Debating God With The Archbishop of Canterbury, Philip Goff, and Elizabeth Oldfield

[@CosmicSkeptic]

What did you think of this line-up? To support my work, subscribe at www.alexoconnor.com.

[@nineteenninetyfive]

The fine tuning argument drives me insane because it is so foolish. If a certain condition is required for our universe, then of course our universe has that condition. It's Douglas Adams' puddle analogy. We know nothing of all the proto-universes that failed to develop due to a lack of a certain condition. Also, isn't it possible that the conditions are created in the formation of the universe, like ox-bow lakes are created in rivers? Please tell me why you said the fine tuning argument is interesting. It is not, at all to me.

[@Isla.St.Lawrence]

Easy, relaxed talk (more than a debate, maybe). Soft--

[@SystemCellSound]

@@nineteenninetyfive I had the same thought immediately. This universe is "finely tuned" for life because life is in it, and if it weren't finely tuned for life then life wouldn't be in it to ask these questions! Our planet has life but we can see SO MANY others that don't. None of those planets have intelligent life on it asking how they came to be because there's no life on them! This is clearly Observer Bias, and it's wild that people who advocate for Fine Tuning don't see that.

[@leonkautz8151]

@@nineteenninetyfive I absolutely agree, this has always boggled my mind. It is so furstrating when someone brings it up, because it is just such a non argument. It makes no actual point when you consider it, like you said.

[@MindShift-Brandon]

The term "debate" does this an injustice. This is such a wonderful example of how dialogue should go. Well done, and great group!

[@rohanmalik9194]

Need the final debate of Alex vs God on the existence of God

[@British919]

would watch

[@rouzbeakhlaghi3038]

Alex would win

[@dodumichalcevski]

Alex would own him

[@arjunswarup6278]

Think Job has something to say...

[@BeckDaniel]

This would go hard.

[@Geralt_of_Rivia7]

I’m so grateful that I was able to attend this. Alex is genuinely the loveliest guy irl; he stopped to talk to every single person, even after we were kicked out of the venue, we stood on the pavement outside and Alex made sure that every single person that wanted to talk got a chance to. God bless you man, you made that day a memory I’ll cherish :)

[@ScriptGurus1]

Love Alex but his only flaw he's to kind to these fable minded twits.

[@nhopkins]

@@ScriptGurus1you’ll never convince anyone if you’re not going to approach them with respect! Even if you have good reason to believe you are correct in your view about the world you must communicate and win people over with humility and openness.

[@OneLeggedDiver]

@@ScriptGurus1 this is new new atheism. we don't encourage that manner of language young sir

[@whisperingleaves]

Aww that's so cute, who knew Geralt of Rivia would be such a huge fan :P

[@malteburen825]

@@ScriptGurus1new atheist i presume?

[@Lysande0815]

Petition for Alex inviting the Archbishop for a cozy chat debating life and love!

[@lordgemini2376]

That would be great!

[@danielfaller5617]

This is the way.

[@Victoriaizoita]

God's not dead, He's surely Alive!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Jesus is King

[@timyingus5681]

@@spaceisawesome1 not everything of substance must spawn from debate.

[@chonkychonk]

@Victoriaizoita Love is in the air? And in the soul? Heck yeah!

[@MatheusCostaaCosta]

When she said she didn't consider herself a theist, but a christian, my eyes rolled back so hard I saw inside myself... and there I saw god... she actually converted me

[@joshjackson678]

haha I'm thinking people don't study god they feel him

[@gumslinger11]

Regular god, or phillips weak god? 😂😂

[@2plainghoul]

I am God -- No I'm serious. Dude I'm looking ar you right now, hows It hanging broski? This Is just uhhhh -- my KZbin alt account

[@AngryBird___]

How did he look like and how do you know it was him

[@CutleryWonder]

Inverted you...

[@TheCopelandr]

I want the Archbishop to narrate my life, his voice is amazing

[@RichardTavilla]

Brilliant

[@ryanw5569]

He reminded me of Gandolf

[@montecigno]

he still believes this nonsense though

[@therexbellator]

He sounded a bit like Alec Guinness (Obi Wan Kenobi from the OT). It was very fitting 😁

[@j8000]

That youngster could have a bright future in skateboarding, I think.

[@johnhammond6423]

Do you know who he is? Obviously not.

[@abelhgds]

@@johnhammond6423 look up alex o connor skateboarding

[@gearslingger]

And you could have a dim future in posting comments

[@LarsUelf]

​@@johnhammond6423 there's a pretty fantastic video of Alex skateboarding that somehow got picked up by the algorithm recently ... it's like 10 years old

[@PaulFrank49]

@@johnhammond6423 are you dense?

[@dennisrydgren]

- Why is the sun hot? - Well son, let me read you this poem about the human need for warmth and you will understand.

[@conorkelly947]

for real

[@MizzElle-kp6nl]

"I don't know" "oh I don't know" "and I don't know that" ffs😂

[@kaze.14]

Lol dumb, impatient humans are desperate to attach a 'beautiful' meaning to everything unexplainable yet

[@kaze.14]

😂 dumb, impatient humans are desperate to attach a 'beautiful' meaning to everything unexplainable yet

[@johnwestcott5612]

Her empty chair would have contributed more.

[@Raul-pg1pf]

Alex, please set up a Within Reason episode with the Archbishop.

[@davegold]

As an atheist, I give far more theological respect to Rowan Williams than his successor.

[@tulpas93]

YES! It'd would be awesome to watch the two of you discuss the topic without having the distraction of two people who would rather talk about themselves and their feelings.

[@curtisben79]

Seconded!

[@ale646]

It was very charitable and restrained of Alex that he didn't just respond to every utterance of Goff's with "bro, that's just the god of the gaps argument"

[@andreafox7267]

That’s what I thought. All three of the others were simply that - god of the gaps. I didn’t enjoy the discourse for that reason.

[@eanfran]

Its pretty funny how the one guy seems to think everything we've learned about the natural world was points against God, then the fine tuning is the one thing that brings him back. That's the thing I dont get about fine tuning. If the earth is the only thing that is fine tuned, why are we landlocked in a universe with exactly the kind of unsurpassable death void that makes sense without a careful hand guiding it. Plain and simple survivorship bias to me.

[@davidreynolds6718]

@@eanfran indeed, the entire universe could have been made of air and fresh apples.

[@Nitroade24]

God of the gaps is only a problem if the explanation proposed is ad hoc. I don't think Philip's proposed explanation is ad hoc.

[@LJ7000]

No because fine tuning is not a 'gap' in scientific knowledge - it *is" scientific knowledge, as best as we currently have it. i think you're really misunderstanding fine tuning. It's part of scientific knowledge, not the absence of it.

