Bishop Robert Barron & Alex O'Connor (Cosmic Skeptic) • Christianity or Atheism?

Episode 1 | Season 3 of The Big Conversation
Bishop Robert Barron of Word on Fire and Alex O'Connor of the Cosmic Skeptic channel discuss the evidence for God, the nature of faith and the problem of suffering.
👉 Get bonus content, updates, fascinating articles, and early access to our shows-absolutely free! Join now at www.premierunbelievable.com 🎉📢
The Big Conversation is a video series from Unbelievable? featuring world-class thinkers across the religious and non-religious community. Exploring science, faith, philosophy and what it means to be human. The Big Conversation is produced by Premier in partnership with John Templeton Foundation.
More Resources:
• For Bishop Barron / @bishopbarron
• For Cosmic Skeptic / @cosmicskeptic
• For Unbelievable? The Conference 2021 www.unbelievabl...
• For exclusive resources and to support us: USA www.premierinsi...
• Rest of the World: resources.prem...
• Our regular Newsletter www.premier.or...
• The Unbelievable? podcast www.premierchri...
• Facebook / unbelievablejb
• Twitter / unbelievablejb
• Insta / justin.brierley

[@flexzone7045]

I'm not a catholic myself, but bishop Barron sounds like a warm, openminded person. He's very polite and doesnt get his ego conflicted in his arguments. This is the goal of christianity. Love, kindness, courage and little ego. He's a true christian.

[@MarlboroughBlenheim1]

He’s a member of an organisation which has hidden up child abuse and which makes condom wearing against the teachings despite it causing misery and deaths of millions.

[@flexzone7045]

@@MarlboroughBlenheim1 This is not true

[@chrissonofpear1384]

Although his views on hell I still find toxic. But, then, I usually do. Especially the 'choosing' bit. Ever since Paul drastically overstated the case, for Romans 1:20... it's gotten more and more clunky.@@flexzone7045

[@skyistaken1605]

Or mayhaps, a true Christian who has found success on their path. Others are taking their time making something of themselves. Not there yet, but trying. And a man like this is the perfect example for those to look too. Good for I as an athiest to look too.

[@lebrigand4115]

Still unable to demonstrate his batshit crazy beliefs are true, though.

[@marktaylor2502]

This debate piqued my interest of and curiosity about Catholicism. I was baptized and confirmed in the 2023 Easter vigil at Saint Louis De Montfort church of Fishers IN. After this debate I hunted down every lecture and homily presented by Bishop Barron as I stripped and stained my fence during Summer of 2021. I spent the next year attending Mass every week and finally completing the RCIA program. Thank you Bishop Barron, today I have an incredible, fulfilling life that I never imagined possible

[@davidmcwilliams7399]

That’s amazing, welcome home ✝️

[@jvcastro46]

What an amazing testimony! Welcome home🙏🏼

[@andrewmorgensen326]

Alex and Bishop Barron both did an amazing job. This is how a religious debate should go.

[@bobloblaw4102]

I disagree. Barron defended weak deism, not Christianity. He hardly addressed the premise of the entire debate. A Muslim, Hebrew, or Mormon could’ve been in his seat using the same words and it would’ve been the same.

[@andrewmorgensen326]

@@bobloblaw4102 Yes, you are right. Barron didn't push insistently for Christian understanding of God or for unique Christian dogmas and doctrines. He himself even declares this 38:30-38:45. Barron is useing the classic 2 step apologetic. (Step 1: Argue for general theism or some sort of basic causal contingency. Then step 2: argue for a specific religious view on God, i.e. for the Christian God specifically known from the scriptures and the revelation of the person and work of Jesus Christ- the only begotten Son of God. This approach is not the only apologetic approach, but is a popular and usually sufficient approach. For interest in other Apologetic approaches see Five Views of Apologetics by Steven B. Cowan, zondervan Publishing, 2000) Regardless though my point as to why this is a "good debate" is because it was civil, humble, and kind towards each other. Both Alex and Bishop Barron listened to each other, thought about what the other was saying. Asked meaningful and relevant questions and gave meaningful and relevant comments. They did not just spout their own talking points and dictums as so many debaters do. Far too many Christian and Atheist debates are conducted in such a way that neither side listens, nor cares to even hear what the other says. So while neither Alex nor Bishop Barron makes a demonstrable case for their own positions respectively, and while neither "won" so to speak, and while neither destroyed the other with some particular piece of rhetoric or sophisty, both humbly presented a section of their idea, and allowed for a kind but critical diologue on the topic, allowing the conversation to go where the conversation ended up going. The nature of the unbelievable podcast doesn't afford either man the time they need to properly debate and tell the full story. If that is what you were looking for, other more formal debates and scenarios are more likely to provide that.

[@mickyfrazer786]

Agreed. It was a conversation, and provides a lot of food for thought, while not resolving. But the point of discussion was Christian or Athiest, and as such God is assumed as Christian by the question. There are many Christian examples chosen too

[@bengreen171]

@@andrewmorgensen326 civility is all very well, but it does risk an absurd argument getting more respect than it deserves. I think all too often, respect for your opponent gets confused with an unwillingness to be frank regarding their ideas, and I think Alex lets his opponents get away with far too much sometimes. The opposite of a shouting match is not a passive refusal to confront a bad argument.

[@andrewmorgensen326]

@@bengreen171 I don't see Bishop Barron nor Alex presenting an "absurd" argument. Nor is either of them passive..they both seem quite frank to me in pointing out places they agree and disagree with each other. I'm not sure what it is that Alex let's his opponents get away with? Yes, they did not shout or berate or scoff at each other, but I also don't see how it is that either of them failed to confront a "bad argument".

[@malgrosskreuz01]

Bishop Barron makes me so proud to be Catholic! God bless you!

[@thephoneranger1]

Well said.

[@franklinpinto4364]

Wow! This was great! I'm a Catholic and I really loved the nature of Alex. A kind man with a sense of acceptance and understanding and with great formidable arguments. Also, Bishop Barron never disappoints me :")

[@guiagaston7273]

Did you thank God for the corona virus already?

[@guiagaston7273]

@@thorhansen1333 way to tackle the topic

[@guiagaston7273]

@Avingay Anfordstay where does the nature of god come from?

[@nativeatheist6422]

@Avingay Anfordstay Belief in christianity is like belief in Bigfoot-ism.

[@nativeatheist6422]

@Avingay Anfordstay Einstein was a pantheist, didn't believe in a personal savior. Francis Collins himself admits he doesn't have a good argument for christianity. I could go on for days.

[@robertzabick1030]

While not a Catholic (yet), I really appreciate the theological intellect of Bishop Barron. As a searching pilgrim, I really enjoyed this conversation.

[@DartNoobo]

I advise you strongly to be aware that Catholicism and Christianity are not two identical entities. Be very careful in your search. Yes, a true follower of Jesus is Christian by definition. But what other label is safe to put on him? Catholic? Protestant? Baptist? Jehovah's witness? Only Bible can tell you. If you ever choose to get serious with Christianity, then follow Christ and not people. Pray for your answer, wait for an answer from God. Make sure it is no pure accident.

[@kyoglesage]

Be careful you don’t fully absorb the hell and damnation part of catholicism. I’ve heard too many stories of people who left the faith but, despite having realized the church’s doctrines are illogical and baseless, can never fully rid themselves of the horror of hell, even though they’re convinced that place doesn’t actually exist

[@zero_gravity5861]

@@kyoglesageI think the whole “fire and brimstone” characterization is widely characterized to be an evangelical fundamentalist idea, even though it is not fundamentally necessary that this is the case

[@chrissonofpear1384]

If you fulfil John 14:12, we'll believe you. Otherwise, watch Barron make excuses for hell, on another vid. It gets... so... wool gather-y! Meantime, a lot of us, choose not to wait. Not indefinitely.@@DartNoobo

[@DartNoobo]

@@zero_gravity5861 catholics only recently and only under the pressure by public admitted that there is no hell as a fiery place of eternal torment. But they still insist that there is hell after death.

[@millier9658]

Can I just say? I absolutely adore Bishop Barron.

[@bertrandrussell894]

But does he believe you should burn in hell, as he is supposed to? This is why I am always reticent to say "oh isnt he nice" because very often theres something rotten.

[@tommore3263]

@@bertrandrussell894 God doesn't will , wish or cause people to "burn in hell". Hell is the rejection of perfect love for something smaller. My favorite analogue is the tragic figure of an old drug addict looking for his next fix in his chosen hell. We have free wills and intellects and evil is the free choosing of something lesser while ignoring a higher good. Our intellects and free wills cannot be physical in nature just as the number 3 is not physical and there is no reason to believe this root of our personhood does not continue past physical death. And if non physical, how do we die... hence eternity which is just the continuance of right now the only time that ever exists. God gives everyone the grace to know and do better whatever their circumstances but a loving relationship presupposes the freedom not to love; to choose something lesser. Like hell. Burning like an addict. This is not the will of the Author of life who literally IS Love Himself.

