Analyzing 10 Atheist Slogans w/ Alex O'Connor (

[@CapturingChristianity]

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

[@elijahsmith226]

Thanks for the honesty and humility!

[@Defiantclient]

Appreciate your honesty!

[@kennethanderson8770]

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

[@jamesregli4754]

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

[@thomasfurr2328]

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

[@gingrai00]

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

[@Shitgotmegeekin]

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

[@fluffysheap]

@@Shitgotmegeekin it was literally his homework 😁

[@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou]

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

[@victorjvanderwoude3102]

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

[@pasimajuri1209]

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

[@dannyboi_663]

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

[@thomasfurr2328]

I'm a Christian, but I need for Cameron to open up to active listening and see what is said about the t-shirt slogan. Don't be defensive. Accept the sound argument on that point. Change the t-shirt Slightly if necessary. It's ok to be wrong. I love the conversation all the way through.

[@misterunlovely]

I appreciate to see someone else mention it cause it was frustrating me honestly. I'm more on the atheist side of things, but Cameron always seemed like a decent interlocutor and a good guy so I got more respect for him than a lot of others but the Tshirt part was difficult to listen to. Maybe it's cause I'm autistic so I had to face the whole thing with questions effectively acting as arguments thing in a way most people don't have to that it bothers me. It's just a fact that most people use questions like arguments in certain contexts and there's nothing really wrong with it, it's just one of those subtle communication things with people. I had to face it and figure it out the hard way as a kid so to see it come up here is just frustrating

[@karlu8553]

Yeah that was painful, and a little embarrassing to see him double down

[@brennanho9282]

Definitely got defensive.

[@AnthonyThomason14]

He sometimes has a Mr. Spock problem. Mr. Chekov: we are an hour away from Earth. Mr. Spock: FALSE! WE ARE 59 MINUTES AND 59 SECONDS FROM EARTH. Mr. Chekov: uh..ok. sure.

[@aroemaliuged4776]

So why are you a Christian then? Nice fuzzy felling that won’t be denied you? The middle ground doesn’t work on the question of whether their is a god

[@mrmaat]

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

[@bruisedviolets]

lmaooo

[@CosmicTeapot]

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

[@ghostrecon3214]

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

[@anthonymich5184]

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

[@PAWiley]

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

[@norsketilbakeblikk3717]

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

[@CrackingAce]

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

[@min24434]

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

[@kyle9933]

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

[@mf_hume]

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

[@joannware6228]

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

[@joannware6228]

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

[@chrissonofpear1384]

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

[@DoctorShocktor]

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

[@DoctorShocktor]

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

[@Sir-Chancelot]

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

[@FakingANerve]

Thanks! Cheers.

[@NestorVass]

5. Might be on 39:41 instead of 36

[@samalander88]

Woot! Thank you!

[@andrewfairborn6762]

All valid defeaters for God and bible thumping Christians.

[@leahcimmmm]

@@andrewfairborn6762 Do you genuinely believe that?

[@TheSandurz20]

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

[@binghiroy]

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

[@jzeppy1]

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

[@anthonydesimone502]

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

[@benedictmclindon8090]

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

[@ReclusiveAsta]

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

[@unnefer001]

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

[@ReclusiveAsta]

@@unnefer001 I'd buy it

[@amullac9207]

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

[@MrHunterbuchanan]

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

[@cathyharrop3348]

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

[@WhatsTheTakeaway]

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

[@Edgarbopp]

I love how charitable Alex is.

[@mugsofmirth8101]

Which charities does he represent or donate to ?

[@ShastraDugan]

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

[@NordicFireDKK]

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

[@bruisedviolets]

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

[@BigHossHackworth]

@@NordicFireDKK Rare online

[@jonrendell]

Thank god for Alex O'Connor

[@joshuathomas512]

Thank god, the son, and the holy spirit

[@malgrosskreuz01]

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

[@joebriggs5781]

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

[@qwektnn]

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

[@PilsnerGrip]

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

[@mkano7434]

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

[@toxiccc777]

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

[@mkano7434]

@@toxiccc777 Testimonies are actually considered evidence in court.

[@toxiccc777]

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

[@HillBelichick]

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

[@alfonso9983]

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

[@RomanNumural9]

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

[@charltonrodda]

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

[@m.danielmills7091]

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

[@joshuathomas512]

Except only one is actually smart

[@Steelmage99]

Well, you are half right.