[@MisMariaRosee]

I highly recommend everyone to read book called: Your Life-Your Game by Keezano. I’ve read it, and it truly changed my life. It beautifully shows how connecting with God and your inner self can lead to spiritual growth and financial success. A must-read. God bless! 🙏

[@James.NewYork]

thank you

[@The.Rockyy007]

inspiring story🙌🏼

[@BB-rh2ml]

Which God?

[@rondotexe]

Trying to connect god and financial success is itself a problem. Things “of this world“ are only a test for what comes in the afterlife. Trying to connect things of this world with the afterlife shows confusion in the value of God. I’m agnostic, but this seems obvious.

[@peakingmantis5331]

Did Elizabeth Oldfield go to drama school because her way of presenting is very theatrical. I can't stand it honestly.

[@frobeusns6404]

It reminds me of the way youth pastors would present their sermons back in my church going days

[@FernLovebond]

Some people are just natural theater kids, inclined to melodramatic expression.

[@DJMDLM1]

Yeah that's what I thought too. She has little to say. Every time she speaks she's on the precipice of tears. Either a bad actor or is mentally unwell.

[@curtiso779]

Idk but she's very attractive

[@ShiniGuraiJoker]

​@@DJMDLM1 mentally unwell seems incharitable. She sounds less intellectually sound so far, but she is up there for a reason.

[@AMCA797]

Does she know its debate, not a dramatic theatrical performance. Slightly irritating. Thank the Lord for Alex!

[@JNB0723]

yeah, I read and write poetry, and heck, I enjoy Romanticism, but my goodness was it cringey today. Read the room, lady.

[@AMCA797]

@JNB0723 Nice! I felt a bit guilty after commenting, but she was annoying me. Maybe it's me, and I'm a bit miserable, lol.

[@JNB0723]

@@AMCA797 maybe its because i am an addict to TS Eliot and the nihilists though... LMAO

[@AMCA797]

@@JNB0723 I'll have a read 👍

[@seth.samuel]

Not only dramatic but nonsense, when she said “I don’t think God cares if we believe in God” 🤦🏻‍♂️

[@maximix5447]

If this was just a debate between alex and the archbishop, this would have been a much more interesting conversion.

[@dahveed72]

At the least we could've done without Philip Goff and his nonsense

[@brianfergus839]

“conversation”

[@JNB0723]

@@dahveed72 him and that women were spewing nonsense... Alex was like, "this is the guy who has my back?"

[@griefwnl7641]

@@dahveed72 facts

[@masterpetbax9118]

He didnt even put them in the thumbnail😭😭😭

[@liabobia]

As a Christian...ughhh I want to find pastors like Rowan and all I can find are ones like Elizabeth. Agree with everyone here, I would love to see you talk more with the Archbishop. Thanks for continually reaffirming my faith (😉) in the morality and depth of many atheists, even though I don't feel the same way.

[@geturledout]

Though I disagree with his conclusions, as an atheist, I would happily go to church if I thought I was likely to find Rowan and thinkers like him at the pulpit. He does for me exactly what you describe Alex doing for you.

[@kaelyn6078]

Alex you’re so charismatic. You just feel the vibe by the way everyone looks and listens when you speak.

[@FrancescaOne]

4:11 when Alex reached for his pen and wrote that note ON HIS HAND, I knew this was gonna be good 👌🏻

[@sba6082]

he couldn't let that slide 🤣🤣

[@alphanetic1805]

Am I the only one who thought Liz added essentially nothing to the discussion...?

[@Raul-pg1pf]

Neither did Goff

[@dakeras2410]

While I don't agree with her, I felt she added the most. A great insight into what it means to be a Christian.

[@UltimateKyuubiFox]

As mawkish as her positions are, I’d argue she added more than Goff. At least her assertions are revealing about the nature of some people’s full-throated faith. Goss essentially said “Because I misunderstand this philosophical concept’s value, I’ll just believe in God because it’s the dominant religion with a creator I can find around me.”

[@Barnabas94]

Maybe the universe isn’t here to serve you but to be. Perhaps others in the audience got something from Elizabeth you can’t see.

[@JD-pi2ce]

She tried to gain social capital in the group through the use of ambiguous performance. That's dishonest.

[@BeckDaniel]

Our baby boy is moving up in the world.

[@ginismoja2459]

I remember when he was working in that coffee shop :3

[@anthonyk5235]

Rowan Williams?

[@BeckDaniel]

I only remember the dorm era.

[@stefanolacchin4963]

As he should be, because he's absolutely brilliant.

[@jelleludolf]

He seriously is. I hope he doesn't get audience captured like Campbell.

[@ToasterInABathtub-ub5cm]

Host: Asks any question at all Liz: I don't believe in philosophical Christianity

[@baskeptic1161]

I find it very frustrating to listen to the "ex atheist guy" talking about atheists "tying themselves in knots" trying to explain fine tuning. It's really simple, if the universe was slightly different life as we know it would not exist. As an atheist, I see no problem with that.

[@GraavyTraain]

He’s basically saying everyone should just give up & stop questioning

[@MaxFoster-ni3op]

Exactly! If it was different, then it would just be different. It's an example of the widespread anthropocentrism rooted deeply in the ways so many think about life and the universe. The implicit assumption is that humans are the end goal of the universe.

[@knightofwangernumb2998]

I think the problem is the odds. He's saying you have to acknowledge the odds of existing are zero without something to cause existence, and that cause must itself be causeless and pass down all aspects of reality for each aspect can't exist by its own merit. For example, take love as as an aspect, how can love derive itself from anything other than something that envelopes love.

[@billdecompsa4705]

i think fine tuning allows exploration of a subject, not explanation.

[@ulysses7653]

@billdecompsa4705 It's referred to as an argument. This is the first time I see someone call it an "exploration".

[@IfYouSeekCaveman]

That Archbishop has an incredible voice.

[@kagakudoragon]

How else do you think Archbishops lure people in? Haha

[@SantaCloos]

He sounds like an intellectual kermit the frog

[@spacebuddy5339]

​@@kagakudoragon your username is awesome!

[@simona2391]

and eyebrows

[@pedroamaralcouto]

@@SantaCloos I assumed it was hinting something in Portuguese.

[@alterangel]

I find Liz insufferable to listen to. She's grandstanding and seems about to cry at any moment

[@ABloodyEyeFull]

Yep! Absolutely, everything is all about her, what she wants and what makes sense to her.

[@tonymunday8441]

I regretfully agree, She talks like she’s expecting an applause after each comment. That opening remark with the poem was cringeworthy

[@tonyburton419]

The deep psychological desire and need to believe is strong within her. lt means so much, this provokes her emotionality. Of course this proves nothing.

[@akselm.bjerke9490]

Strange. I find her very compelling, fundamentally honest and quite inspiring.

