9 Questions Atheists CANNOT Answer - With

[@CosmicSkeptic]

Try AG1 today: www.drinkAG1.com/withinreason. For early, ad-free access to videos, and to support the channel, subscribe to my Substack: www.alexoconnor.com

[@brianpcox8911]

@CosmicSkeptic how do I email for questions?

[@jam1870utube]

Question 1: "Why is there something rather than nothing? Oh my fugging god, fellas! There IS an answer to that question. The answer is.........WE DON'T KNOW! All we know is that WE DO EXIST, so let's celebrate our existence and try to make the best of our very limited time on this earth, and try to live in relative peace while we are alive, philosophically speaking of course.

[@jovanastanisic8629]

They ignored my questions😭

[@TheVeganVicar]

You are urged to become VEGAN, since carnism (the destructive ideology that supports the use and consumption of animal products, especially for “food”) is arguably the foremost existential crisis.🌱

[@shrekfromdahood]

​@@jam1870utube why should we strive for peace

[@Npwn]

When gazing at Alex's top lip, only one question comes to mind: "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

[@PlaylistWatching1234]

"Why would a good God allow this?"

[@JagnaLesna]

@@PlaylistWatching1234 Demiurgic "creator" did it.

[@pedazodeboludo]

🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@coreyander286]

Could Alex grow a mustache so unfashionable that even he would have to shave it off?

[@blossom357]

@@coreyander286 This is the most niche joke. God damn. 10/10

[@StraightOuttaBerkshire]

Freddy Mercury interviews Ashton Kutcher

[@TheVeganVicar]

😀

[@OMJ_the_Show]

🤣🤣🤣 I thought that in the thumbnail as well 😅

[@jammcguire1276]

So good!!!

[@PhaseControlDNB]

Came for this comment. Wasn't disappointed 😂

[@hugomarx1324]

Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy? ......

[@unsolicitedadvice9198]

Thank you for having me on - I had a great time :). Also, listening back to this, I just wanted to clarify that Kant’s synthetic a priori argument here would be limited to the “phenomenal world” and not to the “noumenal world” - since Kant thinks that knowledge of the “things-in-themselves” is basically impossible (at least, unless you take a very particular reading of him). The distinction didn’t come up explicitly in our discussion, but I wouldn’t want to cause confusion on that point by accident.

[@clash1505]

Oh okay!

[@rationalmuscle]

That, and he was a real pissant who was very rarely stable. Incredibly salient point.

[@copykatninja]

Overthinking at its finest 😂 what fun when y'all come together

[@kennycube5126]

😁Good exPANation👍 and a great discussion. Thanks!

[@-qi8dt]

My mind went "WOAH" when I saw you in the thumbnail. I really like your videos and I was pleasently surprised

[@mikelombard21]

Some people have looks, some have smarts, some are blessed with both. What a phenomenal conversation. For people who love philosophy, there are few better videos than this one. A pure and honest discussion. This is what philosophy is all about; talking and questioning collectively to seek a higher truth. What a great conversation. Much love to you all.

[@Red-ij2it]

Right so walking away from this conversation we have learned nothing

[@margokupelian344]

The higher truth is GOD!!! Period. Just look around you. Meditate on the wonder that’s around you. Everything is a miracle , and science or philosophy cannot work miracles.

[@onioncutterninja1535]

​@@margokupelian344 ok margokupelian344.

[@boazburger3846]

I love how the questions in the video are questions like "why is there something rather than nothing" and "what is consciousness" while in the comments the questions being asked are "why are they both so fine" and "what the hell is that furry black stripe under alex's nostrils"

[@pansepot1490]

Let’s be real. Unless you are very new to atheism and/or philosophy you’ve heard these same stale topics talked to death already here and elsewhere dozens of times over. It’s much more fun going to the comment section and gossiping. And to be completely honest I am 10 minutes in and I am not impressed by the quality of the discourse. They sound banal and boring. I suspect that if these guys weren’t eye candies their following would drop like lead. Have a nice time, I am out.

[@InfinityReptar]

@@pansepot1490wow I bet you’re fun at parties

[@Philibuster92]

@@InfinityReptar he is really fun at parties.

[@alextomlinson]

@@pansepot1490Peter H? Is that you?

[@ScuffKinn]

@@pansepot1490bro has an outro

[@adolfadams5946]

you guys have such good chemistry, you should definitely have him on more

[@stanislavkorniienko1523]

They should definitely get a room 😏

[@himwiththesquaretoes9461]

im pretty sure the other dude has a learning disability

[@Wingedmagician]

I wanna see more than just talking next time

[@knoobiez]

Fuck that's be so hot 🥵 ​@@stanislavkorniienko1523

[@dobby2270]

@@stanislavkorniienko1523oh yeah😏

[@Nighthawkinlight]

Thanks for taking my question on consciousness. Much appreciated

[@jinx5349]

Hi! ✌️🙂

[@jinx5349]

Love your videos...😊

[@austinalexander238]

Thank you for what you do. The idea of “nothing” has been tying me up for years now. Happy to hear people speak, with similar obsessions! You guys are so respectful of each other, too!

[@callumsharman4980]

You guys have phenomenal chemistry

[@martinandersen1351]

😌😏...

[@nadine9018]

A question neither of them can answer: why are they both so fine?

[@Wingedmagician]

its not fair 😢

[@TheVeganVicar]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/hH-mYZ5_r7JkfNE

[@SeaPear0]

alex? ALEX? if there's someone out there who thinks Alex's mustache is the tiniest bit hot, there's definitely someone out there for me

[@Johnnystammy]

They're not. 😂

[@sebastianzell525]

@@Johnnystammyunsolicited advice is, alex was with the bread and not this ridiculous mustache

[@karlbjerke133]

questions athiests cant answer: Why is alex's stache like it is

[@harrykrause2879]

It's time alex

[@coffeedude]

Because god doesn't exist

[@smillstill]

Why are his guests starting to look like Ashton Kutcher?

[@Sculman7]

because it's looking swell!

[@janegardener1662]

Alex is tired of looking sweet and is going for sinister instead.

[@richiebenno5082]

Hearing the pair of you discuss such fruitful and frightful unknowns makes my heart leap with joy. Whilst I was positively lost during some moments of discussion, the traces of genuine curiosity were not lost on me, and I'll gladly admit that you've furthered* my own. Thank you kindly and emphatically for your discourse. Unreal.

[@MindShift-Brandon]

So good to see Joe back on. Well done guys!

[@JonTonyJim]

Two of the most thought-provoking people on this platform

[@captainyossarian388]

And most cute, which doesn't hurt either.

[@TheVeganVicar]

​@@captainyossarian388 kzbin.info/www/bejne/hH-mYZ5_r7JkfNE

[@milansvancara]

It's thought provoking only for US citizens:P But yeah, great guys:)

[@deussivenatura5805]

@@milansvancara Oh wow, you're so smart!

[@milansvancara]

@@deussivenatura5805 ?