[@snufkinsnufkin2528]

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

[@lendrestapas2505]

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

[@milofettpants8229]

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

[@profpurge]

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

[@interloc1290]

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

[@Onthewayover]

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

[@profpurge]

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

[@BubbaF0wpend]

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

[@whydontyoustfu]

look at the tree 🌲

[@cyfour]

@@whydontyoustfu it’s a tree

[@youtubespag]

I didnt come from a monkey

[@youtubespag]

Yall just want to sin

[@youtubespag]

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

[@raphyd1466]

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

[@BelieveTruthDisbelieveFallacy]

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

[@DartNoobo]

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

[@ryanthomasjones]

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

[@ParadoxProblems]

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

[@victorjvanderwoude3102]

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

[@ryanthomasjones]

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

[@kyle9933]

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

[@SakutoNoSAI]

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

[@mil401]

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

[@fluffysheap]

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

[@Jockito]

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

[@NeutralMjolkHotel]

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

[@Jockito]

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

[@worldpeacepatriot9448]

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

[@victorjvanderwoude3102]

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

[@scottmckeown1729]

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

[@EpolynPaprica]

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

[@parkers3700]

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

[@pasimajuri1209]

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

[@baskeptic1161]

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

[@20july1944]

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

[@daviddeida]

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

[@JM-us3fr]

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

[@russ4moose]

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

[@Apanblod]

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

[@Davotheledge]

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

[@GospelSimplicity]

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

[@JNSchneider]

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

[@docmatthy]

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

[@marcinkanski2878]

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

[@Trader-z7x]

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

[@Cloudssword4U]

We need more atheists like Alex, who genuinely are seeking God but just haven't found him yet. He's honest and that's why I like him.

[@jarrett7541]

This was a great convo, thanks Cameron.

[@quidam3810]

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

[@phoult37]

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

[@jadondavid8272]

He does address something similar slightly later on

[@joannware6228]

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

[@Zamo_Nx]

The third chapter of this is just gold. Love Alex a lot!

[@BennyBattaglia]

I would delete this video. Alex is way more open minded, charitable, and consistent than Cameron. From the title of the video to the way these „slogans“ are phrased, nothing that comes from Cameron seems genuine. Maybe don’t invite Oxford philosophy grads to argue with you publicly. 😂

[@TheBaconWizard]

I think the “what came before god” phrase isn’t a slogan or a claim. It is highly contextual and is said in response to the argument that we don’t know what preceded The Big Bang and that god must have come before. In summation, what it really means is that the uncaused-cause could be natural rather than supernatural, could be inanimate rather than animate, unconscious rather than conscious.

[@McCaffreyPickleball]

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

[@IvyLeather13]

58:25 this obsession with words having inherent meaning is something apologetics has to get past. No one else wants to talk about verbiage, it's talking about the ideas behind the words that are important.

[@brettcombs774]

I think it's just easier to assume that words have meanings in our normal usage. While you can quote Shakespeare and say what is in a name? We have no other way to convey an idea from one mind to another with such precision and accuracy as a common language.

[@wet-read]

Indeed. Like the slavish attention to the saying "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". It is perfectly clear what is meant by this, yet Christians nitpick it to death unnecessarily because of how it is worded.

[@SlightSmile]

46:55 It's always a bit problematic when maths is brought into philosophy (which happens often interestingly) because there are always some issues that rise from lacking a deeper understanding of mathematics and the fundamental definitions. In this case, parallel lines are literally defined as coplanar one dimensional objects of no curvature that never meet, so by definition there is no such idea that parallel lines can meet, because if they did they wouldn't be called parallel. I understand what Hume establishes with this example, but the example itself is incorrect if I'm understanding correctly.

[@JesseSelbert]

Extraordinary claims require more ordinary evidence than an ordinary claim.

[@Imjustsayin99]

Adding time, say billions and millions of years, is just as extraordinary as a six day creation time frame. But only one event had a witness. Then some time later ‘science’ came along to make other claims.

[@JesseSelbert]

@@Imjustsayin99 lol 😂

[@adamc1694]

A white horse is a horse. A horse however does not have to be white or in any color specific. A Christian is a theist. A theist does not have to be Christian or being related to any specific religion. No idea why theism/atheism debates always turn into Christian/atheism debates.

[@therick363]

Right? It’s odd to me too. I say something similar.

[@dylanboczar999]

"No idea why theism/atheism debates always turn into Christian/atheism debates." I'm a year late to the party, but I'd imagine it's because Christianity is a cultural tradition baked into US/UK history and society, and those are the countries that have the most English-language debates about this sort of thing :)

[@noneofyourbusiness7055]

It's fascinating how these "high-brow" channels have their talking points questioned and get defensive to fight atheist guests' good points tooth and nail, while (macro)evolution-denying creationists are allowed to spew utter tripe virtually uncontested. Surprising not in the least, though... Also, Alex, you're way, WAYYYY too charitable with the whole martyrdom & dying for their beliefs thing. Paulogia has excellent videos pointing out where those events can't even be grounded in the _bible_ to begin with.