[@ABloodyEyeFull]

@tonyburton419 True, I'm personally a realist, and I need to have evidence to believe in something. I can't ever believe anything based on faith, which is the exact opposite of evidence.

[@lukaslambs5780]

Alex’s mustache is described as the greatest possible mustache. A mustache that doesn’t exist is worse than a mustache that does. Therefore, Alex’s mustache is the greatest possible mustache and must exist.

[@ink7761]

yes, congratulations you understood the joke

[@JesseTate]

Wrong!!! A mustache that doesn't exist is a CONCEPT of a mustache, but is not in fact a mustache. But it's worse---mustache is itself a human concept, in this case a category, imposed upon a universe which suggests no category. Therefore there either is no mustache and there is no god; or Alex's mustache is itself God, and the very ground of percept and being

[@kze24]

You beat me to this comment. So allow me to rebut you. Alex's mustache is not the greatest mustache that can be conceived, as it can always have one more hair. It also has limitations, such as being able to be shaved. A mustache is, by definition, finite, and if a mustache became infinitely great, then it wouldn't be a mustache anymore. It would be God, as God is the only infinitely great thing.

[@diliff]

@kze24 Ah, but you are already jumping to the conclusion that more hair means a better moustache. That is simply not inherently so, as a great moustache is qualitative and not just quantitative. Also, an infinitely great moustache cannot also not be a moustache or else it would not be the greatest possible moustache. You end up trapped in circular contradictions following that logic.

[@davidstaffell]

I'm fairly sure the fact that's how he was introduced was the straw that broke the camel's back

[@dominic3753]

Elizabeth Oldfield - "are we just the random meat shrapnel spun out from a set of accidental processes or are we meant, wanted? Am i ultimately loved?... I am not looking for an elegant explanation of data points, ...... Heres a poem....."

[@travist2339]

Humans see the whole universe and think unironically: This is all about me

[@bakery3471]

it's cope

[@FirstLast-wk3kc]

Yeah, it feels weird to see such ideas too often

[@Ben-vl5ew]

What is it about then? Sentient life decides what to place importance on, and we should certainly consider ourselves as extremely important as what is the point of the universe if there is no life to observe it?

[@trulytrue8008]

Based

[@evanbrooks8737]

us

[@doovstoover9703]

Philip Goff solving the fine tuning problem for atheists by chalking it up to the existence of God is uhhh, hmm

[@ashcross]

Load of waffle wasn't it!

[@doovstoover9703]

@ashcross bless him, he seems happy at least 😂

[@WisePhilosophia]

Why can’t God be the explanation for fine tuning?

[@HendrixRam0s]

​@@WisePhilosophiaHow do you know it is god ?

[@flummer7]

@@WisePhilosophia well it can but it can just as easily be an argument against a god creator. The thing is, if an all powerful being/god created the universe with life, then that being/god could make life no matter the conditions/tuning. The universe created could actually have conditions totally unfit for life, like freezing temperature and /or boiling hot everywhere insane pressure and other conditions that would render life impossible. However life would exist anyway, simply because god wants it to. Therefore fine tuning can't actually be use as an argument for creation by a god,. On the other hand perfect conditions or tuning if you prefer that term, is an absolute requirement for natural processes.

[@zachmotes2850]

All I got anytime she spoke was- I don't really understand much about anything I said, but it makes me feel like god is real

[@Speedofsound9]

Something something something love, something something something *holds back tears*

[@JASA_87]

​@Speedofsound9 😂😂😂

[@raneanubis]

Well that’s your comprehension skills mate.

[@zachmotes2850]

@@raneanubis if you could comprehend anything she was trying to string together, then praise jeebus for you haha

[@alspezial2747]

​@zachmotes2850 you are talking about a female, feelings are way more important to them

[@jeremylunn3978]

Congrats on keeping it together during the poetry reading

[@Thumbs81]

Unbelievable cringe, I had to skip over it

[@bazooka712]

When the main justification to believe is "I went through unimaginable trauma", that's not faith, that's stockholm syndrome lady

[@batuhan4347]

@@Thumbs81 Same, came here to comment that

[@NotJam3s]

Lmao! I skipped it too!

[@jacquelinerodriguez-m1c]

😂

[@cfreeman89]

As a theatre performer myself, I have a lot of time for the sort of poetry and performance that Elizabeth gave us with her introduction. But that did not stop it from being highly untimely, and rather unhelpful in answering the question she was asked.

[@ravhendi]

I give big props to the initiative and hope for this debates to keep happening. Thank you for the organizers and all the pannelists. That being said, I am utterly distracted by the choice of socks by the moderator, that bright white pair of socks in the middle of the screen was VERY bold choice, and my eyes couldn't avoid looking for them every time they were on frame.

[@Littlebeth5657]

And now that's what I'm looking at despite not noticing for half the run time 😂

[@ricardoschneider5423]

This archbishop seems incredibly wise and to have a very interesting view of the world. I'd love to see him as a guest of the podcast

[@ozonecandle]

That's what I took. The other two felt a tad "feely" which is fine but not why I come to this channel, I have channels for my feelings 😂

[@A_Stereotypical_Heretic]

Keep your kids away from him

[@Psychoholyk]

30:55 "I don't consider myself a theist, but I do consider myself a Christian." What?

[@myrpok]

I had a similar reaction. Is there a reasonable way to interpret this statement, other than she doesn't know what those terms mean? It's like saying 'I'm a catholic, not a christian' to me.

[@Psychoholyk]

@@myrpok yeah, i wondered 2sec before posting. Maybe there are people that follows the doctrine without the appeal to the supernatural claims? Weird cherry picking anyway.

[@niceguy191]

@@Psychoholyk She seems to accept the supernatural parts though, which makes it extra weird. I know it's frowned upon to put labels on people they don't want, but when one is a subset of the other it feels like maybe they are just wrong about their labels

[@uninspired3583]

I read that as "i don't want to be subjected to the logical problems, but i like how it feels to be included"

[@themoose9161]

I would say that theism is viewed as the philosophical approach to religion and refuting that to call yourself a Christian angles more towards the 'spiritual' approach.

[@Doppe1ganger]

That woman isn't interested in debate, she just wants to monologue her prepared text.

[@JNB0723]

as someone who reads and writes a lot of poetry, even I was cringing at her nonsense romanticism

[@griefwnl7641]

Agreed

[@Corninthesky]

It sucks to listen to her. Romanticism has a place in such conversations but she had no interest in opening her mind to how others see the world. Comes off as so self-interested

[@MrCanis4]

Every time she spoke I wanted to fast forward.

[@johnsterman77]

@@MrCanis4 I did.

[@noonewilleat1]

I really appreciate how intellectually honest all of these people are. No one is here to try and assert a worldview on someone, no one is here for malicious intent. It’s super refreshing to hear people have dialogues like this rather than just sit and scream at each other for an hour and a half.