[@polmccharmly6293]

@@tommore3263 except none of things you've said make sense if we reject the idea of free will, which makes much more sense in my opinion than having "free will" (both philosophically and scientifically) free will is something people often take for granted not really giving it much of thought, but even if we assume free will, how does commiting temporary, limited in time and space "crimes" against God's love, make it just to suffer an infinite "lack of that love" as you put it, which is very often presented as incredible pain and suffering, I wouldn't call such a God "just". If God is a cause of everything, he's also a cause of that infinite and unbelievable suffering, so an argument "you chose the punishment willingly" doesn't take the responsibility off of God, he's also a cause for all the thoughts that reject his love (if we assume cosmological argument to be valid). So he's also, even if indirectly, still, responsible for it. And if someone doesn't believe in God, you can't say that he is "willingly choosing to go to hell" that just doesn't make sense, people not believing in hell, acknowledging that they can't know if it exists or not, cannot be said to be "willingly directed at it". Our intellect is bound to our physical brain, whether you like it or not, there is every reason to think and believe based on reason and evidence that when brain dies, person and their intellect and so called "free will" dies as well, if arithmetics could "cease to exist", its perfectly reasonable to assume that number 3 would cease to exist, or at least stopped making sense (by cease to exist, I mean if it never have had existed) which would be analogous to our brain and mind. "Non physical", doesn't entail eternal, how did you make sense out of that? People can't know what's better for them to do whatever their circumstances, in order for that to be true, people would have to be able to perfectly predict the outcome of every decision they make, which is impossible, so no, we don't have a gift like that, we are limited in that regard by our circumstances.

[@tommore3263]

@@bertrandrussell894 Hell is actually the awareness.. eternal .. that we have rejected the most infinitely lovable and chosen something incomparably lesser, just as we choose the low road at times in life and know it. God's will and life is all for you. To the point of even our rejecting Love Himself. Eternally. Love requires the freedom not to love what is most lovable.

[@bertrandrussell894]

@@polmccharmly6293 You are wasting your time. Some people are so desperate to live forever that they will believe any hokum no matter how poisonous. Its sad they won't ever actually find out, but that while alive they have been insufferable and cruel and incoherent. It's very nauseating... Imagine cuddling up to that kind of dictator and just how little self respect and love for others one has in order to do it. It's creepy.

[@pamelagemin2757]

I love the way Alex rarely, if ever, resorts to hyperbole, unauthentic or specious arguments, or engages in ad hominem attacks.

[@borneandayak6725]

Amazing Bishop Barron, Jesus bless you and the Catholic Church. Amen

[@helhound]

Bless the Bishop for patiently combing through the different strands and teasing them out like a rat's nest in a person's hair. It is so fulfilling to have terms defined well-that is the key to finding the common ground necessary for respect and peace.

[@noone-jq1xw]

An atheist here, and I found the Bishop to be remarkably patient and composed. Although I don't agree with a few premises and conclusions of his, but I am nevertheless glad I listened all the way through.

[@chrisvalenzuela7911]

@@noone-jq1xw I'd recommend checking out his videos/work. I think even Atheists such as yourself would really appreciate Barron's work.

[@lourdesdelapena1852]

Amen...🙏🏻❤️🙏🏻

[@csongorarpad4670]

@@noone-jq1xw I'm very glad to see the fruits of Bishop Barron's work blossoming ever so brightly. Earlier this summer, I met a teenager who had converted from atheism to Catholicism after he had watched a lot of Bishop Barron (and other apologists... but mainly Bishop Barron) and what he said to be most convincing in Bishop Barron's apologetics is his focus on beauty itself, which is NOT rational or logical in nature, which means that anybody, regardless of their belifs, can appreciate it (unless one has become ENTIRELY deluded by postmodernism (nihilism)... In those cases, they need a personal intuition about or from God, himself, for them to be free from the trap and delusion caused by postmodernism. I wish you all the best in your searching for the truth, if that is sincerely your ambition.... :P Merry Christmas and soon-to-be happy New Year!

[@patricktalley4185]

Inspiring! This is what the Internet is supposed to be!!! Ideas, enlightenment, civility, wisdom. Barron and O’Connor respected each other’s positions and engaged thoughtfully and persuasively. Thank you for another great episode of this series.

[@danglingondivineladders3994]

it is a cycle I think, internet civility. people get bored so they get more and more extreme until it becomes kind of toxic. then civility becomes a virtue again until the novelty wears off and it all repeats. think so anyways.

[@oliveralexandre3607]

Exactly so... Conversation implies listening 👂 as well as speaking 👄 and requires understanding, intelligence and as you said, civility. Both of them had these in abundance. Bravo 👏!

[@elliotalderson8358]

Being raised in a catholic school and being exposed to bishop barron both through his word on fire ministry and just youtube clips, I have great respect for Bishop Barron and his works. And as a young athiest I have been watching Alex's videos primarily (I consider him top tier athiest material if not the best) as well as many other athiest channels. Let me just say that I've always been wanting to hear these two debate and it was phenomenal. I'm surprised this isn't on Trending or more popular because this is truly a great discussion where many important things were discussed in detail and with great passion and care. The best part is the mutual respect and care both O'connor and Barron show towards each other and their arguments. In the entire hour and a half, all were enjoying their discussion and they were truly debating some of the most important parts. We need more great content like this. It far outshines basic apologetics and rash athiest commentary videos. And thank you for your time.

[@asdfasdf3989]

Watch Jay Dyer if you find Cosmic Skeptic compelling.

[@brentcastor2111]

I have always found Alex O'Connor to be one of the brightest young minds around. This was one of the best debates if not the best debate I have ever seen. This is my first experience listening to Bishop Barron and although I am not Catholic I was very impressed with the bishop and his answers and how he responded to Alex. All that being said I must say that the bishop, in my mind, exposed Alex. I have listened to Alex a number of times in the past and was genuinely concerned for him having been raised Catholic and hoping that he might find his way back to the Christian faith however I have serious doubts now that that will ever happen.

[@mikeyseo]

To you. Whats more Likely to exist? God or Santa Claus?

[@elliotalderson8358]

@@mikeyseo i mean... You obviously know best mr. Big brain. Why have billions of people been trying for millions of years to figure out this problem if it only took you a few years?

[@mikeyseo]

@@elliotalderson8358 bc most ppl are blinded by their own arrogance and ego. Let’s take you for example. You think bc. U are not smart enough to solve the problem. Neither am I. That’s projecting your own flaws in on me. Quite arrogant n presumptuous

[@Cowplunk]

I once heard a Christian on the radio advising his fellow Christians on how to comfort someone who is grieving and asking the question "How could God have allowed this to happen?". His advice was this: Don't even try to explain God's reasons for letting this tragedy happen, because no matter what you say you'll come off sounding like a jerk. That seems wise.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

"god kills everyone in the end" is all you need to say. i find that reassuring and honest, let's face it god knew from the outset everyone is going to die.

[@kubli365]

@@HarryNicNicholas Does that include all the various grotesque ways of dying? I think that could work if people thought all deaths are equal but we don't.

[@michaellamas1497]

@@kubli365 I mean, it's believed he sent his son to be killed in one of the most painful and humiliating ways at that time. Scripture says that those who are last will be first in heaven, and that this life isn't all there is.

[@kubli365]

@@michaellamas1497 I am well aware. Oh wait I thought this was a different thread lol pardon that. Yeah I see your point.

[@chrissonofpear1384]

@@michaellamas1497 frankly, the lingering death of David's son in 2 Samuel 15 must somewhat compare with crucifixion, for pain. And just how many stones hit Achan in Joshua 7:24 - and more importantly, it seems, his children, too (of what age?) And just what did occur in Jeremiah 2:30, and to whom.

[@lsqcgrade6241]

This is what I love to be a Catholic, open to any intellectual discussion. Proud of it!

[@gabrielthomas777]

What about the killing of heretics by previous popes??

[@CarapaceClavicle]

@@gabrielthomas777 you act as if humans ought to be infallible.

[@radscorpion8]

​@@CarapaceClavicle Question is whether they did it because they were catholic or because they were fallible. Maybe in the modern day they wouldn't do it, but you could argue that's because of the development of secular human rights; that otherwise many passages in the bible (stoning of witches) would have continued to support the burning of heretics. Its an interesting question. Leviticus 24:16: Whoever blasphemes the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall stone him. The sojourner as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death.

[@Lerian_V]

@@radscorpion8 Blasphemy is the worst offense any human can commit. It's worse that murder because it's a direct attack on God's person/character. Blasphemers have the propensity for corrupting society on a massive scale. So it's reasonable in a theocratic government to eliminate such evil from the society either by imprisonment or execution, which ever works for the society.

[@andrewfrank8272]

@@CarapaceClavicle Infallible, no. Think before speaking, every time, yes. Every time.

[@wierdpocket]

Really loved this, but absolutely loathe the time limits on these kinds of conversations, especially when it’s clear there is more to be said. These are the kinds of discussions that are worth pouring 4-8 hours into. Have lunch. Go for walks and take breaks. Do whatever, but it’s worth having long form dialogues on questions and ideas that mean the most in this life. Very grateful, regardless, for this.

[@2Uahoj]

But how much more time could help? Thesis same ideas have been being debated for thousands of years.

[@ZekeMagnar]

@@2Uahoj Where do you draw the line, though? Why even speak of it for an hour if it’s all been said and done before? I agree with amndemo. If the host and the speakers have the time and are willing (seems obvious that both Alex and Bishop Barron were very willing), it should be longer. Like others have said, right when it started to get good, it ended. If there isn’t a specific reason as to why it is an hour or two, it would be great if perhaps the speakers were given the option to go for as long as they’d like. Perhaps, due to many restraints, this may not happen, and perhaps it wouldn’t be as fruitful and entertaining and civilized as it was with Alex and Bishop Barron, but it would be nice to see in some circumstances nonetheless.

[@chrissonofpear1384]

@@ZekeMagnar Wish he'd actually gotten INTO free will, though, the Bishop, and how it works, and how it DIFFERS from angels' free will - as I suspect that will turn out to be critical, to many future apologetics. As well as how inevitable was the Fall or not.

[@suntzu7727]

@@2Uahoj And people have been convinced by one side or the other. Really smart people have changed their mind on this after reading or discussing with proponents of opposing views. So, it seems there is always value to be found in more conversation, especially in such matters where you have to find and deal with all kinds of underlying difficulties, misunderstandings, conceptual confusions etc.