[@cyber_rachel7427]

That's probably because arguing with those types of creationist is probably a waste of everyone's time at this point I'm a big believer that having the arguments and presenting the evidence is a good and productive thing to do, for the audience's sake, even if your interlocutor is, to be blunt, stubbornly wrong. But man, creationists are in a league of their own sometimes

[@noneofyourbusiness7055]

Yeah, creationist preachers tend to never change their mind. Hosting them should at the very least come with critical analysis of their claims, but even the most respected non-creationist apologists seem happy to NOT in order to expose their own audience to misrepresentations/lies. Presumably for clout...

[@lewis99170]

Camerson doesn't understand the word "represent" which was very frustrating to watch but the rest of the interview was fantastic.

[@majm4606]

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

[@tobiasyoder]

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

[@majm4606]

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

[@tobiasyoder]

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

[@majm4606]

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

[@tobiasyoder]

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

[@thesilverbrow2382]

1:32:00 Cameron literally uses a question to represent an argument, in objection to Alex's claim that question can be used to represent an argument.

[@thesilverbrow2382]

And I've just noticed that Cameron accepted this faux pas in his pinned comment. I could've help but point it out as I saw it.

[@heyhorinshi]

Pov: the e tire comment section has a crush on Alex

[@davidoliver9551]

Great conversation. Well done!

[@MrThomaswill]

I think in discussing slogan #5, Connor is describing the distinction between the words that make up a claim within an inductive argument, and the speech act of testimony.

[@andreab6053]

I would say that "sufficient" and "extraordinary" have both a subjective and intuitive definition. So even though it's true that extraordinary claims still just require sufficient evidence, a perfectly sound response would be that sufficient evidence for an extraordinary claim is still extraordinary. In other words, dismissing the proposition as false assumes that extraordinary doesn't equal sufficient, where both definition aren't actually proven different in this context. (for example take a very heavy car, surely a very heavy car requires an extraordinarly powerful engine, but this extraordinarly powerful engine is also an engine sufficiently powerful to move the car, or, in other words, if such a sufficiently powerful engine were to exist, it would surely be extraordinarly powerful).

[@davidjanbaz7728]

It's just a cute saying that atheists can continue to feel good about themselves and not provide any evidence for their rejection of God.

[@andreab6053]

@@davidjanbaz7728 I don't think that what you're saying really fits here, I'm not making an argument against God or anything, I'm just expresing a criticism to what was said against the proposition "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Maybe I misunderstood your comment.

[@jwszetu]

I think you can say that extraordinary does not equal sufficient, especially given that both are subjective. Take the example given by Alex of the written account a year after the resurrection. Though it I think it would definitely count as extraordinary evidence, to some it may not still be sufficient evidence to the actual resurrection. On the flip side some one could say that the biblical accounts of the resurrection are sufficient evidence even if they aren’t extraordinary as pieces of evidence. I think the reason why the phrase is unhelpful is that the terms are not equivalent and that sufficient would be a better replacement. I hope what I said makes sense.

[@jwszetu]

Also on ur example i think you miss the point. The claim that “an extraordinarily heavy car would be a sufficiently powerful engine to move it” isn’t an extraordinary claim and doesn’t really require much evidence. But the claim that said car requires no engine to move is extraordinary and that claim would then require sufficient evidence to prove, if that makes sense

[@andreab6053]

@@jwszetu I totally agree, in fact I was only talking about the response to the claim. If I had to talk about the claim itself, I'd say it's more an intuitive and useful quote rather than an actual argument.

[@lesmen4]

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

[@WeakestAvenger]

In response to Alex's discussion of himself as a non-resistant non-believer, Cameron brought up Michael Rota, who says that at about 50% confidence one should or at least could begin to do things Christians do, such as praying, etc. Cameron left out a significant part of what Rota says, which is that doing those things can actually increase one's belief in and love for the Christian God. So if you WANT to believe, begin to act as if you do, and that can put you in a position to have your confidence in the Christian God strengthened.

[@zombieinjeans]

It's amazing that so many people speak about epistemology without mentioning Karl Popper. His epistemology (as slightly improved upon by David Deutsch in The Beginning of Infinity) solves all those epistemological problems you spoke of. I really hope Alex has David Deutsch on his podcast!

[@chemquests]

To me the question of who created god is a way of questioning how anything can cause its own existence without being circular.

[@chemquests]

@@schmetterling4477 right, so the slogan is a tool I use as an atheist to get someone thinking about the answer to a question they’ve never been required to answer or heard anyone ask before.