[@laser_focus7962]

The poet had a perfectly timed chuckle at the end of her intro. Really a performance for her, isnt it?

[@KeoLang123]

you know its a good video when you see god and alex in a 1 hour long video

[@phily8093]

God was there?

[@niccolopaganini1782]

​@@phily8093 isn't Omnipresence His thing?

[@cancan-wc9kx]

Is god in the room with us right now?

[@thomasdelaney6718]

it's*

[@phily8093]

@@niccolopaganini1782 I did hear that. Must be exhausting.

[@Viktorelind]

Alex, God willing, please have a discussion with the archpbishop it would be a thrill to watch.

[@vhietorokere6086]

I see what you did there. “God”

[@ceccascorp8149]

They were definitely the best part

[@DumbMetalHead7]

It seems like there's a lot of stuff Elizabeth is not interested in, which ironically are some of the best reasons to question religion. Her facial expressions through the debate really show that she is struggling with her position, I hope she finds some peace.

[@nenadmilovanovic5271]

Yeah it was super strange to come to a debate like this and say "I don't want to debate phylosophy" like what did she think they would talk about smh

[@thomascarpenter9978]

Her final answer gives a lot of context for how she seems to be engaging. 'I think you think that religious people spend a lot more time thinking about the afterlife than they do.' This is a deeply unserious response. 'Christians don't think about their beliefs' is not a valid counterpoint to 'without promise of eternal life, the faith has no driving factor'.

[@chupapi-o5u]

Her opening statement seemed to be about how people are interested in the origins of the universe in sake of understanding their own identity. And that religion can give you that sense of identify which is more satisfying than a totally meaningless existence

[@DumbMetalHead7]

@@chupapi-o5u yeah man it goes to show that people use it as a coping mechanism rather than something they genuinely find convincing. Cognitive bias is real.

[@chupapi-o5u]

@@DumbMetalHead7 ignorance is bliss

[@finh6798]

1:04:32 “I also feel very strongly …….. my experience is that I don’t think God cares whether we believe in God or not.” I’m an atheist but surely this is a huge theological blunder that ignores the actions of God in the Old Testament (a classic) and the importance of the personal relationship with God

[@GraavyTraain]

That’s because it’s all BS.

[@dakeras2410]

She's not a theologian and, I hate to say, does not greatly understand Christianity. God suffered an agonizing death on the cross in order to have a relationship with us. I can't think of any action more significant that could suggest that God does care about whether we believe in Him or not. Rowan could have corrected her, but he didn't...

[@SquishypuffDave]

To bolster her argument a little, I assume she means something like "your belief in God isn't valuable to God if you dont also follow/worship him"

[@calebm5131]

@@SquishypuffDave Nice of you to give her something to quote since that appears to be her only way to engage in this discussion.

[@TheFranchfry]

I love when Alex articulates his thoughts. Pure excellence

[@AMCA797]

@TheFranchfry Well said! I completely agree! Selfishly, I want to listen to Alex for 95% of every debate/conversation he's involved in. Did you watch the debate with Ben Shapiro? Alex was indomitable.. and he despatched D'souza with ease, which even they great Christopher Hitchens found it difficult to do although he did win the debates..

[@craighicksartwork]

Genuinely wish it was just Alex abd the archbishop

[@wonkydonk9073]

Right? Who even are these other two goobers? Super emotional dramatic speaker lady who wrote a book or something, and the "atheist" who basically spends the whole time arguing for theism and stumbling over fine tuning. Seems like they took up most of the debate and never really let Alex and the Archbishop engage each other.

[@benjaminlquinlan8702]

An archbishop is never late - he arrives precisely when he means to!!!

[@NightsideOfParadise]

😂

[@victorzirkle1937]

Lol...perfect!

[@whitesoxMLB]

It's such a shame that this conversation couldn't just be the Archbishop and O'Connor. The other two had so little of value to contribute.

[@martinjnagy]

I'm surprised you didn't enjoy watching Phillip working out what he actually believes in Real-time 😂😂

[@LogosDIA]

Would go to church simply to listen to this archbishop, very elegant with a beautiful voice and manner.

[@iangilbert4811]

Very slick, Alex. Calm, articulate, without overcomplicating the arguments - very persuasive.

[@Mwstmrlnd]

I'm not sure why fine-tuning is taken for granted here. How do we know there is anything significant about the characteristics of our specific world? The fact is, we don't. The framework of a fine-tuned world relies on an assumption that the arrangement of atoms which compose living beings is more significant than the arrangement of atoms elsewhere in the universe, or that the arrangement of physical laws in our universe is somehow significant compared to the physical laws of other possible universes. There is no empirically justified reason to make this assumption. We consider ourselves significant in the context of the "fine tuned" framework simply because we choose to. If we make any sort of claim about the fine-tuning of the universe, it makes more sense to say that our world is actually painfully, oppressively hostile to life. We are the exception, not the rule. Any significance we find in our existence comes from our subjective psychology, from within, and while this isn't meaningless, it's not an objective observation about the world.

[@mikenolan9664]

This is nearer the mark. You have to first demonstrate fine tuning before using it to prove something else. If the universe were fine tuned why do we need to wear sunglasses and get skin cancer from the sun? Most of our planet is uninhabitable, let alone the universe. Using the term ' Fine tuning' is smuggling in a 'fine tuner', it's dishonest. The puddle analogy explains the happenstance away quite sufficiently.

[@Juanjolead]

"our world is actually painfully, oppressively hostile to life" nevertheless, against all mathematical and probabilistic odds, this world is packed with it.

[@dakeras2410]

You need to spend a bit more time investigating the argument for fine-tuning. It's not just whether 'simple/complex' life exists, but a universe in the first place. Read up on the cosmological constant. I'd love for someone however to discuss quantum physics and a naturalist to explain the double-slit experiment for example. Granted as a theist it opens up the possibility of a simulated universe, but it (in my view) is quite possibly the biggest clue to intelligent design.

[@jm329]

Fine tuning is one of the worst arguments.

[@CCCBeaumont]

You're misunderstanding at least two key parts to the argument. 1. The "fine tuning" is for the very existence and continued survival of the universe itself, not just humanity. 2. Other beings may be postulated, but unless or until proven we are justified to consider the meandering (at times) thoughts of those capable of the contemplation, i.e. humans as primary and utmost. It is self-evident that humans (at least) appear to be at the top of the chain of sentient beings. To deny something so manifestly obvious you need a defeater argument against that claim, with supporting data and rationale. The assumption is made from the evidence and is empirically justifiable on those grounds. The best science is that which considers the available evidence, not that which denies on the basis of facts or potential facts not in evidence.