[@jessiferxoxo]

another episode with unsolicited advice! i love you two together

[@cbarker88]

Absolutely loved this all the way to the end, thank you ☺️

[@codegeek98]

0:03:54 it really is awkward that our language only has the one word, "why", doing double duty over 3 extremely different questions, “for what purpose or End was this outcome brought about by a planner or optimization process”, “by what means was this particular outcome actualized”, and “by what principle was this particular _potential_ exposed in the first place”

[@Michael-kp4bd]

Thanks for spelling this out. I’ve seen thrown out the rather conversation-diverting proclamation of “it depends on what you mean by why!” Without listing the possible meanings, it’s not very helpful. Your definitions are precise with useful clarifications to avoid misunderstanding, but in order for me to at least commit it to memory, I’ll simplify them as the following distinct questions: -for what purpose? -by what means? -in accordance with what principle?

[@stvbrsn]

It’s one of my lest favorite words.

[@sakiii2975]

isn't the second of these (by what means was this particular outcome actualised) "how" rather than "why"?

[@jakeman1397]

I never thought I'd find a KZbin comment insightful enough to screenshot, but here we are!

[@codegeek98]

@@sakiii2975 yes, I think so, too; but in the context of this video it was being thrown around as _"why_ is there something rather than nothing". And unfortunately it is a rather common usage of the word.

[@andrewprahst2529]

#1 question atheists can't answer: Peat and Repeat are on a bridge. Peat falls off. Who's left?

[@acousticape]

Repeat

[@kurrutako89]

​@@acousticape Peat and Repeat are on a bridge. Peat falls off. Who's left?

[@thienyetan2035]

@@kurrutako89 repeat

[@atuljangra6488]

@@thienyetan2035 Peat and Repeat are on a bridge. Peat falls off. Who's left?

[@balern4]

@@atuljangra6488 Repeat

[@vlodek69]

you can see the dreamy love in their eyes

[@bliss45]

I was searchig for this kind of comment

[@captainyossarian388]

They do seem to get more cute when they're on the same vid together.

[@diki1967]

Which one bottoms?

[@jaredbutler957]

@@diki1967Don’t make the cute joke weird. They’re straight and regardless, why sexualize philosophers talking about religion? 😭

[@aethie]

​@@jaredbutler957 if there's one thing we're good at it's making things weird lol

[@sebastienseb7673]

that was a fantastic conversation and overall 9 questions well answered! Thank you to both of you

[@rawcopper604]

I'm glad you're bringing Joe back on. I love both of you, and listening to you two together is always amazing

[@canaygibi8924]

It is truly a pleasure to watch two handsome men discuss logic and deep philosophical topics.

[@LePageChannel]

Religion isn't philosophy. You can reason and logically debate with a philosopher. God has no founding, no logic, no presentable evidence.

[@montyrowan6243]

All men will be without excuse on that great day, better be found in Christ. tomorrow is not promised

[@997ET]

@@LePageChannel arrogance is not the way. religion goes hand in hand with philosophy.

[@LePageChannel]

They don't go together. They are opposite. One is evolving, seeking the truth with logic and arguments. The other is stagnant, claiming it has the truth with emotions and fallacies. Philosophy is useful and has to be practiced. Religion is dangerous and has to be ridiculized.

[@997ET]

@@LePageChannel religion is not a science, neither is philosophy. they ask the same questions. religion claims nothing. philosophy is not objective. there are philosophers who spread misinformation and there are religious teachers who spread wisdom. your bias makes you blind.

[@simonbastrup486]

Bro these guys love to talk to each other it’s such a joy to see

[@GordonSeal]

Technically, religious people cannot answer these questions either, they just believe in something, but they don't really know. Belief isn't knowing.

[@Wonzling0815]

The fact that these questions are framed as "atheists can't answer that" just points to theists' fears of inferiority. They are so afraid of atheists being right about anything while it's generally not a big deal for atheists...

[@triplea657aaa]

Knowing is just a belief, though... it's a better kind of belief than making things up off the top of your head, but knowledge is an entirely faith-based thing.

[@RicoRodeigues]

​@@triplea657aaa No it's not. I know an apple will fall to the floor if I let it fall down. That's not a belief.

[@Wonzling0815]

@@triplea657aaa That's not the true unless you want to argue for some kind of arbitrary definition of "knowing". Knowing refers to things that are testable. It doesn't matter that in everyday life, people usually do not test their knowledge themselves. A belief refers to things that are untestable (or have not been tested yet). A belief ceases to exist the moment it is tested conclusively.

[@stewystewymc3929]

​@@triplea657aaasimilar to the first example I know your brain is not very creased. Thats not a belief. It's a fact that I acknowledge

[@ragaisayas]

I saw him on your podcast for the first time about two months ago, and I've been watching his videos since. Happy to see him back on the show!

[@misterproject8]

That story about the girl saying that "the pen is lying" was amazing. It's just a very creative (albeit 'wrong') way to put it. Sometimes I think my logical mind stops me from fully pursuing my creativity, and that was a great example of that.

[@Ranoake]

I would not say it is wrong, we see it as wrong, but we have a different set of base assumptions than she does and for her it is 100% true. Logic is based on your assumptions.

[@piushalg5041]

Children live through the so called magical phase in their perception of reality.

[@TheBurdenOfHope]

“The flick was switched” - Alex O’Connor, 2024

[@purpleniumowlbear2952]

“Why is there something rather than nothing?” “Because the flick was switched.” *roll credits*

[@Julia-oe9xl]

😂 i was looking for this comment

[@joshdunn7761]

I assumed it's just one of those things British people get topsy turvy

[@TheBurdenOfHope]

It was Mean to pick out one line when Alex was in his flow state but it still made me chuckle.

[@purpleniumowlbear2952]

@@TheBurdenOfHope if he weren’t already one of the most articulate people I’ve ever seen, I’d have thought twice before teasing him.

[@paulinthailand]

what a great channel this is. i found it 3 days ago and find something interesting for bed every evening since

[@kevinod771]

It’s so nice to see a couple of young intellectuals discussing a great subject!! Alex is the best!!

[@JesseDriftwood]

How is giving the answer of God not an illegal chess move, or rather how does it answer the something rather than nothing question? Surely the question “why is there a God instead of no God?” is an equally justified question, and probably just the same question.

[@pixmma9627]

Without getting into the arguments themselves, the essential answer to both of your questions is: The evidence/logic seem to indicate the existence of a God rather than not. God is not a convenient answer to existence and his existence is a conclusion to the arguments. I'm happy to go into more detail if you like.

[@RandomStranger-c8w]

@@pixmma9627 Well said!

[@ravensong9030]

@@JesseDriftwood i think it's not an illegal chess move because it can be argued in a way that's self contained. For a believer it's fine but for us atheists it's an unsatisfying answer... also a very dull one. From our point of view, they are depositing the enormous mystery of the question into the entity of god and then taking it for granted. Since I don't believe in God i can't really say, but a sound and self-contained argument could go like this: "god is almighty, he (she? they? it?) is everywhere, also inside humans, and endows us with the capacity of perceiving his existence through the religious experience. Since I feel God through an experience which I recognize as religious and real (as opposed to delusional), then he exists. Personally I think that the existence of god cannot be proven in a logical way. You cannot disprove his existence just because you don't see evidence for it, and even if he exists and shows up to you, you still have to prove he is omniscient and almighty.

[@JesseDriftwood]

@ Yeah I hear what you're saying, and I mostly agree, but l'm not convinced you couldn't mirror that argument exactly from a naturalistic point. "The universe (reality) is all powerful, and endows existence with the capacity for conscious agents to exist and perceive itself." It's equally unsatisfying, but equally justified. And in all scenarios we're still left with the "why is there existence/god rather than not?"