[@ramezaziz2336]

We all know what a dead man look like. I don't need an extraordinary evidence to accept that you came back to life. All I need is good enough evidence that you had died in the first place. Being seen alive later by a reliable person is all the evidence I need.

[@gnomishviking3013]

That’s not evidence. That’s a claim.

[@DanKirchgessner]

How are you gauging the reliability of someone from 2000 years ago?

[@ramezaziz2336]

@@DanKirchgessner excellent question. So the conversation here should not be different, and therefore the degree of evidence, than any other conversation about the Classical period history. No need to invoke "extra ordinary evidence" slogan.

[@ramezaziz2336]

@@gnomishviking3013 That's just lazy. Courts take witness statements as evidence. Witness statements are evidence, not just claims. You still need to engage with those statements.

[@DanKirchgessner]

@@ramezaziz2336 I mean that's a fine answer, but I would call any source from 2000 years ago equally UNRELIABLE, not equally RELIABLE.

[@marklewis1979]

"Questions aren't arguments" is a slogan that would only be used by people who are deliberately attempting to represent an inability to respond as some sort of intellectual victory. And Capturing Christianity not understanding Alex's very simple objection to it is sort of a demonstration of the caliber of intellect that would need to lean on it in the first place.

[@jackdaw6359]

Funny how the atheist sounds more like a human when communicating and the Christian sounds more like a robot.

[@cupofcoffee4251]

I think there are two ways one can define what the word "argument" even means. One way to look at it is saying an argument is a statement with a specific form, like a proper syllogism. That's what Cameron seems to talk about, and he rightfully concludes that a question, ending with a question mark, is not that. Another way to define "argument" is a functional view on it regardless of form and grammar. What does an argument do in a conversation? It defends my opinion on a topic and/or attacks the opinion of the other person on that topic. That's how an argument can be defined. Anything that expresses that IS an argument by that definition. Thus, if a question implies a fact that is contradictory to your view, it attacks your view, so to speak. And that means that the expression meats this definition of an argument.

[@ashwinisarah]

So didn't lose an audience...it might have sounded like there was hair splitting going on at the end but it was very illuminating...thank you for this very civil discourse...

[@InShadowsLinger]

I am sorry but I am not able to comprehend how Cameron’s daughter claiming she was hit at school is evidence. Would it be evidence of her ability to fly if she claimed so? Me claiming that I am blue skinned is evidence of my blue skin? I don’t understand how that flows.

[@ShastraDugan]

well anecdotal evidence is still evidence its just that we have better reason to believe camerons daughter in the first case because people generally dont lie about that kind of thing and its something that happens all the time whereas if she claimed to be able to fly there are all sorts of reasons not to believe it like that that never happens and that people all the time say things like that because theyre lying mentally ill etc

[@InShadowsLinger]

@@ShastraDugan ok, so basically you are saying that none of that kind of evidence is useful to prove god or miracles. Thanks

[@happyguy5165]

Drawing on my philosophy degree: Alex was definitely correct about questions and arguments. Technically, questions are not identical to arguments. However, they are not identical to arguments in the sense that every sentence are not identical to arguments, because sentences are not identical to propositions. Sentences are collections of words, whereas propositions are the abstract meanings REPRESENTATED by those words. “The snow is white” and “la nieve es blanca” are sentences, though they represent the same proposition. We can use language to explicitly represent arguments like “If X then Y, X, therefore Y” (though even then, these are explicitly representations of arguments - strings of words that have meaning, but the string of words themselves are not the same as the meaning underlying them). Alternatively, we can represent arguments implicitly. For example, saying “but Paul wouldn’t face death if he was lying” implicitly represents the argument “If Paul was lying he would preserve himself, Paul did not preserve himself, Paul was not lying.” If someone responded “ah! That statement was not an argument - it was a mere conditional statement” we would rightly accuse them of not properly engaging with their interlocutor’s point. The VAST majority of the time, we represents arguments implicitly. Asking a question in certain contexts seems no different. For example, “but why would Paul lie if he knew he would suffer” is a string of words whose IMPLICIT MEANING is the collection of propositions “if Paul lied then he would have preserved himself, Paul did not preserve himself, Paul was not lying.” Sure, questions are not identical to arguments - no sentence is. However, their IMPLICIT MEANING can be the exact same as an explicit sentence written in syllogistic form. As the vast majority of arguments aren’t explicitly written in standard form, if you dismiss someone’s point as “not being an argument,” you’d have to dismiss a vast multitude of over implicitly expressed arguments (I.e. most attempts to write or verbally communicate arguments).