[@Sunnywastakentoo]

Every time he says “please join me” I’m expecting “in prayer” to follow. I’d truly love to hear more from the Archbishop. He seems very insightful.

[@masonhoughton7885]

I like that Philip's use of the fine tuning argument to justify variations of agnosticism does try to make everyone happy, but it is completely divorced from truth. The universe is not fine tuned for us, but we are only seemingly fine tuned for our habitat through the epochs of suffering described by evolution

[@Ben-vl5ew]

If, for example, the gravitational constant was slightly larger the universe would collapse in on itself. Surely no life could form then

[@MantisMaestro]

@Ben-vl5ew True, but that doesn't mean there is no leeway at all. Between all of the properties of our universe, there might be an infinity of combinations that could have been. Many of those possibilities will yield nothing at all, or a 'dead' cosmos, but there would surely also be many which are compatible with life, either as we know it or in some unrecognisable form.

[@joshyman221]

@@MantisMaestrobut there is one universe with one set of constants that are incredibly fine tuned for no reason. You can conjecture multiverses, deeper explanations, etc. but at the end of the day Philip Goff is right that it’s basically impossible to explain currently with naturalism. An intelligent designer explains it a lot better than anything else.

[@masonhoughton7885]

@Ben-vl5ew This just sounds like more "god of the gaps" logic to me. I can appreciate and even find beauty in the chances of our species' survival, but nothing about our circumstance is evidence for the existence of the Christian god

[@MantisMaestro]

@@joshyman221 I don't think it is particularly reasonable to hand-wave away ideas that can provide solutions to fine tuning argument, to then turn around and say an intelligent designer explains this better than all the other ideas I have dismissed. However, I am no philosopher, so for lack of a better phrase I am talking out of my arse and shall leave it there. Perhaps some version of fine tuning will come along that I find more convincing.

[@DJazium]

Alex - you were brilliant through and through. Analogies spot on, very thought provoking. Thank you!

[@dust415]

Alex only putting himself and the Archbishop in the thumbnail encapsulates this debate perfectly

[@edwardmillard203]

Bro Alex’s face of betrayal after Phillip Goffs opening statement 😂

[@wonkydonk9073]

Yeah, I lost interest in that guy the moment he said "Atheism fails to explain fine tuning etc.". Atheism doesn't try or need to explain anything, it's simply the rejection of theism's positive assertion.

[@Baronnax]

"Atheism cannot answer x, y and z..." Brother mine, we're not the ones here claiming we have definitive knowledge of the universe, it's creator and all their secrets.

[@j8000]

Nothing short of incredibly funny that the archbishop served the obvious counter to the fine-tuning argument (we don't have any universes to observe where the constants are different; there's no reason to think they could be other than they are)

[@justdavelewis]

@@wonkydonk9073 Well in philosophy, Atheism is the position that there is no god, and its Agnosticism that doesn't make any definite statements one way or another However, lets say that Atheism = rejection of Theism claims. So, to be an atheist (well, a halfway decent one anyway) then you'd need a reason to reject those claims. You would need to be able to explain why you don't think the fine tuning example is good evidence for a creator, or at the very least why its insufficient Regardless of the position you actually hold, you should be able to describe and defend it, even if your position is "I don't find what you say convincing" - WHY don't you? I I think I, get what you mean though... this feels like more of a Naturalism-specific question rather than an Atheism-specific one but the two are linked

[@wtfboom4585]

​@@j8000 nor should we be surprised to find ourselves existing only in environments where it's possible for us to exist

[@Mr337M]

Alex's road has been a pleasure to watch.

[@Oyabu...]

What if he takws Philip's road lol

[@unknwn9275]

Best is yet to come... and we'll all be shocked.

[@fredrikj.2661]

What an incredible privilege is to live in time when it's possible to see such discussion from the comfort of your wooden chair at home.

[@jovankamoga3556]

Am in a plastic chair😢 guess that's comfort's opposite 😂

[@TheBreezeShoot]

What kind of psycho is choosing to sit in a wooden chair when alone at home. Get a cushion, friend.

[@nicolab2075]

Sofa, me

[@AngeloLunch]

@@nicolab2075 armchair/sofa sort of hybrid i’m in

[@Oyabu...]

Menial suffering

[@wtfgrooves3268]

What a stellar moderator! One of the best:)

[@maomao180]

The way Elizabeth keeps baiting for applause after her poetry readings has me dying 😂

[@ColtonLM20]

I love these debates because we are treated to Alex's views in a less-restrained way, as we get in his podcast conversations.

[@Dergo666]

I love these kind of debates also because we all need to be exposed to differing views and opinions. Everyone is civil and respectful. No name calling or shouting.

[@lexaray5]

The fine-tuning argument makes multiple mistakes in probability theory. 1. When I roll two dice and get two 6's, it feels pretty special. That's because I place subjective value on getting a double. It just feels a bit more extraordinary to me. But if I roll two dice and the first dice is a 3 and the second dice is a 4, that occurs with the same probability as two 6's. But it feels much less extraordinary. The same kind of reasoning is being used in the fine tuning argument. It feels really extraordinary that the universe has life rather than it not having life. The argument assumes that every value for the fundamental constants was equally likely. But if that's true, the gravitational constant having a value between 1-3 (I'm just making up numbers) is just as likely as it falling between a 4-6. The former just feels more incredible because it falling between 1-3 would be conducive to the formation of life and we think life is pretty rad. 2. The kind of "shock" feeling that comes with the argument, (that "isn't it mind blowing to think that..." feeling), comes from a lack of considering conditional probability. Imagine I tell you that Joe flipped a coin 10 times and it landed on heads every time. That's really surprising! The probability of that happening is less than 0.1%. But what if I told you it was a trick coin and actually both sides are heads. Well, *given that information,* getting heads 10 times in a row is not only not surprising, there was 100% certainty it would happen. Similarly, we are living beings in this universe. We didn't even have to figure out the exact values of the fundamental constants to know that they would be configured in such a way so as to support life. *Simply because we ourselves are alive.* So the constants have a 100% likelihood of supporting life. This narrows the question to "why does the universe support life instead of not supporting life." 3. There are so many possible answers to that question. There's no reason to believe that Christians have the upper hand here. Sure, they can answer the question by claiming that they believe that a god who also subjectively values life created the universe and had good reason for making the constants that way. But then they also have to justify exactly why it's their god and not any of the hundreds of other gods humans have believed in. Atheists also have answers. One is that there is a multiverse in that every possible configuration of events occurs in at least one universe. So then there must be some universes capable of sustaining life simply because it's a possible configuration. Again, because we exist, it's completely unsurprising we find ourselves in one of those universes. Another solution is that the universe has a cyclical nature and it keeps getting created, collapsing, and created again. So then it's also unsurprising that the universe sometimes takes a form conducive to life and, again, it's garunteed we find ourselves in one of those configurations. 4. We don't actually know much about the parameters required in order for life to exist. And it's unclear to me if it's life we're actually interested in or consciousness. And we seem to have even less understanding of how consciousness works. We don't even know if something needs to be alive in order to be conscious. So when apologists assign specific probabilities to this, it's all speculation anyways.