[@ravensong9030]

@@JesseDriftwood exactly! :) this actually goes in line with what I was trying to say, maybe it was not clear. Indeed the argument can be mirrored from the naturalistic perspective and both ways it's unsatisfactory for a "skeptic/atheist". The thing here is that the god argument is crafted so that you stop asking when you arrive to "god is absolute and beyond our understanding". From that point of view it could be an illegal chess move as you claim. But then, their "solid proof" is carried to the domain of personal experience: "I know god exists because I feel his presence". You can press on and keep arguing, but it's difficult from there on. In my experience debating god's existence with theists this was the only respectable argument I ever heard.

[@mattofborg]

I just wanted to comment that yes I was in it for the long haul. I listened to the whole 2 hours 30 minutes on Spotify in one sitting, a feat I didn’t achieve with Sam Harris. A long and fascinating conversation between my 2 favorite KZbinrs got me giddy, boy did it pay off, I loved it! Ps. Alex can you please come debate in Northern Ireland? Make it double better if you come to my school and make the debate of Sam Harris length so I miss half of school

[@Nickers19]

Such a thought-provoking episode☺️Thanks to you both for this gem of a discussion

[@alistair_maldacena]

Your voices sound so much the same that I'm having fun listening to this as an interior dialogue that a single person is having in his head

[@dutchthenightmonkey3457]

I can fully visualize that in my head like just not looking at the screen and imagining it as the same person I can see it

[@MegaBubble]

the one on the right speaks slightly faster and hits very slightly higher pitches :3

[@GrantH2606]

Perhaps your hearing or voice recognition isn't great. They sound totally different to me.

[@alistair_maldacena]

@@GrantH2606 Yes, you're right- the one on the right sounds like a 5 year old African American girl from a city in urban North America, while the one on the left sounds like a 107 year old Inuit shaman from one of the minor outlying Canadian islands. How could I have mistaken them? It's almost as if I don't even have ears.

[@GrantH2606]

@@alistair_maldacena Holy strawman.

[@santosateos1452]

A Christian asked me the same question: Why is there something instead of nothing? My answer was because "something" has always existed, there is no beginning. They told me that was not an answer. I asked them, "Can you tell me the answer then?" He said, "Well, it's logical that God created what exists. Who created God?" I asked, and he answered, "God has always existed."

[@4r1777]

I've had this same conversation. I don't get how this is so hard for some people to understand.

[@LukeC_03]

Material things aren't able to last forever, nor can they exist as an actual infinite in terms of amount. The universe (material world) is not infinitely old because of the big bang theory and its eventual heat death. The big bang implies that the universe had a beginning, and the heat death shows that if the universe is infinitely old, the heat death would've already happened. Modern physics doesn't confirm but points to the universe being finite in both size and age. But we know that something must have always existed, because if there was ever a period where there was truley nothing, then nothing could or will ever come into existence. So when we know that the universe and material things as a whole are temporary, but something must have been around forever, the concept of God doesn't seem too outlandish. Since it's outside of material things, it doesn't have to be bound by the same limits that material things are. It can realistically exist forever. This is why "who created God" isn't a viable question but "who created the universe is viable". One is finite and thus begs the question of a cause before it, and the other infinite and is a philosophical answer to the very first thing, because no one realistically believes in an infinite regress. Sorry if this was a bit much. Just letting you know why the response "God has always existed" technically works, while saying that the universe or material things has always existed doesn't so much.

[@vladtheemailer3223]

​@@LukeC_03Scientists don't think there was ever a literal nothing.

[@franciscoarturoriveranajer2500]

The thing Is that first "something" Is matter, space, and Time, those we know from science are not eternal, and happend to be "everything" in a materialist conception of the universe. If you add anything to that something, you are believing in "something" trascendent, but if you do not, you believe the first "something" comes out of nothing...

[@Caleb.trevivi]

If something has always existed, does that "Something" is God?

[@HACUNA89]

Love thier posh, English voices. So relaxing; 2 gentleman philosophising

[@therealzilch]

Why is there something rather than nothing? The late Daniel Dennett answered: why not? About our tendency to see agency where there is none: that's an evolved survival tactic. It's safer to mistake the sound of the wind for a bear than the other way around.

[@villainandproud9458]

I'm loving this collab.

[@oliver0408]

Damn. I have a Maths test tomorrow so need loads of self-control to not just procrastinate and watch this.

[@redefined4657]

More power to ya!

[@Cattus_Supreme]

Gonna reply to this comment to give you a notification to hopefully distract you.

[@xjoseph1]

One day won't make a difference

[@GeoffV-k1h]

Why does maths exist?

[@crazytuber4522]

WHAT'S THE PURPOSE?

[@JustME-ft4di]

This is like being back in the late 80s doing my philosophy degree & MA except this time I’m not stoned. Such excited little knowledge Terriers.

[@arrownibent5980]

This was one of my favorite discussions on your channel, just really spinning curiosity and sharing ideas it's pretty enjoyable

[@coffeedude]

Happy to see Joe back on the show!

[@vinyltherapy9410]

The tension in this one is insane!

[@Hangrier]

right????

[@Dark-Light_Ascendin]

By tension, mean bromance?

[@dobby2270]

@@Dark-Light_Ascendin*romance

[@jamescoconut1282]

I felt it too

[@Bodhinaut]

I came to the comments hoping to see intellectual discourse about the discussed topics…. Everyone: “oh my god they are so hot, and MUSTACHE” 🤦‍♀️

[@AshAll3469]

Reminds me of a high school classroom lol 😂😂😂

[@Steph756p]

Never expect intellectual discourse in a youtube comment section. Rooky mistake.

[@harrytowers1076]

@@Steph756prookie*

[@samuelcharles7642]

Yup, it’s pretty cringe

[@Durzo1259]

I was pretty surprised and disappointed by that too. But at least there's a little.

[@iamdanielmonroe]

The bait and switch with the fruit and vegetables question was legitimately hilarious 😂

[@barrow_3490]

"Oh, my.. this is a curious analogy" You mother-f... Got me!

[@pietanicev1044]

Thank you for the “NOT (A & NOT A)” editor your a real one lol

[@Yatornado]

1:14:23 "Why Has Atheism Never Worked on a Civilisational Level?". Well I can name several dozens failed theistic civilizations: maya, aztecs, african and south american tribes... And only about 5 succeded: legacy of greek and roman empires, asian, indian, assyrian empire. Therefore theism is much more likely a bad thing for civilization than it is a good thing. I'm pretty sure it'll work with any definition of civilization and success. Any definition will produce more failed theistic civilizations than succeded.

[@anthonyurrutia4754]

Counter point: Yes, not all theistic civilizations are successful, but all successful civilizations are theistic.

[@Yatornado]

@anthonyurrutia4754 That is just the original point from the video. I think you can't make any reasonable conclusion when you have no data. Just a bunch of silly ones. One might argue that civilization which has access to things like "perpetual motion" or "FTL engine" would be much more successful than any of existing, but can you name any such civilization? That leads us to the conclusion "civilization with cheap electricity due to perpetual motion is doomed, you'd better stop any inventor who works in that direction".