[@gracerichmond7740]

Suffering is often caused by free will or weaknesses in the human condition. God is love and therefore cannot "cause" evil, but may allow it because we have been given free will. God can however bring a good out of the suffering.

[@wissenschaftkraft5075]

Bishop barron is the finest example of a true intellectual and Christian!

[@shaftsburry1773]

Late, but I’m pleasantly surprised at how respectful not just this debate but the comment section is. Good job everyone, we need more legit discussions like this.

[@flamesfan1417]

We need a part two picking up right where this one left off!

[@joezilla07]

I've been waiting years to see Bishop Barron debate someone on these ideas. He is a master of this type of discourse. Alex O'Connor is intelligent and respectful, which made me happy to see. I wish him all the best. Bravo to Unbelievable for putting this together! All the best to all who watch!

[@roneldsilva546]

Bishop Barron is at best a theologist, and very far from the likes of great thinkers and philosophers. I mean no disrespect when I say this but I hope Alex gets on debates with more competent people to bring out the best in him

[@bun197]

@@roneldsilva546 yeah because there are no theists in the history of philosophy right? oh wait, thats like 90% of them.

[@roneldsilva546]

@@bun197 I never said there are no theists. I just said he’s more of a theologian and not a philosopher.

[@DarthMakroth]

@@roneldsilva546 lol

[@DarthMakroth]

@@bun197 if you look up famous philosophers on Google it displays first the famous pagan Greek philosophers, you then find Immanuel Kant a untraditional theist, Nietzsche who is an atheist then Karl Marx an atheist, Confucius who was another pagan who didn't believe in God, David Hume another atheist.

[@laurengalan2760]

Yes! I love listening to Bishop Barron!

[@kyaxar3609]

You must be an American😂

[@hugoher01]

“If it is true, then it is the most important truth there is” Couldn’t agree more with Alex.

[@sandysutherland2182]

‘IF’ it is true. A bloody big ‘IF’!!

[@WaterCat5]

Issue is I can think of something more important (a super god for example). Should we study that? Obviously not because there is no proof; it is a baseless assertion. So it is with Christianity. Other than the social impetus of it (which is a poor reason to study it in the context of a truth claim), there is nor reason to study it. There is no real proof Christianity is valid.

[@trevoradams3702]

Bishop Barron gone mess around and make me Catholic!

[@Gerschwin]

I love it!

[@dylangous]

Bishop Barron had a huge impact on me as well. Today I'm a Catholic and Barron, along with G.K. Chesterton, were both instrumental.

[@Chakra_king]

Bishop Barron was one of the main figures that lead me to the Holy Roman Church!

[@alexandervonkumberg4620]

Same here

[@borneandayak6725]

Amen, Deus Vult!!! Jesus bless you.

[@trybunt]

I just thought I'd come straight to the comments to hear the real experts

[@dan69052]

teach the children How does all religion start? It starts with the children . Here is a short 4:00 min video that sets the stage. Look it up on KZbin “Welcome to This World”. Sound familiar?

[@michaelcallaghan3070]

... Ha ha ha... I like it... Very funny!!! 👍😜🇮🇪

[@trybunt]

@@michaelcallaghan3070 👋🇦🇺

[@TheRealShrike]

Made me laugh. Good sense of humor.

[@samwuulf]

😂 + 😢 meta-comment on the state of online discourse.

[@ModernDayDebate]

This is epic! Don't forget to hit like, folks!

[@creatinechris]

James dropping in!

[@dan69052]

reality How does all religion start? It starts with the children . Here is a short 4:00 min video that sets the stage. Look it up on KZbin “Welcome to This World”. Sound familiar?

[@davelanger]

James !!!!

[@occidentalunrest8928]

Haha I heard an internal version of James's voice when I read this comment.

[@CarlosAlvarez-dv7um]

James please take notes on how to lead a debate as well making guest address the debate question.

[@adastra123]

That young Alex is brilliant 👏. I say this as a catholic , to take on such a brain as bishop Barron. I have learned quite a bit from both.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

barron strikes me as a nincompoop, what does "supra-rational" mean ffs? does he make up shit ALL the time?

[@takoja507]

So you support child abusive organization who hides and protects the priests who like children in wrong way, ok got it. And you still think god would be ok with organization like that, ok got it too. And you probably think that morals are objective and catholic morals are good? I don't get it why anyone would call them catholic after what came out that had happen for decades and popes etc knew about it and did nothing to stop it. Just shows me the morals of these religious people.

[@TymeTaylor]

Oh boy, if you think the bishop is "big-brained" you've got another thing coming when you eventually find yourself on the secular side of the conversation. Good luck in your journey.

[@KalousTheGuy]

Sorry for my fellows. Some forget that in their effort to "see more". They forget to be watchful of their own rhetoric. I miss the days of Real Atheism.. When we questioned because we wanted to actually know. Now it's just a game of "bash the believers". Once again, sorry for those who can't be decent about this.

[@takoja507]

@@KalousTheGuy Real atheism? What is that? If you don't believe in god like being, that's real atheism. If you are bash the believers or asking question type person, is all up to you. I'm little bit both to be honest. When I meet new religious person I ask them politely if we talk about religion and beliefs, if not then I don't bring it up. I do bash some, if they tend to be smug and claim to know for sure, then it's time to bash that believer and show him the contradictions and closed mindness of his religion and how they are morally horrible person, tho I'm not as good at it as Hitchen's was. He was a master at bashing religions and believers while being civil and asking questions from them. We don't usually bash the believer but the beliefs and faith, there is difference. Not all, but most don't claim to know that any god type being is impossible, we just know that religious type gods are impossible because all of them are walking contradictions.

[@hectorchavez1589]

Apart from the Holy Spirit of course, Bishop Barron is the reason why I came back to the Catholic faith, amazing conversation!

[@all2jesus]

Do you pray to mary now ?

[@hectorchavez1589]

@@all2jesus what do you mean by pray?

[@all2jesus]

@@hectorchavez1589 I don't know. Having any heavenly connection to Mary.

[@hectorchavez1589]

@@all2jesus Id say if by “pray” you mean some type of correlation with “worship” then no. Worship is to God alone. But, If by “pray” you mean the old English term/original meaning of “privy” or “to ask” then yes, all we’re doing as Catholics is asking Mary or any other Saint to pray for us, or guiding our prayers up to God, just as you’d ask your family or friends to pray for you during a hard time. We’re not asking any questions or conjuring up spirits. Hope that helps

[@all2jesus]

@@hectorchavez1589 Is this from the Bible ?

[@danajudd11]

Intelligent, civil discourse like this, regarding this incredibly, even critically important idea is very much appreciated and unfortunately, far too rare!

[@-Zer0Dark-]

It's not all that important, actually. We've only been led to believe it is because someone told us we have an eternal soul, and that it's in jeopardy. They invented a problem, and now our culture believes it's "critically important" to address it. Imagine the infinite number of potentially critically important problems we've never worried about, because they've yet to be conceptualized and brought to the table.

[@danajudd11]

@@-Zer0Dark- Who is this "someone" who "told us", and similarly, who are the "they" who "invented" the "problem"? For that matter, what is the "problem"? Additionally, if this idea is not important, even critically important, then what might be, not including, of course, the as yet, not "conceptualized"? Finally, if the ideas discussed in this conversation between Mr. O'Connor and Bishop Baron are not important, in your view, then why would you spend any time on it, let alone comment in regards to it?

[@nadjaj5290]

What an absolutely excellent, deep, respectful, and sharp discussion! Absolutely love it! I wish, more discussions and debates, particularly on this topic, would go about in such a manner. Thank you so much to all the three of you. Much appreciated.

[@mariastolpe7072]

I enjoyed listening to both Alex and Bishop Barron. One thing I did not hear either person state is that a suffering is part of being human & death is part of the cycle of life. That is my view, so rather than expecting life to be easy; without suffering & death, I choose to humbly accept suffering & death as an opportunity to learn. An opportunity to look at a situation I perceive to be difficult from another perspective. I choose to try to learn something and make the most of the experience rather than find someone to blame, because to me; “Life happens”. I can only control my choices & responses to my life and I don’t see God’s purpose to bubble wrap me and prevent me from suffering. In fact, that view robs me of my own power and ability to experience my life. As a Christian and a parent, I find that sharing this perspective with my children helps them see the world not as a world that exists to please them, rather as a place where good and evil exist and how they respond to those things in their life, will affect the quality of their life.

[@felicien93]

What about animal suffering? It dwarves human suffering in quantity and has been going on for waaaaaaaay longer

[@Lerian_V]

@@felicien93 Animals don't suffer, they feel momentary pain, that's all.

[@felicien93]

@@Lerian_V Very interesting. However, I am not sure that I understand the difference between pain and suffering. Is what you said the case for all animals or do you think it is possible that some animals suffer? Do you think it is possible that some humans don't suffer but only feel momentary pain? And finally, if I experience something bad, how can I know of it is suffering or momentary pain?

[@VirgoBirrane]

Brilliant. I love Bishop Barron and I love Alex, both amazing humans

[@Aikman94]

Exactly, I'm an agnostic and respect both

[@repearsonjr]

Barron is such a brilliant man

[@stevenp2309]

And yet he chooses it to follow down the dead end of religion

[@repearsonjr]

@@stevenp2309 actually atheism represents the dead end

[@stevenp2309]

@@repearsonjr Atheists are searching for answers to unanswered questions. Barron and the religious claim to know the answer.....God. That is a dead end

[@creatinechris]

@@stevenp2309 yeah by definition it requires metaphysical claims which are stopping points for truth.

[@DiscoverJesus]

@@stevenp2309 Christ represents the eternal, life without end.

[@jarrodtoner6209]

Bishop Barron used by the Holy Spirit is the reason I became Catholic.