[@velosoul7395]

👌🏼

[@netaniellevy5258]

There's also the fact that there's no evidence that the universe is fine-tuned to create life, let alone human life! In fact looking at the universe and the constants it seems to be more tuned for "creating" Black holes (and maybe space-time) if anything. And yet somehow proponents of this argument always presuppose that its for life...

[@vojtechsubrta6810]

Great summary :) As you said, we cant know (so far) if other universes, without life, exist, since we are not living in them. Its possible, that they dont exist, but its also possible that they exist and we cant know, because we have to be in universe which sustains life to observe this.

[@mtbee9641]

In 3 you said ‘Atheists also have answers’. Some yes but not all. Nobody has all the answers. Theists speculate that their particular god exists but nobody knows. There is no reason to think that their, or any other god exists. Not having answers simply allows them to claim their speculating is correct.

[@matthewseymour6457]

Brilliant comment! I will ponder over this deeply. 😘

[@ayomiposishonibare7726]

Finally, I can do my chores. Perfect timing

[@crackhead972]

Sameee

[@theintelligentmilkjug944]

Greatest conceivable timing

[@HillBelichick]

I folded my laundry without purpose for years. Then I discovered this youtube channel.

[@kt6684]

I feel really privileged to have watched this channel and Alex grow into one of the most eloquent and relatable thinkers of our time.

[@tomhenninger4153]

Alex was great as usual. No one else had any points that made any sense to me other than a great mythical Jesus story. Thanks for the simple minded debate.

[@killerwal4387]

I mean you cant really discuss about god with these standards…

[@paulgemme6056]

@@killerwal4387 If one doesn't believe the living Word Jesus Christ they are lost, deceived and under the power of the devil (Satan). Satan (the Devil) is the god (little g) of this evil world. That's why there is so much suffering. Satan, this world and atheists hate the truth (Jesus Christ) because he tells us who we really are, sinners in need of God's Grace and Mercy.

[@jinxithexit3546]

I was there and asked the anthropic principle question. Loved it.

[@Vrailly]

I also think Goff answered the anthropic principle very poorly

[@HP-rz7ew]

I have to say I didn’t find his repost to your question very convincing. I don’t find a firing squad of expert marksmen with the intention of killing someone and missing over and over to be a very apt analogy in comparison to a universe that, as far as we know it, has no intention or will of action. One does seem to require more questioning than the other, I don’t find the implausibility of both to be even remotely the same. Maybe I’m wrong on this and would happily invite others opinions.

[@jinxithexit3546]

@@HP-rz7ew quite, I think he pretends to be the problemless middle-ground but really he makes an uglier chimaera of the religious and agnostic points of view and by virtue of that inheriting most problems with both philosophical positions.

[@lexaray5]

​@@HP-rz7ewit's the fact that you have to add "as far as we know" as a qualifier. The analogy fails because we have a lot of information about the marksman squad. We barely have any information about the universe. The situation with the firing squad seems so incredibly strange because we have a ton of data pointing to the fact that it shouldn't happen that way. We know how the marksman are trained. We know how guns work. We know success rates of firing squads. Etc. We have no damn clue how universes work. We have no ability to figure out what's "strange" in the universe when we still have no idea what "normal" looks like.

[@walter6574]

Fine tuning? I don't recall who made this statement of "a puddle become sentient and says, wow this hole is perfectly made for me." For those who missed the message, the water formed to fit the hole not the other way around. We evolved to fit the environment we are in, not the environment changed to support us.

[@nicolab2075]

@@walter6574 Douglas Adams

[@nicolab2075]

@@walter6574 Douglas Adams

[@thomabow8949]

I believe it was Douglas Adams

[@kevinlund357]

I don't think that's really a sufficient analogy. It's more like a puddle saying "wow, I'm glad I live in a universe where holes exist". The fine tuning argument is an existential one. The modern theory on fine tuning is that even slight changes to the underlying physical reality of our universe would have resulted in a universe the is fundamentally incompatible with life, or perhaps even the organization of matter. The puddle *is* lucky that holes exist in its universe, else nothing like it would ever exist.

[@nicolab2075]

@@kevinlund357 Yes, but an atheist would argue, why would that matter? A completely different universe, or none at all - who can say why it would matter, or whether one is better than another? This one is good for us (not perfect, but good enough in some ways), but only we think that, and that's because we are here...

[@thezieg]

Thank you for participating in this conversation and sharing it with us.

[@Salamander02842]

Alex O’Connor is a genius and and absolute gem to humanity

[@curtbressler3127]

the fine tuning argument is about as meaningful as saying "The avalanche was fine tuned because it formed a perfect pile of rubble at the bottom of the mountain. That pile of rubble ended up exactly as it should have, thanks to the fine tuner."

[@Jeroen4]

Time to take another IQ test buddy.

[@antonc81]

It’s literally shooting an arrow at a wall then painting a circle around it and yelling “bullseye!”

[@prodbyyonyon]

@@antonc81texas sharpshooter 😁

[@aubergineontoast]

Then why did Christopher Hitchens himself say it was one of the most intriguing of all the theistic arguments and not at all trivial? Also It would be a more accurate comparison if at the bottom of the avalanche were several perfectly built snowmen grilling snow steaks on a snow grill with lifted snow trucks parked nearby. Your effort to dismiss the argument out of hand shows you are so committed to athiesm, any argument against it automatically is branded foolishness. Take the smug hat off and put your thinking hat on eh?

[@KJCurry]

​@@aubergineontoast why do you know humanity isnt analogous to a pile of rubble?

[@YoungMatt81]

I've never found the argument of fine tuning very compelling, tbh. It's a bit of a god of the gaps argument to me. Just because it's intimidating doesn't mean it's supernatural. It's also bit of a self referential claim, like "isnt it amazing that we can only exist because we exist". Just because there's a one in a billion chance doesn't mean that it didn't fail 999,999,999 times.

[@bruvaasmodai5250]

It's a terrible argument when you think about it for a moment. It fails on two counts. Firstly that the universe is the result of the laws that govern it. The laws were not prescribed with the aim of creating the universe as it is. If the laws were slightly different, the universe would be different, maybe very different. It would not matter. That universe would be the result of different laws, and if sentient life were to come about within it then it would be very silly of it also to decree that it is the only possible life and that its universe is perfect for it rather than they perfect for their universe. Secondly, It assumes that there is effectively "one go" at creating a universe full of things, particularly including life. Given the age of the universe and the unnowable before not-really-time before it, and maybe even parallel or prior universes, the claim that it's ever so lucky that the universe (or a guiding power) got it the only right way in just one 'try' is patently ridiculous.