[@anthonyurrutia4754]

@@Yatornado That’s the point from the video but what you’re saying isn’t addressing the argument. From what I’m reading, you’re saying that because theistic civilizations fail more often than not, it can not be an “requirement” for a successful civilization and that it’s actually a sign a civilization is likely to fail looking at historical data. However, that doesn’t address the lack of successful non-theistic civilizations. That is the point that you have to address to have a successful argument.

[@anthonyurrutia4754]

@@Yatornado let’s use another example to prove my point. The point you’re trying to make is like saying “Every human that’s drank water has died. Therefore, it cannot be a requirement for life. There’s much more data supporting humans that have drank water have died than the inverse”

[@Yatornado]

@@anthonyurrutia4754 Exactly. I'm not making the point, I'm just showing how you can make up anything using the very same logic that the author of the original question uses. At the moment, it's just impossible to say if atheism/theism is good or bad for civilization. You can't just make a clone of civilization that is only different in relation to religiosity but has the same geography, people, neighbors, animals, plants, and other things that might contribute to success/failure. So any conclusion will be unreliable. Sorry if I made it way too subtle. I just think that the easiest way to point to a logical error is to make a contradicting conclusion using the very same logic. As for the water, too much water or water in a wrong place is just as deadly as not enough water. Not only water is a requirement for life, but it can also contribute to death. And we have enough data to back this up, unlike with religiosity. Religiosity is more like judging how would some matter created in labs for less than a second affect a human if it were stable. Like Oganesson 294. There are zero people who contacted it. And a lot of those who didn't.

[@livingexiled]

Myths don’t precede civilizations-they are created by them. They are stories that communicate the values of the people they originated from.

[@tyranmcgrathmnkklkl]

Would you say they're akin to modern superheroes in The Avengers, for example?

[@joshlongmusic]

How can you be sure what precedes civilization?

[@BaphomentIsAwsome666]

With out more information cant say but I think myths exist independent of civilization and life just taps into at a certain point in complexity.

[@KunouNoHana]

I think part of the problem with "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is the twofold issue of "What is nothing?" because any defining characteristic of "Nothing" would indicate that nothing is in fact something or else we couldn't define it, and "Why do you think nothing is a possible state?" given that once we HAVE defined nothing such that a theist is happy with what nothing means, the thing they've described is usually self contradicting and nonsensical.

[@dominiks5068]

you can very easily define it in first-order logic: nothing exists = it is not the case that there exists an x. this doesn't commit you to "something" at all.

[@davegold]

I think it is usually the atheist who reduces a grandiose creationist statement down to 'why is there something rather than nothing?', so it is down to the atheist to explain what something and nothing are.

[@KunouNoHana]

@@davegold That's not how discussion works. Definitions must be agreed upon, not supported. You're thinking of assertions.

[@davegold]

@@KunouNoHana That doesn't change my argument. The person who proposes a statement has to explain what they mean by that before statement before it can be agreed. It's usually the atheist who uses the 'why is there stuff?' argument rather than a theist who has a more religious statement.

[@KunouNoHana]

@@davegold I have never heard an atheist ask a theist why there is something rather than nothing. Mostly because we already know the answer is going to be "Because God did it." The video this comment is on is addressing "questions atheists can't answer" implying the question is being posed to atheists. You aren't making an argument, you're blatantly ignoring reality then asking me to defend something that barely even qualifies as a proper straw man.

[@hamhead2765]

I'm 61. And listening to these young men gives me hope 😊

[@opinion3742]

Hope of what?

[@ksan1648]

​@@opinion3742I think they're thinking something like "hope in the future." Too bad philosophy can't solve climate change.

[@hamhead2765]

@opinion3742 That the tide of anti intellectualism can be thwarted. Your comment almost took my hope away again 😆

[@kngsaj3570]

@@ksan1648😂😂

[@phillipstroll7385]

Don't waste you hope on this generation. These two are having philosophical discourse, but those watching can't think beyond the mustache and the pretty face. The viewing public only subscribe to take their opinions and make them their own. To pretend to be thinking people without actually being thinking people. All hope has been abandoned. It won't be until the beta of the gamma generation until things begin to turn around again. However, that's only if Trump wins this election. If he doesn't there won't be free thought or free speech ever again.

[@NicoSanchez-bz7he]

Freddie would be so proud Alex 👏

[@Morgalucci]

I think "why" is completely analogous to "how" in cases where there is no purpose behind an action. If I drop a pen on the floor, "how" is a mechanistic question, the answer being that i picked it up and let go. "Why" instead is a question of intention, "to what end" is analogous. Whereas if I point at a mountain and ask "why is it there?", that's the same thing as asking "how is it there?" as there was no decision/intention involved. Therefore, the question of "why is there something rather than nothing?" is the same thing as "HOW is there something rather than nothing?" unless you presuppose a purpose or concious decision behind the existence of the universe.

[@pierre0227]

If I were to ask why I was born and how I was born? I think the why is more about purpose if you ask me.

[@Tommyometer]

If you ask "why is the mountain there" it can mean "how" but more specifically why can dig deeper and usually implies purpose or intent even in this case

[@cyano741]

Everything has a function, down to the very last atom. There is a reason there are mechanisms of action and programmed genetic responses, gravity, etc. It all serves a specific purpose to uphold our reality. It is only natural to assume, our reality and this universe then also has a purpose, and functions to uphold something larger than that. The idea that outside of us, there is no cause, or greater purpose, goes completely against all of our reality and the logic behind it. Now, that does not mean the greater " zoomed out" purpose is God. It means that it could be anything. All we can assume, is that it's more complex than we can compute at this point in time.

[@LittleMAC78]

@@cyano741 "Everything has a function" is bordering on teleological. I would tweak that statement and say that "Everything that survives finds a function". Just on this planet alone, there have been countless species that have come and gone and that's only talking about the strongest, most evolutionarily suited to survival in the first place. Then, over the billions of years outside our own planet are stars exploding, wiping out their galaxies etc. If the teleological argument were the actual basis of our entire existence, there seems to be a heck of a lot of trial and error going on which seems odd from an alleged omnipotent entity.

[@JamesTaylor-je6es]

Great point. When there is no humanistic meaning, we serach for one.

[@thebelmont1995]

The universe is so finely tuned you cannot even live in 99.99999999% of it.

[@steve95188]

This is a terrible answer,you need to stop using it.

[@gina-ge2qz]

@@steve95188 and what’s your answer? let’s hear it

[@nicholasworsham7187]

@@steve95188what about it is bad?

[@steve95188]

@@nicholasworsham7187 the fine-tuning argument isn't about how much of the universe is habitable but rather how specific the laws of physics need to be for any life to exist at all. The argument focuses on the precise values of constants like the gravitational constant, the speed of light, and the strength of the strong nuclear force. If these values were slightly different, the universe as we know it (with galaxies, stars, and planets) wouldn't form, and life wouldn't be possible anywhere. the amount of the universe humans can inhabit is irrelevant to fine-tuning; instead, what matters is that the universe's laws allow life to exist in any capacity.

[@wessexexplorer]

It is great answer if you ever think about scale and objectivity. As far as the known universe is concerned it is entirely dead. Materiality is important in nearly facet of life that we consider. If only one planet has life upon it then the universe is materially dead. One can imagine a universe where life is abundant and can move about the universe without dying. Just imagine if the assistant in charge of you imagined knobs turned the haf baked universe from my imaginary abundant universe to the one we currently find ourselves in: the sole know example of life forever trapped in one of trillions of galaxies around a star that will eventually devour this planet. You would surely agree this universe is dead.