[@danielmaches3985]

Thanks to Bishop Barron, I overcame agnosticism and started to dive deeper into my Catholic faith!

[@f2pgaming549]

God bless you!

[@szponiasty4652]

Xd

[@danteldeleon6065]

What a brilliant mind both of them have. I can feel the love and compassion in Bishop Barron's heart.

[@heathershea8707]

Holy smokes! That was great! They both were so gracious, respectful and put forth compelling arguments! I could have watched them go back and forth all day!

[@dawid_dahl]

As a carrot, listening to two non-vegetables was surprisingly surprising.

[@wirly-]

Hahaha

[@colywogable]

Best comment on here :)

[@goyonman9655]

Best comment

[@AmitKumar-qz2us]

The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose. (Such as Religious Books full of immoral thougth, hypocrite argument and Sophistry) An evil soul producing holy witness Is like a villain with a smiling cheek, A goodly apple rotten at the heart. O, what a goodly outside falsehood hath! William Shakespeare, The Merchant

[@AmitKumar-qz2us]

Till 325 AD, not a single historian or writer wrote about Jesus Christ or any of his disciples . BEFORE THE FIRST COUNCIL OF NICEA IN 325 AD, NOBODY ON THIS PLANET EVER HEARD OF THE NAMES JESUS CHRIST OR CHRISTIANITY. JESUS/ BIBLE / CHRISTIANTY WAS COOKED UP IN 325 AD, BY JEWESS HELENA , WHO SAT ON THE POPE'S CHAIR.. "Vatican is Evil terrorist satanic organisation." If Satan does exist, then he thrives inside the Roman Catholic Church. The dead sea scrolls covering the period from Birth of Jesus to 68 AD , does NOT say one word about Jesus or his 12 Apostles. In the entire first Christian century Jesus is not mentioned by a single Greek or Roman historian, religion scholar, politician, philosopher or poet. His name never occurs in a single inscription, and it is never found in a single piece of private correspondence. Zero! Zip references. Till 325 AD, not a single historian or writer wrote about Jesus Christ or any of his disciples . BEFORE THE FIRST COUNCIL OF NICEA IN 325 AD, NOBODY ON THIS PLANET EVER HEARD OF THE NAMES JESUS CHRIST OR CHRISTIANITY. JESUS/ BIBLE / CHRISTIANTY WAS COOKED UP IN 325 AD, BY JEWESS HELENA , WHO SAT ON THE POPE'S CHAIR.. "Vatican is Evil terrorist satanic organisation." If Satan does exist, then he thrives inside the Roman Catholic Church. The dead sea scrolls covering the period from Birth of Jesus to 68 AD , does NOT say one word about Jesus or his 12 Apostles. । Hellenistic philosopher Philo Judaeus of Alexandria (20 BCE-50 AD/CE)-alive at the purported time of Jesus, and one of the wealthiest and best connected citizens of the Empire- makes no mention of Christ, Christians or Christianity in his voluminous writings. Nor do any of the hundreds of other historians and writers who flourished during the first THREE centuries of the common era. The DEAD SEA SCROLLS were all written by Pagan Essenes . None of them have been edited by later Christians, as is the case with some other Jewish literature. All the scrolls (except a treasure map known as the Copper Scroll) can be dated prior to A.D. 68 or 69, when the Qumran settlement was believed to have been destroyed by the Romans in the Jewish revolt. The oldest of the scrolls probably goes back to the middle of the third century B.C. The people of Qumran belonged to a Pagan religious group known as the Essenes. Pliny the Elder, who died during the volcanic destruction of Pompeii in the year 79 A.D., described a community of pagan Essenes living on the western shore of the Dead Sea, close to where Khirbet Qumran is situated. John the Baptist was an ascetic Essene . He was a vegan and was uncircumcised . Various literary sources like Josephus and Philo tell clearly that Essenes were ascetics. We also know, from literary testimony, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the archaeological remains of Qumran, that the Essenes practiced many water baptisms for ritual purification-similar to a dip in the Ganges or the river Pampa or at Thiirunelli. At Qumran, however, all members of the community were baptized with water for ritual purification. Josephus writes, "And as for their piety towards God, it is very extraordinary; for before sunrising they speak not a word about profane matters, but put up certain prayers which they have received from their forefathers, as if they made a supplication for its rising" (Wars, 2.8.5). This testimony accords well with what we know from the Dead Sea Scrolls. Prayer and humility was one thing that the Essenes . When they cooked up stories about Jesus they wrote that Jesus Christ ate the Last Supper in the Essene part of town. Jesus is not historical character, The Dead Sea Scrolls have produced increasing evidence to cement the fact that Jesus Christ never existed and the whole story was cooked up at the First Council of Nicea in 325 AD. The FAKE gospels were written after 325 AD after Jesus was cooked up at the first Council of Nicea.. Twelve apostles of Jesus never existed. Jesus Christ names 12 apostles to spread his gospel, and the early Christian church owes its rapid rise to their missionary zeal. Yet, for most of the Twelve, there's scant evidence of their existence outside of the New Testament.

[@davev.6037]

This was a very insightful conversation. This is how these very important topics should be discussed, not in a combative or hostile manner. God bless Bishop Barron and Alex. Great job with Justin's moderation too!

[@CB-fb5mi]

As a non theist, I say props to Unbelievable, they produce great content!

[@unkownoflife5959]

Why are you a non theist?

[@Lanthardol]

I’m curious, why do you call yourself non theist? Is it different to you then atheist, if so how? Most people would probably say atheist/anti-theist so you got me wondering about your word choice.

[@CB-fb5mi]

@@Lanthardol I identify as a non-theistic Christian along the lines of Bishop Shelby Spong, if you are familiar with his work. I don’t believe the classic theistic God exists, but the Jesus tradition and Christian mysticism are very important to me. I don’t have a problem with ‘normal atheists’, but I don’t like identifying with just not believing in something. However, for the purposes of commenting on this channel, I thought non theist would be the easiest way to simply indicate that I don’t believe that the God bishop Barron believes in exists. If I said “as a humanist Christian”, most people would have no idea what I’m talking about lol

[@shankz8854]

@@CB-fb5mi “humanist Christian” sounds like an oxymoron/contradiction to me. Do you believe in the resurrection or that Jesus was supernatural? Do you believe in all the teachings of the bible or just the bits that are compatible with humanism? What does Christianity add to humanism? Cultural identity?

[@CB-fb5mi]

@@shankz8854 You can think what you want about it I guess. For me, Christianity is a choice about how you live your life, it’s not a set of beliefs/propositions. I fully accept that Jesus of Nazareth was a normal human just like everyone else. I of course started my journey as a conservative Christian, as I would imagine every humanist Christian has. It’s a perspective that comes from hard won wrestling with conservative theology, I’m not just picking two worldviews at random and trying to do a mashup...

[@iteadthomam]

Bishop Barron is amazing.

[@alphaandomega567]

*WHAT ABT BART EHRMAN*

[@Miatpi]

@@alphaandomega567 what about him?

[@NickOeffinger]

Barron helped bring me out of the presuppositional mess and delusion of materialism.

[@iteadthomam]

@@alphaandomega567 what about him?

[@iteadthomam]

@@NickOeffinger God bless him and his mission.

[@hugster2000]

Geeze what a great discussion. 10/10 on both sides. Would love to see a second one with them.

[@trueseeker5]

Please have these two on again! Excellent program!

[@JohnSWren]

When my dad was dying years ago he said "it's hard to fight two battles." Thanks pop.

[@jilllie4480]

Wow very well explained Bishop Barron. What a revelation. Thank you so much to all of you. GBU all. Greetings from Indonesia

[@PoogiBear1]

@Nath Krishna tf?

[@MilesMariae]

Barron is an intellectual, no doubt about it. I don't always agree with him but man, I'm glad he exists.

[@Reverenz88-14]

I showed this episode to my bishop recently, and he and my clerical brothers agreed - wow, we kind of need these guys, don't we? These "learned atheists" are serving a wonderful "check and balance" purpose. Now that is mindboggling if you ask me:)

[@HarryNicNicholas]

gosh, that was patronising. apparently god allows suffering cos it leads to a greater good, so i cause as much pain and suffering as humanly possible cos it's going to be sooooooooo great for someone some time in the future and i imagine i am guaranteed a place in heaven.

[@chrissonofpear1384]

@Caroline Rose Ah, but they can in theory, still keep their POSITION, and harm many people, in wars, pogroms, an Inquisition, etc, and get less open chastisement, than one man collecting sticks on Sabbath got, or people using the wrong incense, in a ceremony? (Numbers 15 and 16) Or can pour fuel on later fires by translating the word 'typoi' in 1 Corinthians 10, making it lean more towards racialistic and hereditary blame of Jews - or something...

[@chewyjello1]

@Caroline Rose Then can we permit as much pain and suffering as possible to get into heaven? What's good for the goose...

[@lucasdarianschwendlervieir3714]

@@HarryNicNicholas God doesn't create evil, but allows us to freely decide between good and evil, for what merit would be there into doing good things without an effort, but by force of nature? Moral responsability and moral desert is predicated on being able to make such choices. The actions that are worthy of most praise, those that are most noble, are precisely those done by agents that had every reason to give up, to do otherwise, but kept going, in spite of all difficulties. Not being able to take the easy way out, would rob these actions of their nobility and splendour, in the eyes of God. Because God wants noble beings to exist and to shine his light on creation, and because God values merit and being able to do the hard things that are good despite easy alternatives, therefore he wants beings to exist that have the capacity for evil. Does a good father teach his children by forcing them to do the right thing? No, for they would continue to be children. Maturation requires that they have options, requires having temptation stare you in the face and choosing not to yield to it. A good father teaches his children to be strong in the most dire situations.