[@uninspired3583]

What baffles me is how others do find it compelling.

[@scrapbus9681]

Correct. You could use it as confirmation that we are living inside a simulation.

[@saulgoneman]

Yeah, its like saying "it is incredibly improbable that you would be born, millions of people had to make countless decisions in exactly the way they did to facilitate it". That's true, but so? I guess some people think their own existence and the existence of life is "necessary", but I don't see why we should believe that.

[@DobesVandermeer]

The fine tuning doesn't explain how God came to be and why his universe (or whatever) is fine tuned (or not).

[@steveymoon]

The fine tuning argument is one of the most ridiculous apologetics ever. The idea that this chap next to Alex is convinced by it, is mind blowing.

[@TomMinchington]

Yeah, I mean how many assumptions do you have to make to believe in fine tuning

[@Keyboardwarrior1337]

Good stuff. Loved the 'make your own meaning' bit you said at the end there. Gave me something to think about. Top work mate. Its nice having someone with similar views able to have these conversations and put them forward so well.

[@bartswitalski]

I'm always amazed by Alex's performance in conversation with legends and titans like the Archbishop or Richard Dawkins. It's pleasure and honor to get my brain feed by these discussions

[@mitchkahle314]

You're kicking ass, brah. Great work. Cheers!

[@rickbriggs8228]

Fine tuning is easy, because for anything in the universe to survive it must meet the demands of fine tuning. Therefore, over time It is only the fine tuned that's left. A process that is ongoing by the way.

[@craighicksartwork]

I don't know why this isn't talked about more. The universe filters out everything that can't be fine tuned. It literally shapes us to it's coded perfection

[@Leon-bd6vc]

That can explain the appearance of fine tuning, much like evolution explaining why an organism is suited to its environment, but not the origin of fine tuning itself? where do the demands/rules of fine tuning actually come from? Why does the process exist at all? And for physical constants, they don’t change over time?

[@sledzeppelin]

Does fine tuning need an origin? All of the forces and particles in space behave the way they inherently behave, based on the laws physics, and the appearance of “fine-tuning” is just what we call instances where what we perceive as order happens.

[@dakeras2410]

In order for the universe to exist, look at the cosmological constant. We're not talking about a flavour of universe, but a universe in the first place. Of course the next argument from there is that there must be multiple universes, but that assumption is without any evidence and relies on the assumption that God does not exist. When you follow the clues, it points to intelligent design. You have to repeatedly deny the possibility of God in order to conclude that other universes exist.

[@sledzeppelin]

@ It doesn’t need to be a flavor of universe. If the necessary conditions wouldn’t allow a universe, then there wouldn’t be a universe. Why does one have to assume a god doesn’t exist to believe there can be multiple universes? Which clues point to intelligent design?

[@RoseNoir90]

"I don't consider myself a Theist but I consider myself a Christian." ...what

[@SmalltimR]

Theism is often considered a philosophical position, whereas Christianity is usually considered to be a spiritual position

[@Finckelstein]

@@SmalltimR Sorry but no. You literally cannot be a christian without being a theist. That's just utter nonsense.

[@jonnawyatt]

​@@SmalltimR Both positions are based on a belief in something for which there is no evidence. So same thing. If the purpose of religion wasn't so awful...

[@Sui_Generis0]

Yeah very strange. Just doesn't like the word I guess

[@Lyonessi]

Well you have to agree that Theist and Christian have slightly different weights currently. It's like a lot of people these days are saying I don't consider a feminist but I do believe women should have equal opportunity etc, the times have changed and mainstream feminisn has been radicalised and more extreme, so has the meaning of the label. That's the intention of what she said, I think.

[@thejoin4687]

Fine-tuning: "If things were just slightly different, they wouldn't be as they are now."

[@gumslinger11]

Heres my name on the petition for an Alex and Rowan episode. Make it so Alex!

[@HernanToroA]

A cavewoman, a medieval inquisitor, a hippie IDer, and a rational skeptical man enter into a bar...

[@henryathens3042]

Bro I laughed out loud how about a transjenga-women, a gay Jewish reverend that does exorcisms, a transjenga man, Alex O’conner, blond Rachel maddow

[@RichardTavilla]

Fantastic

[@graybonesau]

@@henryathens3042 you made it worse

[@friendlyolbum]

Maybe next time have a clip of subway surfers playing underneath the video? I just couldn't pay attention without that.

[@JNB0723]

LMAO

[@markd7933]

Yes and use that “let him cook” soundbite followed by that “phonk” song every tiktok uses (insert ad for some crypto bs using motivational videos to scam young men)

[@theintelligentmilkjug944]

(Spray painting noises, bark bark)

[@ethanknight9128]

Maybe Alex should just turn the whole segment into 30 second clips, I can’t pay attention any longer than that.

[@paulgemme6056]

@@ethanknight9128 If one doesn't believe the living Word Jesus Christ they are lost, deceived and under the power of the devil (Satan). Satan (the Devil) is the god (little g) of this evil world. That's why there is so much suffering. Satan, this world and atheists hate the truth (Jesus Christ) because he tells us who we really are, sinners in need of God's Grace and Mercy.

[@imsorobo]

Elizabeth seems to be emotionally unstable. shes always on the verge of tears

[@Lyonessi]

I don't know what to quite think of it but it did remind me of the recent Wicked interviews with Ariana and Cynthia

[@nicolab2075]

@@Lyonessi 😂

[@bensisko2443]

She's the most stable person on the panel. In fact, people say she's the most stable person they've ever met.

[@Oyabu...]

​@@bensisko2443 could you explain the joke

[@marcusryden6732]

Probably just a little nervous

[@MichaelAdamReale]

Wow, debating the emeritus Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams! Very impressive. You were awesome, as usual, in this presentation.

[@eucapsiolatina]

The stupidest statement I've ever heard from a writer: "I don't know anything about the origin of the Universe I wasn't there" (13:51)

[@tobias4411]

Yes, she committed the argument from ignorance fallacy. Suggesting that because one was not present to witness an event, they cannot have knowledge about it, ignoring the fact that scientific methods allow us to infer information about past events through evidence and reasoning. She probably don't know what a logical fallacy is.

[@MauritiusMoments]

I think having a rich money and daddy and being privileged explains her being there rather than intellect or having something interesting to say. An undergrad would fail a paper with such a statement yet she is there.

[@myhatmygandhi6217]

I mean, she's not wrong. It's a pragmatic approach to the question. Even scientist's can't go all the way back to the exact moment the Big Bang happened.