[@jimmygravitt1048]

The whole "Christianity is widespread" is only true if you consider ALL denominations one faith. But they're not, some of the denominations are VERY different from one another, and denominations DO have a geographical hub. For example, the type of Christianity found largely in the American South, does not exist TOO much outside of that geographic center. The best argument for diffusion could be made specifically about the Catholic Church, but their diffusion is similar to Sunni Islam.

[@Slitter_the_Dubstep]

I do appreciate the act of letting a modern and reasonable "atheist", philosopher-youtuber speak so much and openly on this channel. For this i will give it a like

[@wyattnolte]

It's the only thing that could get me to watch this "Christian" channel

[@hive_indicator318]

He doesn't believe in any deities. Putting quotation marks around atheist is unnecessary and disrespectful.

[@Sahih_al-Bukhari_2658]

⁠@@hive_indicator318Look at your pfp, you shouldn’t be accusing others.

[@aroemaliuged4776]

The last call will always be the burden of proof You say their is a god I say show me the proof

[@zereimu]

Burden of proof is relative to the arguments being presented for their case, sometimes it's the Atheist and sometimes it's the Theist that has the burden of proof. There are arguments that serve as evidence for God and arguments that serve against. I don't know why this is so complicated for many Atheists that refuse to have any burden of proof.

[@daviddeida]

Who is this I that wants proof ?

[@augustincheeley1720]

The guy on the right is way out of his element. Alex is literally giving him the arguments for Christianity, and he goes "Yeah, I think I'm on board with that"

[@21area21]

42:50 Claims are not evidence. It is not the claim that is the evidence. It is the daughter's testimony that is evidence. If some random stranger that had never known your daughter or ever interacted with that school makes that ssame claim, you'd think they were crazy. You would not give credence to that evidence (an unrelated party's testimony). The claim itslef can come from anyone and has no bearing on the evidence.

[@samalander88]

Wow this was an incredible watch. Nothing but respect for these two. I was raised Christian but began questioning my faith when I was about 19. Went on a 6 year journey in an attempt to reaffirm my faith…read everything I could get my hands on. Listened to debates, studied religion, met with pastors, asked questions, picked my brothers brain who is a pastor and has his masters in biblical theology, you name it I did it. Then about half way through my journey I found Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennet, Sam Harris, Lawrence Krauss, David Silverman… I watched them eviscerate Christian’s on stage. I read their books. It made me uncomfortable and frankly kind of sick. But at the end I realized I was an atheist. Spent the last 10 years as an atheist. And not just any atheist I was practically an evangelical atheist. My God was Hitchens. I ran giant atheist communities on social media. I was a guest on a popular atheist podcast a couple times. All that jazz. But about three years ago I stopped caring about that community. I am, and remain, extremely off-put by woke ideologies and social justice warriors. There was no more spirited debates anymore…especially in universities. Now instead of being able to enjoy a lively debate arguing for/against the existence of God it became caged by BS rules. “No attacking Islam, no mentioning hijab, only thing you can criticize is Christianity” all for the sake of inclusion. Then they’d prattle on about their own identity politics. “My name is Tamera but my dead name is Bill. I’m a lesbian witch and a furry and I’m the head of debate here on campus…” etc. Like what? Richard Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist, Dennet is a philosopher. Hitchens was a gifted writer. D’Souza is highly educated, William Lane Craig is a Doctor… Aquinas… St. Augustine…. Point is, interesting and qualified people being ON TOPIC. Anyway, since February I’ve felt called back to church. I’m re-exporting my faith as a grown woman, as a mother, and as a wife. It’s been an exceptionally weird path back to church because I’ve spent so long in recent years rejecting Jesus based on not feeling like I can intellectually accept God. This channel, this discussion, this is everything I’ve been needing and I wish I’d had it back in 2011. So, thank you. Excellent discussion.

[@aroemaliuged4776]

@Samantha Morgan is believing in a god a value judgment or a matter of fact? You said the woke culture brought you back to church… I also dislike woke politics but that doesn’t matter isn’t the factual statement on whether a god exists or not This is the problem with education today… it isn’t a support for a football team Either god exists or he doesn’t

[@japexican007]

@@aroemaliuged4776 you can neither prove nor disprove God, if he exists he keeps his distance from those who don’t seek him and draws those who want to accept him, I’ve yet to see this view be debunked by anyone, why would/should God reveal himself to hostile individuals who deny his claims?

[@aroemaliuged4776]

@@japexican007 why should god reveal himself to ‘hostile’ individuals…. Only someone indoctrinated in a cult would think this way

[@name-nam]

@@japexican007 take alex for instance. he is seeking for God. he is open for the possibility of God existing. he even wants God to be real. why cant he find God?

