToastEr-f3b The issue isn't whether we can test our hypotheses and determine which are best supported by evidence (which we can do, at least sometimes). The issue is whether our reasoning itself is trustworthy (such as the reasoning you and I are doing right now). If survival and reproduction are the only thing that matters, then truth has to take a back seat. The reasoning process will not be aimed at truth: it will be aimed at whatever promotes staying alive and getting laid, and that's it. ... I don't think you're grasping what I'm trying to get at, because your response isn't really responsive to the idea I'm trying to convey. But that's okay. It is a complex topic, and I am probably not doing it justice. It's a bit much for a YT comment section. ... If it doesn't seem like a problem to you, cool. But again, this is something Thomas Nagel, a heavy-weight atheist philosopher, thought was a very difficult problem for atheism. He wrestled a lot with it and was unable to resolve it. Others have found it troubling as well. ...

[@Tai182]

This is an old video of Alex. Currently I don't think today he would agree with that version of himself today.

[@Piazzapower]

@@Tai182 maybe he'll keep changing his mind and eventually come to the truth.

[@HonestlyCurious-bp4gv]

“If it’s not directed by an outside intelligence, then it’s random.” This is where Frank inserts a false-dichotomy (and reveals that he doesn’t know what “random” means). If I release a ball, it isn’t “random” that the ball falls down; that is the anticipated direction it will go, given our understanding of how gravity works. However, “random” is a useful word for apologists to use, because many people think it is an objective concept, when it is actually subjective. Random describes conditions and outcomes that the observer has a negligible capacity to predict. It has to do with there being too many factors for the individual to account for and a limited timeframe to make the prediction. To be clear, “random” only refers to things we can’t predict on a practical level. It is not a description of things that are complicated, but we have a clear notion of the mechanisms that influence it.

[@ThomasClementsRVA]

Amen to that 🙏❤️💯