[@tobias4411]

@@myhatmygandhi6217 The origin of the universe is widely explained by the Big Bang Theory. They know that happened.

[@Pneumanon]

@@tobias4411They may be able to describe the process, but that doesn’t mean much if you are arguing that God exists outside of space/time.

[@yannickbr4383]

After the announcement the thumbs up was already deserved!

[@Sandra_D.9]

When you truly know ahead of time you’re gonna love it

[@johnnehrich9601]

I wish I was truly all thumbs, so I could raise more of them. Thanks.

[@darealsherlock8026]

I love the level of respect everyone in this had for each other despite completely disagreeing on some points. True discussion should always be like this.

[@matswessling6600]

discussion? when?

[@Sui_Generis0]

This is normal

[@David34981]

I think respect in debate is overrated. People should be treated decently, but bad ideas and flawed reasoning don't deserve any respect whatsoever.

[@nicolab2075]

@@David34981 Agreed! I feel the same way about modesty and being humble. What's so great about it?

[@TorianTammas]

When someone claims that he is abducted by Aliens or that some Alien walked over water and will come back then this is insanity on stilts or an arcbishop talking ET

[@haberjennings475]

That Phillip goff is a professor. An actual professor. God help us

[@rjScubaSki]

He is the strongest argument for academic gatekeeping I’ve ever seen

[@StevenWernick]

Yes... It is "kind of my job"... he's admitting his employment depends on his stance... twisting with the wind.... I don't trust this person.

[@garthly]

Well, to be a professor of philosophy is not to be a philosopher. In general the former is someone who is knowledgeable about what philosophers have said, who knows what their arguments were, and how they relate to each other. Philip Goff probably does that pretty well. The latter is less clear to me, but it may be something like someone who seeks a vision of the universe or of life by the application of reasoned arguments. That is more the kind of person Alex is.

[@davegold]

He really comes across as a wooly minded 'hang with kids' professor for whom relevancy is more important than clarity of thought, clear expression, and construction of logical argument.

[@gk2677]

How's that "fine tuning" keeps coming up? As Lawrence Krauss put it, "Look, my legs are exactly the right size to reach the ground. Isn't it amazing?"

[@pierre-emmanuelpecceu2473]

You're proposing a very interesting analogy. You seem to consider it as proof. But can you demonstrate that your analogy fits the subject?

[@Glitch_II]

​@@pierre-emmanuelpecceu2473can you even demonstrate that the numbers that had to be exactly right (such as the expansion force of the big bang) can even be anything other than it currently is? Finetuning is only a good argument because it initially feels intuitive to go along with it, but we don't know if the forces can even be anything other than what they currently are whether they perhaps correlate to each other, so in that case a stronger big bang would have caused a stronger counter force or a weaker one would have caused a weaker gravity force etc. We have no idea, so assuming there had to be some sort of guiding entity that equates to god is putting the cart before the horse to say the least

[@Ben-vl5ew]

How does that analogy apply? Your legs reach the ground because somebody made the chair the right size. Ie god made the universe right to suit life

[@cps22001]

​@Ben-vl5ew There is a wide range of chair sizes that enable my legs to touch the ground. And when I stand up, it doesn't matter anymore.

[@jessmcquade2633]

@@Glitch_II And on top of that, proposing something as complex as a mind with magic powers to explain why the constants are what they are, demands at least as much of an explanation itself. But the theist is happy to say, "Nah, I don't have to explain that, it just is."

[@MrMurkosullivan]

Alex's smile at 21:15 is brilliant. Catching Phillip Goffs self-report in that moment.

[@Ghlostyc]

Lack of understanding or awe of complexity is not “evidence” of fine-tuning. It’s explaining it. Before we knew about germs, would we blame god? Before we knew thunder, how complex was it? It MUST have been god! These arguments continually get knocked down until the goalposts shift to “well it’s so complex only god could” even though it is not so complex that we can’t understand it.

[@ECThurn]

he went from bedroom new-age atheism to debating god himself. bravo alex

[@rjScubaSki]

I didn’t think Goff could become less coherent than his panpsychism nonsense. But he hit it out of the park! He really does make anyone question what the point of titles like professor is

[@Lurklen]

Hey, he's a professor, all that means is he's got to profess. Which definition of "professing" he was working under is up for debate.

[@paulgemme6056]

@@Lurklen If one doesn't believe the living Word Jesus Christ they are lost, deceived and under the power of the devil (Satan). Satan (the Devil) is the god (little g) of this evil world. That's why there is so much suffering. Satan, this world and atheists hate the truth (Jesus Christ) because he tells us who we really are, sinners in need of God's Grace and Mercy.

[@themeggy]

That was bloody fantastic!

[@curtisben79]

I was meant to be here but was unwell so glad Alex has uploaded this ❤

[@griefwnl7641]

The ball analogy was actually interesting I’m ngl. Never thought of it like that.

[@LouiePGallo]

If we are to actually follow Goff's logic, then the most "simple theory" (as he puts it) is that God isn't limited but mindless.

[@rjScubaSki]

Or just to skip god and start with the initial condition of the universe

[@paulgemme6056]

@@rjScubaSki If one doesn't believe the living Word Jesus Christ they are lost, deceived and under the power of the devil (Satan). Satan (the Devil) is the god (little g) of this evil world. That's why there is so much suffering. Satan, this world and atheists hate the truth (Jesus Christ) because he tells us who we really are, sinners in need of God's Grace and Mercy.

[@RyanC232]

This is the most intellectually honest conversation that I have ever seen. Debate does not do this segment justice. Great respect shown with no visible desire to interrupt and grandstand on your points

[@rossmcgowan123]

How long did she rehearse that monologue. Unnecessary

[@robsol123]

This video is brilliant thanks so much for upload x

[@OhManTFE]

why did the dude go with the fine tuning argument, terrible. figured he'd go in the direction of morality or meaning or something like that

[@RodencyRoyalist]

You know that moustache is powerful and everlasting when it is clearly experiencing life after death like this. Finally the proof of God's kingdom?

[@aa72on]

Is it me or is she talking without saying a single thing?

[@johns1625]

I like Alex because he encourages me to be nice instead of pointing out that they're just telling me to look at the trees while also telling me they're not really interested in looking at the trees. 😂🙏

[@Velaxity]

The lady just sounded like she was reading poetry.. Saying a lot, without saying anything at all.

[@andreafox7267]

She’s blinded by her imaginary friend’s love for her.

[@paulgemme6056]

@@andreafox7267 If one doesn't believe the living Word Jesus Christ they are lost, deceived and under the power of the devil (Satan). Satan (the Devil) is the god (little g) of this evil world. That's why there is so much suffering. Satan, this world and atheists hate the truth (Jesus Christ) because he tells us who we really are, sinners in need of God's Grace and Mercy.