[@daviddeida]

I found the likes of Harris ,Dennet ,Dawkins all very limited.It places you as nothing other than a mental construct.The proposition that matter created consciousness is absurd and they still cant provide evidence.Harris with his years of Trump derrangement Syndrome is proof enough he is totally irrational. Yes the woke marlarky is gross and fascistic .

[@Claire-.-]

a question can be an argument

[@LateNightVideozz]

How much can u pull your punches? Alex : yes

[@CynHicks]

If 20 people claim to have seen a miraculous event at the same time and each of them were willing to be put to death testifying to this event I would consider that evidence for their experience even if I didn't witness it. Especially if at least one of those people were generally trustworthy and was previously a convinced critic against such events. Another person's personal experience for me is evidence, even if minor. This includes spiritual experiences to some degree.

[@dustinmorton942]

They could all still be wrong.

[@Abyzz_Knight]

I find personally testimony to be weak evidence regardless of how many people claim to have seen the miraculous event, whether they would be willing to die for testifying their claims, or how trustworthy the people making the claims are. Several studies have been conducted in the past on human memory and on people’s capacity to remember events and details, some of which were erroneously recorded and stored in their minds. When you're recalling a memory it's less of pulling up a recorded event in your brain and my like your brain is reconstructing it from scratch, and this happens every time you recall a memory and how you recall it can be influenced by a variety of factors. It's why whenever people play that game where you pass along a sentence the end product is completely different from the original sentence, it's why stories passed through word of mouth can change drastic as they are passed, etc.

[@perplexedon9834]

I'm not sure if you're implying it, but the only person who themself claims to have seen Jesus is Paul, and it is described as a vision no-one else saw. Everything else within and outside of the bible is second hand and not corroberated. Likewise there are no cases where we know that someone was put to death in a situation where we have reason to believe they would have been spared if they admitted to be lying. Even if we did have 20 independent sources claiming they saw a miracle (a strict transient violation of our understanding of the natural world) and were put to death in a situation where admitting it was a lie would have them spared, there are still explanations with equal explanatory power and a much higher prior probability given our modern empirical knowledge base, eg. a hallucinogenic substance/stimulus and someone else inducing a group hallucination with suggestion.

[@CynHicks]

Two comments are gone from the thread. I can't see them now. I'm a "dangerous" commenter. My point was simply that evidence is evidence lest it be hearsay and even then it could still hold some weight outside of a criminal conviction situation where there are negative consequences. Personal experience can still bd evidence even if I don't believe it.

[@perplexedon9834]

@@CynHicks thanks for clarifying. I can still see the other two comments, but there was a brief bug when I left and came back to my own comment. Perhaps it was something similar, but I don't believe there's any shadow banning happening

[@jefcaine]

How about the Christian slogan "God can handle your questions" ?

[@CrackingAce]

Great to see an atheist thoughtfully engaging with the arguments. Keep going and he'll be a Christian soon!

[@TimothyFish]

The question implies that the argument works, while not requiring the person making the argument support the argument. The counter to any such question is, "why should anyone care about the answer to that?" Which implies that the question doesn't matter.

[@estuchedepeluche2212]

It’s interesting how Cameron is willing to concede or not argue ideas that strongly point to logical failures of deism. I think, Alex’s soft spoken, generous and empathic demeanor makes Cameron relinquish arguing.

[@jmorra]

What kind of guitar is in the background? This is important.

[@ZeroCiero]

I’m late to the party, but it seems to me that ‘questions aren’t evidence’ would better fit what Cameron is trying to communicate. For example we can question the apostle Paul’s motives, but that isn’t *proof* that his motives are dubious. This seems to communicate something more useful than ‘questions aren’t arguments’, which I think Alex demonstrated doesn’t really work.

[@lajk85]

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

[@roybecker492]

So, am I saved if I'm generally a good person? Even if I don't believe in Jesus or God? Or will I definitely go to Hell, regardless of if I'm a good person if I don't believe?

[@phoult37]

If you actively reject the salvation offered by Jesus, you will not be saved. Your "goodness" can never ascend to the goodness of God (who is goodness itself) unless you surrender your Will to the Grace of God.

[@chrissonofpear1384]

@@phoult37 I cannot accept anything without knowing where the jeopardy truly came from, by what 'name under heaven' we were jeopardized, and why Satan was owed any access to that world to begin with. And I cannot do the will of God automatically, having READ so much of it, from 2 Samuel 24, Hosea 9, 1 Kings 14 and 1 Samuel 15:3. It raises too many questions. Funny also, that Moses could talk Him out of such violent outbursts, no less than twice, too. And that's before the iron chariots incident, as well. And of course, Torquemada offered 'salvation' too - maybe on Jesus' behalf. What was His, reaction, to this? Do not also, forget Isaiah 45:7, and Amos 3:6 - too.