[@brianharper1611]

@Caroline Rose Except the argument makes no sense either way. If God creates a universe in which there will be equal or more suffering than not, then it would have been immoral to create a universe that contains beings that can suffer in the first place, especially if you are going to include an eternal state of suffering for specific individuals. What makes it so disturbing on the side of theists, such as the Bishop, is that they are basing their view that God is good and all this suffering is worth it on faith. The problem of evil has very little to do with why I don't believe that God exists though, but it is still something I have thought about a lot. That argument is only an argument against the Abrahamic God anyway.

[@soccerfreak4God]

The discussion on the "celebration" of suffering reminded me of the interview between stephen colbert and anderson cooper, where colbert ultimately said he was grateful for the tragedy of his dad and brothers dying. It kind of rides this knife's edge of being odd and perverse, but also demonstrating a deep appreciation for the complexity of life, and the suffering we go through being a part of that

[@TacosnZorro]

It's honestly the only explanation for the existence of suffering. The other end is just logically nihilism and it explains why SO MANY people nowadays commit suicide. It's a tragedy and a horror that so many have been deprived of the understanding of suffering in our broken world.

[@soccerfreak4God]

@@TacosnZorro well, I personally wouldn't say it "explains" suffering, but I'm kind of an existentialist. I also don't think we need to assume that suffering is justified or has some greater purpose, at least not initially. The argument I start with is that we can either choose to view life as a good thing, or view it as cruel and not worthwhile. I'd rather choose the former. And, suffering is an intrinsic part of life, so what do you do with that? The story of Job is gut-wrenching and apparently cruel, but I think it says something that it's the oldest part of the Bible. I think it appears cruel because our idea of God now is very personal, but if you view God in this story as "nature" or "reality", I think it makes more sense. I don't expect nature to care about me, but I am trying to survive in it- and I need to respect it and be grateful for it. Even though it might try to kill me at times haha, it has also given me the chance to live at all.

[@soccerfreak4God]

Oh, and I forgot to mention how job's wife embodies the second choice: "curse God and die." Give up, because life is awful. He chooses to have faith in God/reality, and the moral of the story is that is the correct choice. Which I think is wise

[@soccerfreak4God]

@mike mcmike right. I think a lot of people fall on the wrong side of the knife's edge so to speak, and they talk about suffering like it's a "good" thing. I try to have grace for that, because I think they are close to being correct. It's just being expressed clumsily

[@soccerfreak4God]

@mike mcmike I definitely see what you mean, although at this point it gets a little murky, trying to imagine exactly what "God" is. Like I said, I think imagining a personal omnipotent God makes less sense here. Imo, the old testament talks about God more like he is nature itself, with his rigid rules and consequences. I often like to start in the realm of utility- what attitude would be useful for me to have about suffering. That conversation is easier to have. Then maybe later, after establishing a lot of common ground with someone, discuss metaphysics and more traditional views of God.

[@chrisjames9795]

Great conversation! Wonderful to have Bishop Barron eloquent contribution in the philosophical space. Keep going Alex - I came to faith through suffering, following an experience I had whilst studying Theology at Kings College.

[@kuantumdot]

I can attest to “I come to faith through suffering “

[@kuantumdot]

@@OneTrueScotsman Sir Isaac Newton once had faith that there must have been something or force pulling objects toward each other. Then he laid out the ground work for today modern world, such as car, airplane, space exploration. He didn’t have any particular reason to believe that “something” ever existed. Regardless, yes, I agree with you, there must be a reason or reasons. “Faith” doesn’t mean “not to ask question”. Blessing!

[@HarryNicNicholas]

@@kuantumdot apparently god allows suffering cos it leads to a greater good, so i cause as much pain and suffering as humanly possible cos it's going to be sooooooooo great for someone some time in the future and i imagine i am guaranteed a place in heaven.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

@@OneTrueScotsman odd you should say that cos isn't the reason god hides that you can't know for certain he exists, isn't "faith" the WHOLE POINT of the christian mythology? it's a bad day when an atheist has to explain how your religion works. if you're certain god exists you're doing something wrong mate.

[@WaterCat5]

@@kuantumdot Calling a theory "faith" is just wrong. You can observe things drop the ground. It happens all the time. Ergo, there is a pretty good chance there is a reason. God does not show up similarly. I realize Christians will probably say otherwise, but if you can't convince a good-faith observer, then you are not convincing. You can convince me things drop to the ground. You cannot convince me (at least I have yet to be convinced by Christians and their lack of evidence) Jesus rose from the dead or many other things Christianity asserts. If you feel you do have proof, feel free to show it.

[@yankeeluver100]

Bishop Barron is brilliant. Props to both of them for having such an intellectual discussion.

[@carnivalwholesale9809]

His conversation on Faith was completely garbage

[@nathanbossoh]

The last section on evil was a really good conversation. Alex's challenges were good, and I think Barron's arguments were compelling, however, as is usually going to be the case, their worldviews shaped how they saw the end product (which is pretty much the case for all of us). But it was great to see them really hashing things out!

[@Hazay19]

Question: Is it the problem of "evil" as much as the problem of "suffering". Breaking it down as simply and quickly as possible for time and space sake, allowing/granting free will allows for evil, but it is more the unnecessary suffering, whether from natural disasters, a baby born with cancer, that seems more problematic to many. Would just appreciate your thoughts. Best Regards.

[@nathanbossoh]

​@@Hazay19 Yh I think it's a good point. I'm no apologist but I know that the usual distinction is made between 'natural' evil vs 'human' evil. So Alex's emphasis on suffering seems to be on the 'natural' evil side and I think Alex actually has a good point here. It is certainly the case that seemingly unnecessary sufferings, as you listed, are a big problem because from a Christian perspective (as is Barron's point) we simply can't give an ultimate reason as to why they happen. In philosophical circles, the free will answer largely deals with human evil, so natural evil tends to be much more difficult to deal with because of its emotional/existential and non-controllable nature. But there are two observations of my own from this against both speakers: 1) ALEX - Alex states in the video that he is ok with not having all the answers to life; this is part of his atheist viewpoint. He says that it is a bit arrogant to suggest that one religion (such as Christianity) does have all the answers. But when Barron says that he doesn't have the ultimate answer to evil (aside from the work of Christ of course), Alex almost seems to not be satisfied with this. Alex tries to push Barron to give a full explanation when Barron has already stated that Christianity doesn't = all the answers being known. 2) BARRON - Barron missed an opportunity to talk about the fall of man in Genesis (of course this depends on how you view Adam and Eve). But Barron maybe could have emphasized that this suffering was not the way that the world was initially intended to be, and that there was a cause of this suffering on earth (at least human suffering) that goes back to Adam and Eve. (Joshua Swamidas has shown that a literal-recent Adam and Eve doesn't contradict origins science which is also helpful.)

[@dan69052]

teach the children How does all religion start? It starts with the children . Here is a short 4:00 min video that sets the stage. Look it up on KZbin “Welcome to This World”. Sound familiar?

[@TheRealShrike]

@@nathanbossoh Swamidas' argument is pretty weak for a variety of reasons. A miniscule "possibility" of a "real" Adam and Eve does not equal a "probability." Science overwhelming points in one direction, and it's more than just the field of anthropology producing the evidence against a real, physical first "pair" of humans.

[@sojernon8689]

We all have a worldview brother, presuppositions are unavoidable

[@janetdrybread6937]

This was a very good conversation and honestly done. God's purpose, born from his love, is the salvation of our immortal souls, not our material bliss this side of Heaven. Suffering has always been a part of the natural world. Listening to God requires humility, knowing that there is a limit to our intellect, our ability to know. As a Christian I experience God's grace. That presence is very real. It began for me at the age of 23, when I responded to God's grace with a humble act of prayer. Even through the tragic death of my 35 year old daughter, mother of two small children, God has sustained me. I can not know God's plan. But I called out to him in my pain and he answered with such peace and strength that my faith was deepened, not destroyed. One virtue that seems to me to be necessary to Faith in God is humility. This humility is more difficult for the intellectually gifted as they are inclined to over think and run in unproductive circles once they reach the limit of their human reason. The only right response to this is humility, and trust....Faith.

[@mahletd167]

@mike mcmike he created the rapists with the same opportunity to be good people. we decide if we want to be terrible. for god to “filter” our abilities to be evil, it would limit our free will. for god to step in to stop something bad from happening, since he’s a perfect being, he would have to step in every time. that would make us robots to gods will rather than our own.

[@bvokey8842]

mike mcmike The biblical view is that God knows what will happen to us only because God is outside of space and time. So he can see the beginning and the end. That doesn’t mean that people don’t have free will to make decisions that change the course of history. If you change your action then that just changes what God sees as an end result for you.

[@georgedoyle7971]

Well said! Your comment reminded of this G.K. Chesterton quote... “The general fact is simple. Poetry is sane because it floats easily in an infinite sea; reason seeks to cross the infinite sea and so make it finite. The result is mental exhaustion... To accept everything is an exercise, to understand everything a strain... The poet only asks to get his head into the heavens. It is the logician who seeks to get the heavens into his head. And it is his head that splits.” (G.K. Chesterton) ❤️

[@kristian5791]

@@mahletd167 here is a problem with your logic. If he already saw the end then no matter what change you make, it is already set in stone in his eyes(if he exists) because if his end result can change then he is not seeing the definite future. Thats is a fact. Every single thing that happens is already known by him (supposedly) then the moment that child was born or before he or her is born , god would already know that he was going to be rapist, and if he doesnt know what he is going to be then he is not all knowning and thus your god is not what he is written to be.

[@Kvothe3]

Justin: if you haven't considered having Joe Shmidt as a guest you should. He has a KZbin channel, the Majesty of Reason, that explores the philosophy of religion that is growing rapidly.