[@LucrismLukas]

Thank you Alex for paying tribute to Freddie

[@normxlfxm]

You guys work so well together and have such interesting conversations, I love it! I'm definitely gonna deep dive into any collaborations you've had in the past

[@HeidiHeidi-mh9ct]

Great to see Freddie Mercury doing so well..looking healthy.

[@darkpatches]

Is this the real life or is it just... Oh, you know.

[@hamster4618]

Freddy is a bit thin though.

[@opinion3742]

I thought I was watching two Stewart Lees who let themselves go.

[@DavidSmith-vr1nb]

​@@hamster4618 He couldn't get much thinner these days.

[@hamster4618]

@@DavidSmith-vr1nb 😂

[@joelonsdale]

Loved the conversation and I accept your moustache.

[@purpleniumowlbear2952]

You spelled “except” wrong

[@joelonsdale]

@@purpleniumowlbear2952 Chortle! Perhaps I did...

[@dutchthenightmonkey3457]

@@purpleniumowlbear2952based reply

[@kseniakostina4855]

Well, they are both so young, clever, curious and well-articulated, I truly believe we need A LOT more content like this on social media. In this crazy superficial consumerist world we don't really need to know the answers - we need to be able to start and maintain a conversation, read and discuss books, process ideas, learn how to formulate our thoughts, to come to something meaningful together. 🖤

[@Em_Bee7]

The podacast is so British that I became a colonizer.

[@realist8979]

😂😂😂😂😂

[@Johnnystammy]

It's English mate, our country's land is known as England.

[@Koyomix86]

@@JohnnystammyNo it isn’t only part of it is England

[@Redddragon]

@@Johnnystammy No

[@Chexsum]

we didnt start that game, we just became the most succesful

[@Botanifiles]

I don't understand why such a simple topic needs to be turned into such a complex one. In simple terms: The universe's ontologically paradoxical genesis from a seemingly vacuous nullity engenders an inextricable convolution of causality, rupturing epistemological frameworks and transcending the most abstruse postulates of metaphysical inquiry. Emerging ex nihilo from a primordial singularity enmeshed in the stochastic ballet of quantum fluctuations, it manifests as an entity wherein the dichotomous interplay of ephemerality and immutable constancy forms a dialectical synthesis of incomprehensible complexity. This ineffable cosmogonic inception intimates an esoteric metaphysical substratum, unveiling an ontic reality that eludes the gnostic apparatus of human cognition while gesturing toward dimensions of truth transcendent to the spatiotemporal continuum. There, was that so hard?

[@josmith9662]

the discussion could use a glossary if you have the time.

[@oofym353]

Too simple, try being more complex with your theories idiot.

[@connormcgee4711]

Can you describe what you refer to as the gnostic apparatus of the human cognition in even more simple terms?

[@themaskedman221]

Dude spent three hours writing a comment that tanked 🤣

[@samuelcharles7642]

@@themaskedman221😂😂

[@WaLTeRDeFiNiS]

To the question: "why is there something rather than nothing?" is not just a question just for atheists, you can ask that to the theists too, they assume about it too. It's just that the "why" ties it to a being, to a purpose, which is what religion is based on.

[@roarkemurdock3027]

I say this very same thing when I’m asked the something vs nothing question. The Bible says that God created Earth to display his glory, but why? If there is only one God then who is he displaying his glory too? He created me to admire his creation?

[@alexkiaii6548]

Thats not a true answer. What you arr pardoning is called "wishfull assumption" You hope god exists, you wish for him to be in existence. Yet nothin points towards him, or atleast what is given form snd explained about him. The assumption, there is no god. Is fundementally way more logical and rooted in knowledge, unlike the wishfull assumption that god exists.

[@cromi4194]

I think the question is misusing the concept of nothing. Negations are tools of thought, not realities in themselves. So I can say that I don't have a horse, or that there is no such thing as a spaghetti monster. But that doesn't imply that there is a reality called non-horse for instance. It's not like the place where a horse would have been, there is nothingness. The idea of a potential nothingness in place of existence doesn't mean anything because nothingness is not a realisable state. Nothing doesn't have an inherent meaning and thus the notion of a potential state of existence that is not is meaningless. Just because we have a word, doesn't mean that the word corresponds to reality. When we think about the question why is there something rather than nothing, we think of a blank canvas. But the blank canvas is not nothing, it's a blank canvas. Probably when we think of nothing, we imagine black space, but black space is not nothing but black space. We imply that the background of something is nothing, but that's just not the case. The background of something is also something. In short, nothing has no meaning and thus is not a valid description of a possible state of affairs.

[@ryanyoung8029]

The idea of God isn’t a wishful assumption, but using deductive reasoning to figure out the most reasonable solution to the evidence that exists.

[@alexkiaii6548]

@@ryanyoung8029 yet you cant prove that statement. God is per definition, a wishgull assumption. And not a needed logic. You are wishing for a god, so you define all to be from a god. Yet all examples you give of him, does not exist

[@saken]

I'm really glad you started with that question, and I think you began to get into some of its problems. The question is probably the best example our linear experiences of time (change) tricking us. "Nothing" is a purely abstract concept that was created from observations of things, not from observing a lack of things. Why should we assume existence can take the form of this concept? I think it's better to imagine existence as a fluctuating amorphous sphere that we are continuously walking along the inside of. As we traverse the sphere, the path we take looks like a line with a beginning and end. Existence as a whole is not the same, and that's the mistake that this question smuggles in. Time feels linear from our perspectives because we are traveling in it, but that's us observing the sphere fluctuating and us moving within as part of it. I think Wittgenstein would describe it as a language game problem, that we are being tricked into smashing concepts into a very different sized hole. "Nothing" isn't meant to = existence, it can only be accurately used in reference to existence, like to communicate something not being there. Matter/energy forms structures that we have concepts for, and disperses into others that we may not have concepts for, but it's never "becoming nothing".

[@kornklown420]

That last part, it reminds me of one of my favorite quotes (don't know who originally said this quote though). It goes something like "science does not deal in truths, that is the realm of religion, science only deals in reducing uncertainty". To say we have a "truth" is to say there is no more knowledge to be gained, it is to say "we know exactly how this works and we are done, wrap it up", but in science all knowledge is not only subject to, but expected to change and be updated as new information is found. Science is modest, whereas religion is arrogant and claims to have a source of all knowledge in the universe.

[@jimtrue1465]

I wish a theist would try to answer "Why is there a God?" Theists always seem to start with the assumption of God, without explaining why there is a god in the first place.