[@phoult37]

@@chrissonofpear1384 You are reading Scripture without the guidance of the Magisterium of the Church that Christ himself established...it's like reading an assembly manual in reverse and then complaining that the directions are unclear. If you read the Bible like a protestant, and then can't understand the Word of God, that's on you, not on the Word of God. When Scripture is read under the proper interpretive lens and with the correct theology, the seeming inconsistencies, contradictions, etc, are reconciled.

[@chrissonofpear1384]

@@phoult37 Which magisterium is that? The one that schismed and warred with itself, a number of times - or the one that ever tolerated slavery, and anti-semitism? Would those schisms and wars have even happened, if the right method of divining and discerning, was regularly and routinely used? Or at least, the right people so discerning. And what was the default fate of gay people, within Christendom, since Matthew 5:18? Was it similar to the one, often, for witches?

[@phoult37]

@@chrissonofpear1384 6 sentences, 5 of which are questions...that's the midwit way. Stay strong 💪

[@johnpaulyates1655]

"Claims are not evidence": This is true. A claim is nothing more than an assertion that something is true. A person must then present actual evidence that the claim is true. Cameron's false analogy using his daughter is completely different. Cameron has an intimate, daily relationship with his daughter. But people, for whom none of us actually know, are making claims from thousands of years ago need to be scrutinized more intensely. Those are very, very different things.

[@craigreedtcr9523]

Alex was just on Unbelievable recently. It was a really good conversation! Can’t wait to watch this!

[@joeregan.]

I think the idea that God would design a system where animals would suffer as part of natural selection is probably one of the, if not the largest contributing factor to why Alex can't bring himself to believe in or support God. I think my response would be, this adventure called life is a vapor compared to eternity. If animals go to heaven, which I believe they do, it will outweigh the trouble they find in this life. I believe God will make it all square in the end.

[@adamc1694]

That's only according to the mainstream Christian worldview. What Buddha and Jesus taught is somehow different and makes far more sense.

[@krzyszwojciech]

On the issue with questions =/= arguments, I agree with Alex that depending on the context they both can point to the same thought or better the same conceptual basis (I mean, thoughts emerge in our heads, presumably from some underlying basis, or pattern that allows for it to be consistently expressed in different ways). Maybe then one argument against using rhetorical questions in that function would be that sometimes they may not be recognized as such?

[@raisedinarkansas]

Why don't you play the important parts of @rationalityrules objections to Dr. Craig? And why is that the world's smartest people tend to be agnostic?

[@MrBobbymacaroni]

As to the casual committment that gods might be 51% likely, the New Testament God claims that lukewarm committment makes Them nauseous enough to spew!

[@LOwens-xf8yo]

To consider something true, I need evidence that can be shown into a courtroom or discovered in a laboratory. Invisible is one thing. Undetectable is something else.

[@watchman2866]

The first slogan, 'There is no evidence for God's existence, assumes God does not exist and that nature isn't a result of God creating it. It comes down to the knowledge of the person making the claim. So is the objective to convince someone, or establish if the statement is true?

[@victorjvanderwoude3102]

Answering Question one. This is probably for my own benefit but I'd like to answer these questions from a practical Christian viewpoint/perspective/worldview. Note: A. This is going to be brief. (I'm not attempting to cover every counter argument or go into the philosophical stratosphere.) B. I'm just using the points outline and not addressing the video itself or arguments therein. 1. "There is no evidence." How do you define evidence? What criteria are you using? Does your definition presuppose that evidence is possible or impossible? What is tangible evidence? From a Christian perspective there's evidence it's just not limited by naturalism (the rejection of the supernatural on principle) or experientialism (feeling confirming values or beliefs on an individual basis/subjectivism). Natural revelation, special revelation, historical narrative of the New Testament and Old Testament, eye witness accounts, consistency of theology, critics comments from the beginning, and an undefinable knowledge through the workings of the Holy Spirit is tangible from a Christian perspective. It's ironic that the criteria Christians use for testing itself is also the reasons it rejects other faiths (except Judaism). It's not blind faith or accepts all supernatural claims and has a logical and reasoned basis (even if you reject Christianity it does have structure with logic and reason at its core but just has different presuppositions - the primary one is it's possible to know things beyond the natural). Agnostic atheists ask for evidence but what evidence would they accept? There is little use asking for evidence which is impossible to give if your worldview doesn't allow or recognizes that it could even exist. Evolution/science becomes an idol and stretched to judge religions when that's not it's (science) purpose. Science provides insights into the natural world, its structure, principles (math/physics), which presupposes it's logically consistent and knowable (that points toward G-d (natural revelation) rather than away). Evolution claims to be science but it's speculation at best. Anytime you require millions or hundreds of million of years to make a theory possible or work it becomes a matter of opinion and speculative science (not testable, observable or peer repeatable). If as some people believe experience is the measurement of truth than why fight Christians since they are living their truth and experience (subjectivism should allow for that - live and let live). People are simple in needs and complicated in actions and beliefs. Evidence is one aspect of logic and reason which can be subverted by desire or logical flaws. It's a problem for Christians and atheists that both have to avoid. Atheism isn't without its own issues. If you become a Christian than your behavior becomes judged. It's better to be an atheist if your desires dictate true from false or if a person's self identity/experience must align with their own "reality" (their own limited experiences and feelings). Christianity sees reality as something beyond the individual and places it with G-d who defines truth (who we are in relationship to G-d and values) rather than true (temporarily or subjective) and subjects humanity to duties and responsibilities beyond just the temporal sphere (our purposes beyond temporal desires). I could go on and on but that the jist with some counter claims addressed. I'm going to answer the other questions in other replies.