[@israeltrujillo-sba6747]

yes! get Joe 🙌

[@frumaatholoid]

what perspective does he come from?

[@vaskaventi6840]

@@frumaatholoid he’s purely agnostic (as in 50% chance for theism 50% chance for atheism)

[@jholts6912]

@Actus Purus the universe would collapse

[@dan69052]

children need truth not myths How does all religion start? It starts with the children . Here is a short 4:00 min video that sets the stage. Look it up on KZbin “Welcome to This World”. Sound familiar?

[@edge4192]

The point Alex is making in regards to taking your dog to the vet and the comparison that the bishop uses is an excellent analogy. Like the bishop says, the dog has no way of understanding that the surgery he is about to endure is actually to help him. There is no way to articulate that to the dog. Alex responds and says "well yes but if you were all powerful and had the ability to make sure it never suffered you would be crazy to not prevent it." This right here is where I disagree with Alex. If I were rich and had children, spent every dime I had to make sure they never had a care in a world would this benefit them or be a detriment? I am grateful for the hardest parts of my life. Would I prefer they never happened? In that moment 100% but looking back at it now with my current perspective 20 years in the future I wouldn't trade those hardships for the world. These struggles and sufferings have taught me to be grateful for the things I have. I count my blessings not my burdens. If I can understand that in this finite life then I can't imagine the overarching implication in the perspective of eternity.

[@jesh879]

You are objectively correct. Kids raised that way are garbage.

[@markstuder9256]

Good point. Thanks; I agree.

[@JHJHJH]

Not allowing someone to suffer is not the same thing as making sure someone never has a care in the world (unless you have a very generous definition of suffering).

[@analiachavezdemaudling4895]

Two brilliant minds, great arguments both but what passes through the screen is peace and humble joy that was unmovable on one side and sad disguised anger, and resentment to the point on despair on the other. Paradox: Young body, old spirit and viceversa?

[@kanon1118]

wow this is the 1st time i've seen a very honest christian in terms of arguing and debating. damn i was so satisfied with this debate. love cosmic skeptic but the bishop stole the show really. and i'm saying that as an atheist

[@j.whisper2379]

Bishop! God works in mysterious ways!! Where have I heard that before! LOL!

[@kanon1118]

@Jiffy Chacko B 2116 SY BAMMC Chacko not really no and that might not be a good thing

[@kanon1118]

@@josephabraham3286 sure.

[@cosmicsaipen875]

100% Loved how he debated

[@no3339]

Although you’re atheist, even if you are only like 90-10 or less for atheism vs God’s existence, why don’t you at least try it out for a few months or so and see how your life is transformed

[@jean-guydallaire6527]

Wow! thanks to you all. I will retain... 'Faith is a response to the revealing God... and a surrender at the far side of reason.'

[@kenchristiansen4663]

I appreciated Justin pulling conversation towards the pragmatic and experiential, because that is where it hits home for so many of us. Tragedy can strike at an early age, but as the years pass we become more contemplative. I experienced acute suffering and death of my spouse, and was afforded the opportunity to sense God’s presence and peace through the process. I didn’t expect that, and to be clear I didn’t, and still don’t, want it, but it changed me. In a visceral way, not through reason or intellect, my faith was affirmed.

[@Dumbstuffwatcher]

How do you know that was God, and not just your brain giving you a hallucinatory experience? And how do you know it's a specific God?

[@tommore3263]

A light in the midst of darkness.

[@Eserr7856]

​@@Dumbstuffwatcher I think it was based on his personal life experience, knowing himself, his beliefs, how his mind works, how his emotions work, how his senses work and then experiencing something that was not from himself or from "beyond" himself that he knew from intuition, that it was divine. As to being able to "prove" it was God, that is not possible, because God is always greater (as Bishop Barron reminds us) than our rational mind's ability to comprehend. Finally, I would say that is where "faith" comes in, which is the ability beyond reason for us to "know" God exists and he is trustworthy.

[@vincentsheehan3193]

Great video. Would it be possible to have a discussion between NT Wright & Bishop Barron - I’d love to hear the ideas bouncing off those two!

[@forplaylists5981]

Agreed!

[@languagelearningexperience6814]

With a name like Bishop Barron I hope he has a secret base and plans for world domination, because it's just awesome

[@Ididntaskforahandleyoutube]

lol

[@acupanraphaelgio7925]

Ikr

[@thomaskunkel9177]

bishop bob Barron

[@stacy1458]

True and agree lol

[@dennis1662]

Bishop is not his name. lol Bishop is the title he holds.

[@jesseplatt2842]

Love the dialouge...very informative and fruitful. I would love to see Father Spitzer, Father Gregory Pine, Roy Abraham Varghese, or Peter Kreeft...Bishop Barron did a great job!!! I like how Alex is very respectful and seems to be open minded.

[@dan69052]

teach the children How does all religion start? It starts with the children . Here is a short 4:00 min video that sets the stage. Look it up on KZbin “Welcome to This World”. Sound familiar?

[@AlbertCamus1993]

Oh Boy! These two could have gone on for another 2 hour if given a chance. Loved this.

[@ret715]

I wish they would have!

[@agneschang5234]

I loved this debate -- not only because Bishop Barron brought some great arguments for the side of theism (which have been lacking in my own Christian background), but also because Alex was able to articulate some of the objections I couldn't do myself to the Bishop's initial arguments. It allowed the Bishop to come back and clarify and strengthen his statements. That faith is suprarational, and that it is a surrender at the far side of reason -- I'll be remembering that during my own philosophical studies! And I'll definitely be checking out Alex's other videos. God bless you both!

[@daniellennox8804]

41:20 - 45:26 Bishop Barron’s explanation of faith through that analogy was beautiful

[@ontariolacus]

Maybe, but he was contradicting himself. Faith was supposed to be rational in his argument, and yet it is based on emotional appeal. On feelings of trust, not data and arguments.

[@repentantrevenant4451]

@@ontariolacus When you trust a person, it's not devoid of reason and evidence. It's not irrational to trust a person. It just also involves more than that. I think that's what his point is: faith isn't less than reason, because it involves reason to the fullest extent it can go. It just includes more than that as well.

[@GorgyCL]

@@repentantrevenant4451 and this is how you end up flying airplanes into buildings...

[@Thrawnmulus]

@@repentantrevenant4451 the argument is does it consist of sufficient reason, either it does and is therefore indistinguishable from reason, or it doesn't and therefore is not reasonable.

[@ontariolacus]

@@repentantrevenant4451 when you trust a person based on evidence, then it is rational. But you mean emotional trust, so it is not rational. That's it.

[@ranferchristian8050]

Bishop Robert Barron is awesome!!!

[@FakingANerve]

1:08:30 What an absolutely _fantastic_ rebuttal on Alex's part to highlight the problem of the bishop's previous statement. Cheers! 🍻

[@whatisiswhatable]

It wasn’t correct, though. Permitting something doesn’t mean and admittance that it had to happen in order for some good to happen. It also doesn’t mean we can’t make judgements within the broader picture.

[@АртурИванов-ч9э]

​@@whatisiswhatable if it hadn't to happen, the why i happen? God can bring good different ways. And what "judgement" can you make? "It's bad, but it's God's work, so it's good actually, even if I don't know why."

[@tylerzsommer]

Justin, excellent job again! Thank you for being an amazing host to an awesome show. I came here once again to watch Alex debate, but I love how professionally and kindly you run these. Long time listener from Japan

[@McCaffreyPickleball]

Word

[@АртурИванов-ч9э]

You are not japanese and live in Japan?

[@ELECTRICBIGE]

This was incredible. Thanks to both guests, and the host

[@vegfist2997]

I enjoyed the Conversarion. Kudos to Bishop Barron, Moderator and Alex for the disçussion ❤

[@a.i.l1074]

The sign this was a great debate: I'm something like an agnostic, and every time one of them spoke I went from theist to atheist to theist to atheist...

[@AlessandroVAngioy]

I wish you the best: never give up your search for truth and meaningfulness

[@pop3stealth97]

Yeah they were great, i would recommend going into Jordan Peterson talks and works as well.

[@phill234]

@@pop3stealth97 I think his religious views are kind of... well, let's say strange. He just defines "truth" as something totally different than its usual definition. I do think he has quite a few interesting views though.

[@Carlos-fl6ch]

Hahaha, that's not agnostic that's confused. Lol. Just joking, but I understand what you mean.

[@geremiasneto5642]

I'd like to make you a suggestion: try talking to God instead of only thinking about it. Say the Lord's prayer twice a day, and talk honestly to God about your doubts and ask God for the truth. You have nothing to lose. Worst case scenario, you tried.

[@lisabrew2856]

This is amazing!!! So educating and exciting on both behalfs

[@JohnFromAccounting]

I find it interesting that the atheist began from a position of rationality and logic, where the Christian was speaking from an experiential position, but in the third section it flipped over and the atheist was talking emotively, and the Christian was talking with rationality and logic.

[@sojernon8689]

Faith is the conscious recognition of the divine at the ground of our being. The Catholic thesis is that God became man so that man may become god.

[@ericmpm7]

Interesting perspective. I didn’t catch the emotive or experiential argument from Bishop Barron in the beginning (other than metaphor or analogy). It seemed like both presenters stared with reason and with the question of evil the Atheist got emotive.

[@First1it1Giveth]

The problem of suffering is a very difficult issue to address, though the very being of it evokes emotion as it has a deep personal connection to the heart. Only through a spiritual lens can pain be rationally responded to- and as Alex states it is atheism that cannot nor does not need to explain it, It just "is" and pain is only a subjective experience in finality.

[@sojernon8689]

@@First1it1Giveth Christians have a god who experienced suffering through the assumption of flesh. Seems suffering and evil is unavoidable

[@Laserpuppylord7215]

Both speakers made many interesting points and rebuttals. As for who came out on top.. only the fox god knows.