[@AbdulRehman-o2z4p]

And aren’t Atheist also assuming just like theist? Point is we don’t know what’s before big bang and we can’t know so there is no point. One is thinking of one, omnipotent, eternal being. Someone is thinking universe is Eternal Someone thinks we come out of nothing and Religious people all are idiots Someone think in infinity of chain of contingent being, asking why not? Someone saying God isn’t required for universe existence cause universe is self existing Someone thing necessary being -> God -> ? Someone think there is 1 God in 3 Persons with each 100% God and dependent of other other yet independent Someone think stuff just pop out Someone think Contingent being created from Continent being and there cycle This will go on….. Each one of them have faith in there respective ideas -> Either anyone get this with lucky shot or they all are assuming -> There is no difference in atheist (many) and theist What will they even take out of this If you really wanna test which religion is true just read their book and see which suits you. If people could have got this this, there would be no holy books. They don’t read it and say we are finding God -> hmmmm, Assumptions aren’t bad -> You can’t tell for certainty then there is no point in assuming what you don’t know. Rather a waste of time, I would say religion has its own benefit for human like discipline and etc. -> Sometime when you feel like agnostic, idk but feels like your life is purposeless. Even though I’m Muslim but I have reasons. I mean, isn’t this just the best bet out of each main religion. If there is a God, Islam is best choice and from personal experience At least, if God does, I hope I won’t go to Hell.

[@jimtrue1465]

@@AbdulRehman-o2z4p I can't speak for all atheists. Just for myself. But no, I don't assume anything. I deal just with what is known. What bothers me about many theists is they will say something like, "If you don't know what caused something, then why can't it be God that caused it." That is a logical falacy because the existence of that alleged God has not been established. You mentioned the various holy books. The problem there is every single one of them was written by men based on their own assumptions. So you can't take any of them as accurate. Theists will often state, "Everything that had a beginning had to have a creator." I will ask them who created God? and they will respond that God is eternal. My reaction to that is if you have to assume something is eternal, then why not just take the simpler step and assume the universe and its laws are eternal? No one ever stated the Big Bang was the beginning of everything...we just don't know (and may never know) what occurred before the Big Bang. And finally, unlike most theists I've met, I'm comfortable in admitting there are things we just don't know. That doesn't mean I have to assume God.

[@AbdulRehman-o2z4p]

@@jimtrue1465 Yes!

[@AbdulRehman-o2z4p]

@@jimtrue1465 While Everything that has a beginning does have a creator Given that it was created -> Doesn’t mean creator is only a single thing. Even though I don’t call I am some master of this area. I’m a CS student so you could tell and tell me that I made some mistake! While creator could be one thing in sense like because of Big Bang, our life’s were possible. You can just say everything we observe right now is somewhat created by Big Banh or maybe like originated in more like metaphorical way

[@giuoco]

1:38:50 I’m glad quantum physics was at least brought up. The gaping hole in Philosophy is understanding of physics. This is why the most revolutionary modern philosophers imo were part-physicists or mathematicians. “Common sense” intuitive philosophers like Alex can only go so far. A true Understanding of reality (this includes the “spirit” as Hegel calls it) requires a grounding in science and scientific thought… especially physics and mathematics. (Since Biology can be pretty common sense and has been covered well under evolutionary theory, and chemistry is just a more technical explanation of biology, and physics is just an explanation of Chemistry, and maths lies at the heart of physics. So once you grasp math and physics, the rest just falls into place)

[@wangsunfuh8889]

In theory, but physics hasn't found even all three body solutions and any higher order system >> 3 bodies. Black box abstractions are all science will ever be.

[@giuoco]

@@wangsunfuh8889 that’s irrelevant to what I’m pointing out. A lack of understand of physics and maths makes one’s worldview not only incomplete but necessarily incompetent.

[@sincerelybells_]

YAYY!!! Two of some of my most favourite modern thinkers!!

[@TheDeanOfTheJets]

As the Angel said to Mary…”Nothing is impossible with God”. The concept of Nothing is inconceivable to an entity that IS. We literally cannot conceive of it, because any conception is Something. But “Nothing” is IMPOSSIBLE. Not just in conception, but in actuality. There is Being. That is all we know. Everything we know epistemologically doesn’t stem from the material world. It comes from our BEING. An “I am” can be an observer, and is an artifact of Being.

[@Red1Revival]

btw, empty space is not actually empty as in nothing. empty space has fields passing through it. quantum fluctuations and virtual particles coming into and out of existence happens in empty space so it's not empty like there's nothing. space is a something.

[@Pedanta]

I think that was their point They discussed how physicists often blur the line, by calling "something" (that is, a vacuum still with the laws of physics and sometimes including spacetime) "nothing". A vacuum is not true nothing. Nothing is what rocks dream of.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

well, what has perplexed me is we have photos of a single atom, in which case what is it "in"? if there's something there it can't be a single atom can it? or is it a single atom of X suspended in atoms of Y ?

[@JNB0723]

empty space also is flooded with dark energy, which is a characteristic of the space itself.

[@Pedanta]

@@HarryNicNicholas it's in spacetime

[@favournnamdi2883]

The Universe, space-time continuum and all that hada beginning. That is the point. And they are all something. Which means from the atheist perspective, nothing was before something. I don't know how they can conceptualize "nothing" though. That is left to them. Only when they agree that God exists can they get piece of mind.

[@changez77654]

Question that Atheists will struggle to answer: Why under Alex's nose is there a moustache rather than nothing?

[@iAtheist4Life]

😆

[@likedebia4693]

Because god made all His creations perfect

[@SeaPear0]

damn, I think I'm gonna convert

[@robertnovoa341]

Because even though he has the will and the decisiveness to have a mustache or not to have a mustache - he does Not have the will to come to God, God has to put that will to come to God in him. Notwithstanding, God is not far from any one of us, because in Him we live and move and have our being_ we are The offspring of God. God has done it this way so that perhaps we might reach out for Him, and try to feel for Him and find Him. Jesus said "No man can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him or her to me, and gives them the desire to come to Me. And I will raise them up at the last Day. And all that the Father has given to me will come to Me, and I will lose none , but raise them up at the last Day. And anyone who comes to me I will in no wise cast out. And no one can come to the God except through me. My Father and I are One."

[@DMasterChifu]

@@robertnovoa341 please be shitposting, please be shitposting...

[@lllULTIMATEMASTERlll]

The IQ bell curve meme is becoming my favorite format because the more I keep learning about things the more I believe that all the tools we develop to answer difficult questions only help in special cases. Much of the time, all the knowledge does is allow us to formalize, define terms, and ask questions better.

[@se7enhaender]

So nice of Alex's mustache to bring Alex along.

[@werdnarotcorp8991]

Last Question. Just because something is apparently extremely improbable does not mean that it cannot or hasn't happened. This is a classic misuse of statistics. Imagine I am in central London and I decide to go for walk but at every junction I flip a coin, heads left and tails right. I do this 100 times. I end up in a small town near a Starbucks and go in for a Latte. How long will it take for someone to join me for a drink? Answer is more or less forever. The probaility is 2^100 to 1 or about 10^31 to 1. It does not matter that you send the entire population earth after me the probabbility that anyone will join me is essentially zero. But I am here in the cafe drinking a very expoensive coffee for a very long time. We are here because the constants are what they are and we may be the 10^91 th attempt, we don't know, but getting here for me was not in any way strange at all.

[@wangsunfuh8889]

@matthewphilip1977 1024 = 2^10 ~ 10^3 = 1000

[@DartNoobo]

So it possible and entirely believable for you that 6 monkeys behind typewriters could reproduce works of Shakespeare, Tolsotoy, Sartre and Nizshe without making a single mistake? Or did I misunderstand your message?

[@timothymckenzie7642]

Given an infinite number of attempts, it is not only likely for this to be the case, it's entirely plausible that this is not the only universe that exists with such fine tuning.