[@lakesideprojects7194]

First, I want to say that I love your willingness to engage with ideas you dont agree with. It doesn't happen enough these days. Second, questions aren't arguments, but neither are statements. Both are used to convey the idea, in the same way the French and English were used to convey the idea of a suitcase. Both can be used to represent an argument, and that can be used to represent an idea.

[@oliverthompson9922]

Just want to say, the "I believe on one less god than you" argument, may not work in a philosophical discussion, but if we are honest, people are generally religious because they have been bought up religious or indoctrinated at some point, not because of the Kalam argument, (even if they try and use that argument once they learn about it). Therefore, I think its a perfectly valid thing to say to most religious people who don't understand how anyone can be an atheist.

[@jthememeking]

I see so many athiest talk about Christians, but I feel like Alex is one of the few who gets it. End of the day, my belief in god is completely rooted in personal experience. A lot of the apologist arguments are usually started with feeling that presence. An athiest like Alex doesn't have that. It's silly to call them liars and pretend they do.

[@TheTruthKiwi]

Personal experience or indoctrination?

[@jthememeking]

@@TheTruthKiwi perhaps both. Idk

[@Imjustsayin99]

@@TheTruthKiwi and ‘science’ or so-called peer review doesn’t indoctrinate? Did you personally do all those scientific experiments or did you rely on someone else’s observations? Perhaps you should listen to Dr. Fauci… he is ‘science’; or so he claims.

[@sananton2821]

"personal experience" that nobody not exposed to Christians has EVER had, in the history of the world.

[@franciscocepeda8416]

🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼 So the LORD will guide Alex in his journey to believe

[@GulfsideMinistries]

I [Chris at GS] struggle with the claim that Alex is a "non-resistant non-believer" in this particular context: he insists it would be immoral and unethical for God to condemn anyone (including himself) to an eternal hell in the traditional sense of the word. So fast forward to the horrible possible ending in which just such a future state obtains. Alex finds himself in an eternal hell, and Alex judges God as being unjust. That right there is the problem. The fact that we in this life, as well as the next, think that God is just the sort of thing that could even be in principle subject to our judgment, as abstract and philosophical and impersonal as we might try to make those judgments, means that we have rejected God as He is. (Proponents of divine simplicity will appreciate those last two words.) What Alex is doing right here, in this very segment, is resisting God. He is struggling with and reacting against the idea that God can do what God wills *without human judgment* and that it is literally *immoral* to try to judge God. The reason is that it reduces God to a thing, which He is not. In even attempting to charge God with evil, Alex is rejecting the very essence of what it means to be God--not because we might say in response that God is actually good, so that the problem is that Alex has made a false claim, i.e., that God is evil when He's really good. Rather, Alex's mistake is about the sort of existence God is. God is that to which we are ultimately answerable. He is nothing less. There is absolutely no sense in which He answers to us. That, at least in part, is why the Bible begins its revelation of God as it does in Genesis 1:1. None of this, btw, should be taken as a defense of divine command theory of morality. That's not my [Chris's] position. It's to say that the notion of subjecting God to *our* moral judgment is just the sort of thing that demonstrates that we've already rejected what God is, and by extension, we've misjudged ourselves as to what we are. Sorry for the long post of a reply. Every time I see this, though, my heart hurts a little at how dismissively people talk about the very possibility of judging God. It makes me shudder a bit.