[@stanleyhyde8529]

I love that things like this come up in my content feed. These guys aren't attacking each other or trying to discredit one another. They are simply having a structured conversation. I wouldn't even call this a debate at least not as far as you tube is concerned anyway. The way this usually goes down is one guy yells about conspiracy theories and the other guy insults him for 2 hours while the mediator throws little jabs in at both sides to keep the fire going.

[@plzenjoygameosu2349]

Bishop Barron is the best!!!!

[@DanielRoyals]

Existence precedes quality of existence. You can't start with suffering, you need to start with existence.

[@mantabsekali920]

Can a carrot feels suffer ? 😂

[@admininfo536]

@@mantabsekali920 actually yes. Studies now show that plants cry out when trampled, chopped, etc.

[@mantabsekali920]

@@admininfo536 source please 🙏

[@matthewdahlsten5979]

How do you know this? Why can't they arise simultaneously? Have you ever experienced existence without a "quality"? Also existence does not equal god necessarily. In fact maybe god arises out of the experience of suffering. As Lennon wrote "god is a concept by which we measure our pain".

[@mantabsekali920]

@@matthewdahlsten5979 so god exist because we make it when we measure our pain ? God exist because we exist, yeah i agree with you too 😁

[@jeffnicolo6286]

“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt in our philosophy.”

[@jamesharold4904]

This was a wonderful debate

[@samael5782]

This is a fictional character saying it...

[@marypinakat8594]

@@samael5782 How about this one: "The fault lies not in our stars, dear Brutus, but in ourselves."

[@jamesparson]

Prove it then

[@nathanw.3187]

we are the same person. love this quote.

[@jobtiesinga7807]

I think when Alex said a Christian would be "glad God's will is being done" even when his parent would die is exactly right, personally, I think in those moments a Christian would certainly be sad and morn the loss, but ultimately be glad that God is in charge and that his will is done instead of the Devil or no being at all, besides of course feeling the hope for eternal peace/joy and a reunion with that parent in the afterlife.

[@forplaylists5981]

Justin, this is a great conversation! Been waiting for Bishop Barron to make an appearance!

[@johnr4670]

Fascinating. I side with Bishop Barron, but always appreciate Alex’s voice and thoughts. Great content!

[@simonedechadarevian3486]

What a privilege to listen to both guests and you allowing such a fluid debate that is so demanding intellectually and emotionally! I will pray for you all and be thankful to God that in each one’s path He might act, through His spirit, for better good and yearning...God bless you all.🙏👍

[@westlylewis1]

SO Great!! Loved the debate!! Class acts both of these gentlemen...!!! Looking forward to more!

[@alysonmaguire593]

I would love to see Alex converse with Fr. Gregory Pine, both insanely intelligent people

[@charmendro]

YES PLZ!

[@TacosnZorro]

I third this.

[@MerrittCluff]

Somehow this discussion is wonderfully respectful and deep. For me these arguments need to come back to how love is ultimately compelling.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

there is so much patronising bollocks on this page.

[@sjhoanwens]

I love this so much more than than the adversarial, audience charged format of debates during the past decade.

[@wierdpocket]

Death doesn’t come except from life, it’s really hard to start from death in principle, though I feel the weight of it.

[@chrissonofpear1384]

@Kevin Cobb Err, did Jews have reason to hate Him, when He did, NOTHING, to protect them, from errant theologians, Popes, bishops, and Inquisitors, perhaps? And what of assorted peasants flung into wars with each other for minor regal or sectarian issues, as well as a number of African, slaves? Were they also, adequately protected, or provided, for... And how does, sin, arise, in heaven - almost, from nothing. It's a fairly crucial detail, possibly.

[@clowney28]

@@chrissonofpear1384 Sin arose from free will in heaven. Christ did save the Jews from something, and also to all humanity who knows Him and lives in Him, that is Sin. Christ the messiah (saviour) came to save, not from natural evil or human evil but from personal Sins. From the bondage of our spirit that Sin put a chain around.

[@unkownoflife5959]

Exactly, thats why a God in the beginning makes sense.

[@chrissonofpear1384]

@@clowney28 Err, no, He kinda hasn't saved them, consistently. Do you know what the Spanish Inquisition is? And that was just the cap on a LOOONNNNG history of similarly nasty deeds, often enacted upon Jews, by powerful apparent Christians, Popes included. And in Italy, Poland and many other countries, too, long pre third Reich. Also, merely having free will in heaven should not immediately lead to dissatisfaction, ignorance about God's and Satan's nature, and suicidal pride, should it not? And all those angels were free to make those choices and know the sides, and stakes. But we, are not - we have this somewhat chosen, FOR us, by Adam and Eve - who did not seem to fully know all those things. Whilst rebel angels lost very little, comparatively, in the Fall (at least, in turns of knowledge) So how did heaven turn out to be somewhere imperfection or unhappiness, could ever exist.

[@Powerfishmon]

@@chrissonofpear1384 You’re wrong on a few points. First, Satan rebelled because he loved himself over God, there was no unhappiness, people can find happiness in two ways, in the true and beautiful, or the disordered and twisted. The angels lost far more than we did, they were thrown into hell after the rebellion, and there is no hope for them. When Adam and Eve sinned, human nature followed that trajectory because of our very nature beginning with them. But as Saint Augustine said, “Oh happy fault that lead to such a redeemer!” God Himself came to undo what our first parents did, when we were still guilty by free choice. Also the Jews are rejecting the messiah, they just simply reject Christ. Israel was a community God formed to pave the way for the Christ to redeem the world, create good soil if you would. But to those who reject Him, if they were the original branches of the tree, they’ve been cut off while others have been grafted. God owes no one anything.

[@catholicdisciple3232]

Bishop Barron was brilliant. Really changed my mind! Would love to see a round 2 :)

[@veganatheistandmore]

He changed your mind about what?

[@chrishutch13]

@@veganatheistandmore At the risk of trying to answer for someone else, possibly the widely held view that Christians are devoid of any and all reason and logic?

[@veganatheistandmore]

@@chrishutch13 so you think that R.B. said something reasonable and logical? Like what?

[@Lerian_V]

@@veganatheistandmore What did he say that is illogical?

[@catholicdisciple3232]

@@veganatheistandmore I think Bishop Barron did a great job discussing the problem of evil as well as the definition of faith. Upon close and careful listening, what he says is incredibly profound. Both men did a great job.

[@donitabell3877]

Alex, you are a very intellectual being who seems to be constantly searching. That's good! Keep searching for it reminds me of the beautiful poem by Francis Thompson (1859-1907), 'The Hound of Heaven'.✨

[@jbeiler55]

That natural progression of growing a friendship and building trust that Bishop Barren described: it's too bad we can't have that with a deity that doesn't make themself plain to us. If you need faith or trust to believe they exist you've turned the whole model upside down.

[@jamesmason_77]

I find Bishop Barron really refreshing good conversation 👍🏼

[@JustinBlastoff]

One of the most civil and respectable debates I’ve ever seen. Fantastic arguments on both sides

[@samuelqueiroz156]

I wanna see a debate between Alex and N.T Wright

[@LiquidTurbo]

PLEASE JUSTIN

[@Gumbi1012]

NT Wright doesn't typically debate

[@scotthutson8683]

@@Gumbi1012 he does do conversations though. For instance he's had a Veritas conversation with Ethicist Shelly Kegan. I'm sure he's done more as well.

[@supersmart671]

No point....

[@lkae4]

I agree. NT Wright is a progressive potato.

[@johncormican562]

Fascinating debate, and as many people here have pointed out, deliciously respectful and engaging. Interesting where they end up discussing the rights and wrongs of starting with suffering or not as Buddhism's conception starts precisely with suffering and devotes itself with illuminating that very quandary.

[@oldschoolsaint]

You've had some great sohws Justine....this one is the best of the best!

[@dan69052]

hear is another great show How does all religion start? It starts with the children . Here is a short 4:00 min video that sets the stage. Look it up on KZbin “Welcome to This World”. Sound familiar?

[@oldschoolsaint]

@@dan69052 Norton: Mind if I smoke Ralphie Boy? Ralph: I don't care if you burn.

[@davidrodriguez336]

Both were brilliant - Thanks for participating/organizing! I think atheism is the most comfortable position on earth - downside is it risks and answers nothing. Christianity is about establishing a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and can't be explained as you can't explain how much felt in love. Christianity is the clear winner: It's risky but you can take it all.

[@dan69052]

teach the children truth How does all religion start? It starts with the children . Here is a short 4:00 min video that sets the stage. Look it up on KZbin “Welcome to This World”. Sound familiar?

[@grantcarpenter6685]

Christianity isn't any kind of clear winner. It's simply more emotionally satisfying for you. You can't demonstrate that your god exists, so you believe for purely emotional reasons. Atheism is simply non-belief in gods. It's not out to win anything. A broadly secular worldview, however, provides more authentic connections with others because a secular moral system centers around empathy and consideration for others, instead of obedience to the commandments of a god that's presumed to exist. The latter is authoritarian in nature and is a weak foundation for morality.

[@christianRafaelCasti]

Reallllly like the Alex O'Connor guy!! I'm a catholic but I totally get his thought pattern! I'm going to subscribe to his channel. There is a few flaws in what he was saying but I'd really like to know more about what he thinks. Science is done on the faith that things can be understood, otherwise there would be no reason to do it. God bless Alex, Fr. Barron and Justin.

[@martinzarathustra8604]

Wait science is faith in knowledge? lol. Really? That is your argument?

[@jdsherri]

@@martinzarathustra8604 and the endless discovery quest of what is already there

[@christianRafaelCasti]

@@martinzarathustra8604 well put, friend. Science is a method, a tool. You open your eyes to see, in the same way to do science because you can understand, otherwise why do it?