[@DartNoobo]

@timothymckenzie7642 given an infinite number of attempts? Given by whom exactly?

[@PolarSuntherapy]

Freddie would be proud of your mustache

[@salvora75]

@CosmicSkeptic - great discussion, thank you very much. On fine-tuning, I was disappointed that you discarded chance as ludicrous. Improbable does not mean impossible. And if you add more "tries", probability increases.

[@LucrismLukas]

Alex honoring Freddie mercury with that mustache

[@mgwright56]

Was God bored to tears watching the universe for the first 13 billion years?

[@JimmieFulton]

And if one argues that time flies much faster for “him”, then does he really care about or hear the prayers of individual humans?

[@mgwright56]

@@JimmieFulton I find that response quite funny.

[@anthonyurrutia4754]

@@JimmieFultonhe exists outside of time, so it doesn’t move fast or slow to him. It’s all happening at once which is inconceivable to us humans who are bound to time.

[@MrCmon113]

No one to command around, no foreskins, no sacrifices. Must have sucked. Imagine your one defining character trait is that you're desperate for outside gratification and you're alone with your thoughts for billions of years. Maybe that drove him mad.

[@MrCmon113]

​@@anthonyurrutia4754In that case it's not a "he", it can't create or do anything and it doesn't have interests or goals. The "outside of time" thing is a stupid excuse that never gets applied consistently.

[@bulhakov]

The best answer to the fine tunning argument is a bit sarcastic "Look at the puddle wondering how the hole in the ground was made just so perfectly to accomodate it."

[@LittleMAC78]

The most ironic apologist for the Fine Tuning Argument was in one of Alex's early response videos where a very fair haired, pale skinned gentlemen asked the very question: "Why is everything so finely tuned?". The original video no longer exists but I think Alex's response is still around somewhere. The part I found ironic was that this particular Northern English gentlemen (I want to say he was Mancunian but I'm not sure!) was recording his video outdoors on quite a sunny day but had to have a hat on, sunscreen etc because of his complexion. How exactly is the universe, with the greatest of respect to this fellow human that he is, 'finely tuned' for his existence?

[@LittleMAC78]

@@MarkPatmos the puddle is conscious but has no mouth so can't reply!

[@LittleMAC78]

@bulhakov I also adapt Douglas Adams' puddle analogy to refute 'God of the gaps'. The hole in the ground wasn't made for the puddle, the puddle just stretches out to fill in whatever it can but only the correct material (knowledge) BELONGS in that gap.

[@wingedlion17]

I think rhetorically, this is a cute response but I don’t think it is analogous. Fine tuning does not argue that beautiful structures we see in nature or galaxy shapes or other seemingly designed things must be designed, it’s more of a question of the unique character of conscious living beings, capable of abstract things like art, love etc, arising from this strict set of laws. I’m not christian or religious but the argument is not easily dismissed. It may be closer to a teleological issue though.

[@YarrowPressburg]

Amazing deep conversation, sad most comments are so shallow. Thanks you guys great clear and constructive discussion.

[@Kenjuudo]

Finally. I had to really dig to find a reasonable comment.

[@davepubliday6410]

“Why is there something rather than nothing?” - The question is answered with another question: “What does that have to do with whether God exists or not?”

[@roytee3127]

Their answer: the something had to be created by a Something that's greater than the created something. They then define that greater Something as God. (Without any credible claims for the characteristics of that Something. And they make the enormous leap of faith to identify it with the character in the Bible.)

[@valjohnson7112]

how does that answer the question lol? i dont believe in god but i still wonder why there is something rather than nothing.

[@davepubliday6410]

@@valjohnson7112 I was trying to point out that the question is stupid. Both deists and atheists can not answer this question. The context that “only atheists can’t answer this”, is inferring that deists can answer the question. Whether you are an atheist or not, you still can not definitively answer the question why is there something. Deists saying God created everything just push it back one step further, but still can’t answer why is there a God without just saying “because there is”.

[@dylanboczar999]

@@valjohnson7112 it's not an answer in the sense of "answering the question", I think they meant answer as-in "responding to the statement/implied argument"

[@kaydll]

​@@valjohnson7112 My point of view is that if u define something as '' what is, was or will be '' and nothing as '' what isnt, never was and never will be '' then something is an inherent part of reality regardless of a creator existing or not. Since reality is the uncaused necesary cause (also inherent, even if there was a personal god, it would need a reality to ''be'' in) and something is what ''is'' we can conclude that nothing is an oxymoron and the only viable way of existing is in the state of non nothingness. Basically nothingness is like a square circle, there could'nt be existence with ''nothing'' in it

[@coffeedude]

Not gonna lie, the stache is growing on me

[@Thalefrastus]

Well actually, it’s growing on him.. 🙄😏

[@Elijah-qx3qn]

you're not welcome here

[@AdamSmith-de5oh]

No

[@Ca0530]

no, it’s growing on alex

[@fly8668]

No no

[@Durzo1259]

If true nothingness is the default starting point of existence (and we don't know it is), how exactly does God fix that? Their answer is, "because something outside of existence must have started it." Okay... something. Why is that something by default a conscious being and not a natural process from another universe or higher dimension? Hawking's theory that our universe is the center of a black hole explains it too: the universe started when the black hole started. Where do you get the nature of that something's existence being a conscious being?

[@wangsunfuh8889]

Higher dimension is not a good description in this sense, because it begets extension. It would be closer to say a 0-dimension. In either scenario however, you get effectively a god via supernatural conduction into the universe. Like a simulation universe, a regular programmer dude in the other universe is a god to this one.

[@AbdulRehman-o2z4p]

How do you even define true nothingness, and how do you know true nothingness has the property of popping out universe? You have choice of something always existed or nothing always existed. Both can’t be true. And I think something always existed is more logical btw in term of literal sense. And you asked why is it conscious? I mean you can’t give an answer to it! But what is the proof that it is not? If natural process as you meant another universe or higher dimension. Cause I don’t know about dimensions o won’t discuss. What do you mean by another universe? Is it something itself having space/time properties? Most accepted theory is Big Bang, that all matter was once in a Joined-State at extremely high temperature. There is no answer to what was before it or scientists can’t answer that. Question remains from curiosity that Did this Joined-Entity always[Assuming] existed? Why did it even blasted when time itself is the property after the Big Bang if I’m not mistaken? Even though Quran mentioned it 1400 years ago through prophet Muhammad s.a.w and btw he couldn’t read nor write and wasn’t from scientific background and was living in deserts Quran: “Didn’t the disbeliever knew that heavens and Earths were once one [Joined-Entity] and We separated them with powerful force and We are it’s expander and We made/originated from water every living being then will they not believe?” Mentions -> Big Bang very well -> Expansion of universe -> All life originated from water “We” is used as royal or with respect for single being in Arabic and not many! It’s just English translate it as We for royal thing but in Arabic respect is being given to single person! Idk about English cause My English ain’t Good

[@Durzo1259]

@@AbdulRehman-o2z4p Your English is actually pretty good. *"How do you even define true nothingness?"* A state with zero energy, but we don't know if zero energy was ever a thing. *"And you asked why is it conscious? I mean you can’t give an answer to it! But what is the proof that it is not?"* There's no proof that it isn't conscious, but then there's no proof that leprechauns don't exist, there's just no evidence for them. With no evidence, there's no reason to believe in them. "What do you mean by another universe? Is it something itself having space/time properties?" Hawking's theory is that a sun collapsed and formed a black hole and the center of that black hole became our universe. We know the center of a black hole becomes a point of infinite energy and density, just like the start of our universe. We don't know if he's right, but it's one of many possibilities that don't require God. *"Why did it even blasted when time itself is the property after the Big Bang if I’m not mistaken?"* Time in our universe began with the Big Bang, but if we're the center of a black hole in another universe, time was already going in that universe, then the black hole formation started the new space-time continuum of our universe. *Quran: “Didn’t the disbeliever knew that heavens and Earths were once one [Joined-Entity] and We separated them with powerful force and We are it’s expander and We made/originated from water every living being then will they not believe? Mentions -> Big Bang very well -> Expansion of universe -> All life originated from water* It looks the the Quran got it right. The ancient Chinese religion of Taoism also said something similar. But then there are over 4,000 religions, all with different theories about how the universe and life started; some of them were bound to guess the right answer. Life originating from water is a natural assumption given that all life requires water to live.