[@martinzarathustra8604]

@@christianRafaelCasti Yeah but if knowledge is faith than why even bother with a different word in the first place? I don't have "faith" in knowledge, unless you want to see reason is faith. Do you want to say reason is faith?

[@christianRafaelCasti]

@@martinzarathustra8604 okay, yeah you're right, I misunderstand what you meant. It's sloppy wording on my part. I'm saying science requires faith in the intelligibility of the universe. Many people bring up quantum mechanics but like a video Alex did with William Lain Craig I was seeing last night, William brought up it's not a real void where its literally coming into existence out of nothing. It's a Great video, really liking the Cosmic Skeptic!

[@nathanmiller9918]

"When you start with something demonstrably true that's a problem."

[@davecourtney8271]

Really enjoyed the way these two were able to debate. They were a good match up. I just wanted to say, for as much as Alex brings up a really good question in terms of how it is we move from the reality of suffering to the reality of God, I think he misses a crucial part of this picture. I'm glad that Father Barron differentiated between the starting point of narrative, as that was what I felt was missing from the debate all along. The problem with what Alex proposes in beginning with suffering rather than God (or goodness, or love, or whatever else we are going to begin with in order to have something by which to determine something as evil) is that by starting with evil and suffering he is essentially writing a narrative of humanity and existence that has no way of being reconciled. And this precisely bercause he has no way of offering a measure on which to base a response to evil and suffering without presupposing something good as that which we should then strive. The problem actually is not that Alex doesn't have a narrative and a "good" that he stakes his life on. I am convinced that he does, just as everyone does, as that is the basis by which we get up and step our doors every single day. It's that by beginning the narrative with evil and suffering, the only endgame that he has with that narrative is an evil defined by moral responsibility. Which then requires, rationally speaking, moral justice. For Alex, evil can't be an external agency, it can be determined by action, and thus restorative justice, rationally speaking, is not an ideal that he could rationally make room for. If evil is a moral action, then justice that simply locks people up for that action is the only true justice we can obtain. Which is what the majority of atheists that I have met believe. The question of whether someone is inherently good or bad is really irrelevant in this case. The only true quesiton is whether the action of an individual is beneficial or harmful for the whole. Now let's take the Christian story. What Father Barron fails to push further is what beginning with the good actually does for the way we can then tell the narrative of God, creation and humanity. When we begin with the good we can then undesrtand not only God as good, but creation and humanity as inherently good. Further, what Alex misses in his need to begin with suffering is that this also means that creation and humanity are not inherently evil. This is important because it allows us to see evil as its own agency, its own entitty, a source in and of itself just as much as goodness finds its source in God. And why is this important? Because if we view evil as an agency then we leave room for the impact of Sin in the whole of the created order. New Creation in the Christian sense is the belief that the whole created order is not as it should be, thus the kind of human suffering that seemingly has nothing to do with human will is every bit a part of the problem we see and the hope that we then proclaim. Human suffering that flows from the human will is the same as human suffering not associated with the human will, and the sin of the will reveals the sin that holds all of creation in bondage. The other important aspect of this is understanding concern in Christianity for human particpation in the suffering of the world. We enter into the suffering of others not to celebrate or fix that suffering but to allign ourselves with the story of another. And as we do so we also attend to suffering precisely because Christ called us to be His hands and feet. It is in doing this that suffering finds its hope. That this hope points towards a new creation reality is not so much interested in the question of whether God could or could not do something about the suffering, but that God is in fact doing something about it through us. This the great mystery of faith and what faith does. The only different between Alex and Bishop Barron to this end is not that one is Christian and one is not, it is that Bishop Barron holds to a given and revealed narrative a goodness that is able to say to someone, this is what God is working to bring about, and our simple action of entering into the suffering of another and working to attend to the suffering we see in this world is simply meant to point to that Truth, which is that what is wong in this world is being made right. We don't know how this is coming about, but we do place our hope in the truth that it is. This does mean suffering is necessary to the goal, it simply means that God has entered into our suffering world in order to say that something new is indeed being made. Suffering is not necessary nor good, is is the result and reality of evil, that which is not good. And as the Christian narrative suggests, if God is good God cannot also be evil. Thefore, where God is evil cannot be. What the Christian narrative says is that God could choose to get rid of evil, but the problem is this would destroy us in the process. If we are to have a world with no evil, God must give us a way to dwell where God dwells. This becomes the whole point of the Christian narrative, is that God allows suffering so that we can have a way into life with God, otherwise God would simply be absolving the human will or destorying humanity with evi. This is much different than the quesetion Alex kept asking, which is how do we contend with a God who could do something about suffering and chooses not to. That not only implies a wrongly understood seperation between capital letter SIn (agency and Power) and small letter sin (human will), it neglects the point of the Easter story. The whole point of the Cross is that God did choose to do something about it through Christ incarnate and is doing something about it through us as Christ's image bearers. But the vision of the Cross is crucial to this end because it offers us a vision of goodness that can only be brought about if God is good and God is love in a given and revelatory and capital T "Truthful" sense. Otherwise what hope do we have except the kind of justice I describe above and the endless and meaningless march towards human progress as our central and most unifying narrative? That certainly does not translate into a rational hope anyways, and can't offer any truly rational response to the question, why should I live in the face of death.

[@dan69052]

teach the children truth How does all religion start? It starts with the children . Here is a short 4:00 min video that sets the stage. Look it up on KZbin “Welcome to This World”. Sound familiar?

[@chrissonofpear1384]

If we take Romans 9:22 LITERALLY though, there is STILL NO WAY of reconciling ALL OF HUMANITY, that way, is there, @Dave Courtney ? And if we take Matthew 7:18 and Luke 13:26 very literally, too, the degree or spectrum of reconciliation begins to be implied to be alarmingly narrow, in scope, perhaps. And given the church is still not fully unified, and time was wasted on making things worse with the Jews in the past...?

[@davecourtney8271]

@@chrissonofpear1384 I might need you to clarify. What do you mean when you say there is not way to reconcile all of humanity? Are we delving into notions of atonement? When it comes to all of humanity being reconciled, certainly there is a way that can be seen for that to happen. That remains our hope anyways. But the universal reach of the Gospel is not foreign to Paul nor the the early writings. It's written straight into the community shaping narrative of Genesis in fact. Or as some would see it, this is the new reality Christ has revealed and made know through the cross, and thus a part of the mystery is how it is that some are not part of this new reality, however that mystery has to do in some way, shape or form in how we pay allegiance to or standing in this new reality versus the old. And that is wrapped up with the earthly reality and scriptures concern for social justice. Given that is by nature a mystery, there remains a lot of leeway in terms of how that plays out, and certainly is not bound to our own judgments and knowledge and language. But that is one understanding some find in the narrative. I would stay away from the neo calvinists altogether. I think that theology gets messed up very very quickly, lol. It sounds like your use of the word "literally" is a bit leading there, but I cant really tell, so I'm only assuming. But there is a LOT of great work out there on Romans and Paul, especially in the new perspective field, which has done some amazing things in breaking open and bringing us back to the world of the text where we can gain a sense of what this narrative I describe above meant to them

[@davecourtney8271]

@@chrissonofpear1384 Also, I wouldn't narrow the work God is doing in this new creation reality to simply what many refer to as the church. The narrative involves the church, and there is plenty and good reason for that particilarly as we understand the failures (of Israel and the church) in terms of covenantal language. That has nothing to do with moral righteouness though, not in the Biblical narrative

[@justinpaquette3305]

Interesting! Any Book you would recommend regarding this topic?

[@yannickbr4383]

Definitely on the side of atheism here, but loved to hear Bishop Barron speak and defend religion. Really educating.

[@emmahudson1053]

I agree with Alex! What a great debate!👍🏼

[@josephabraham3286]

Agree with what exactly?

[@dtgb7]

@@josephabraham3286 this atheists in the comment sections are the type of people who Alex was talking about when he was explaining the low bar..

[@josephabraham3286]

@@dtgb7 i see

[@galaxychar]

@@dtgb7 What do you mean by that? The commenter is saying they agree with his viewpoint..

[@mikelombard21]

Well done gentlemen. Its a shame more conversations are not as civil as this. Opposite view points and complete courtesy and politeness. It doesn't matter how important the issue or how divided we are, we must talk about the hard issues. With civility, and kindness and open mindedness. Much love everyone, don't be afraid to question your beliefs minor or major.

[@jameslogalbo7161]

Great conversation. I think when it comes to the suffering question at the end, a Christian shouldn't have a problem with someone beginning their worldview from the perspective of suffering rather than good because suffering is at the very center of the Christian faith... It's not an "answer" to the problem of suffering, but it's to say that we don't have a God who distanced himself from suffering. Instead we have a God who willingly became a man in the person of Jesus Christ to experience the human condition, to suffer, and ultimately, to bring all suffering to an end at the end of history. So again, it doesn't "answer" the problem of suffering. And it's not an issue when someone begins their worldview from the perspective of suffering. But the Christian can at least meet them where they're at, and say, "I feel the suffering, too, and so does God."

[@tommore3263]

And suffering IS finally answered in Christ and eternal life. God.. who literally IS REASON.. cannot create something infinite.

[@aisthpaoitht]

Suffering cannot exist without good. Suffering cannot exist to an atheist. If you believe in suffering then you believe in God. You just don't realize it yet.

[@rjpajaron]

"We are trying to understand things that we cannot". I am Catholic.

[@laurameszaros9547]

I certainly think Alex is particularly eloquent and wins hands down over the bishop on the question of suffering and its philosophical implications for the Christian. Great discussion all round. Nice to see it being conducted in such a civilised way by both debaters.