[@ambinintsoahasina]

Waaaaaaitttt! Unsolicited advice is doing cooperations now! Something I didn't know I needed but I do

[@PolarSuntherapy]

Love the Freddie mercury mustache

[@the_0ther_0ne_59]

I am an Orthodox Christian, and I love seeing you wrestling your beliefs too.

[@SeaPear0]

hoooooow? this must sound incredibly dumb to you, how tf do you watch it? when I watch a christian say god always was, is and always will be and think they're cooking I get so fucking pissed off, and you're just watching these guys trying to not admit they can't answer why there is something rather than nothing and you're like I love it wtfffffff

[@TurinTuramber]

Naturally, Atheists want truth not expediency. If theists think too hard about their position then they might unravel.

[@Deluxuz]

Are you remembering to do the same?

[@SeaPear0]

@@Deluxuz r u responding to me cause somehow my reply isn't here

[@theredeemeriam]

​@Deluxuz He doesn't have too, God exists. All he has to wrestle with is who is his Father, who is his Christ, and more importantly, who you all are and why you are here.

[@petergreen3578]

I’m a Christian pastor of college students (with a PhD in Biblical Theology) and I love listening to Alex’s conversations. Truth at all costs, tribal loyalties be damned. Fwiw, though, with respect to the comments about ineffability, within my own circles (conservative Reformed/Presbyterian) and in my own teaching, it is common to talk about how Christianity is unique in having a God who is fully immanent and fully transcendent and how both are essential for explaining things in reality we all take for granted. Check out “Biblical Critical Theory” by Christopher Watkins.

[@rome5628]

God Bless you, in Jesus name!

[@josh.kaptur]

Thoroughly enjoy the integrity and humility with which you both engaged. Like your final “most questions” commenter suggests, it’s truly a shame there are not more voices from the thrust camp with similar philosophical humility/integrity vs presuppositional dogma that must be defended at all costs.

[@fredbob7169]

"Questions no one can answer the way i want them to."

[@trentotts]

😂

[@aisthpaoitht]

Lol, atheists turning on each other

[@eastpoetry]

Isnt the answer to the the first question, Why is there something rather then nothing" (Alex brushed on this... but didnt quite take it all the way home) answered by this simple logic? You see... if you REALLY think about it... the only way for there to be truly Nothing... is if and only if, there IS EVERYTHING. You see... with there being EVERYTHING, this leaves no room for there to BE nothing... which... in essence, is what Nothing wants.

[@beanosthe26th19]

You may be right, but I think it is the other way around. The only way for there to be nothing is for there to actually be nothing. The existence of something automatically gets rid of the possibility of there being nothing, because something exists. With the existence of something, nothing is separated from something, and by "separating" it and defining it, it is now inherently something. Your interpretation is still clever nonetheless, and you very well might be right.

[@EastTactics]

😉

[@davido566]

Buddhist civilizations exist without caring if god exists. Non- theistic

[@briobarb8525]

And that is why they are calm and sane. 😅

[@Detson404]

They are the least crazy of the theists. Not they there aren’t Buddhist hate crimes because Buddhists are still humans and humans are jerks sometimes.

[@MrXeCute]

Like in Myanmar? Every religion can be compromised and abused... ;-)

[@mohammadzaarour7949]

​@@MrXeCuteis it religious in nature or just ethnonationalism at play

[@eprd313]

​@@briobarb8525 nah, they aren't. The Dalai Lama had slaves, and that's one of the reasons why secular Tibetans sought help from the Chinese.

[@EpicMathTime]

9:15 We do not say "the empty set" for "nothing". We say it for the set that contains nothing. It is a mathematical structure whose existence is axiomatic in set theory. It's not nothing, it never claimed to be nothing. If it was meant to be nothing, then {∅} wouldn't have cardinality 1.

[@blijebij]

I really enjoyed this conversation. Nothing, of course, cannot be imagined by anyone. It’s not simply a matter of lacking direct experience with nothing, and nothing is certainly not as simple as an empty set, I agree on that. Logic is a beautiful tool set. In the context of this conversation about defining nothingness, employing a diverse set of logical tools can help dissect and understand these profound concepts from multiple angles. Whether you're using formal logic to structure your arguments or informal logic to engage with broader philosophical discourse, the richness of logic as a tool set enhances the robustness of your philosophical inquiries. To understand nothing (to some degree), we first need to comprehend something.

[@johne1743]

there is no answer to the why questions. The answer is always how. Richard feynman explains this really well.

[@Mayadanava]

What a silly claim. We derive how from why.

[@melancholymoshpit]

@@Mayadanava I think they mean "why" as it relates to intention.

[@Mayadanava]

@@melancholymoshpit why is a teleological statement, as opposed to a limited casual statement. E.g. That X, caused y. Then what causes X and etc. They have distinctive meaning and humans start with why. The methodology of modern science is to strip that to how. Why is the sky blue is not the question of how the sky blue.

[@eprd313]

​@@Mayadanavaat the end behind every why there's a how for why such why came to be. There's a point where it becomes evident that intention is bound by causality and therefore all whys are contingent, while hows aren't.

[@Mayadanava]

​@@eprd313 you have that reversed. Physics cannot ever explain why physics, you are asking for a cause in the effect. How is metre reading and making limited predictive models that human minds are capable of interacting with. At best it is making limited predive models. All how's are predicated on a why. A How question can only have a infinite regress. Or end in a how. One must declare one set of assumptions to be true for the purposes of setting up the metres (the parameters of the question, the units of measurement, and etc etc) e.g. a how from a why. E.G. Can we use space time to describe what caused space time? No. Both space and time have a cause, but are not present in the cause. We model the world to be available to the human mind the human mind asks why questions. Or ends in Why questions.

[@temmaxtemma9570]

I believe Alex is a Viltrumite!

[@leviathanv3135]

He’s rather malnourished

[@ShireTown1824]

The moustache is coming in strong, love it

[@sexy1735]

No you don't

[@jesse1008]

“ nothing “ might as well be as meaningful as gobilygoop. I think when we talk about nothing, we don’t know what we’re talking about.

[@jeff__w]

“…there's never been a successful civilization that hasn't had some kind of like mythological founding” “If I get 100 people together on a dessert island, I'm sure they're going to form religion.” Rather famously, the Pirahã people, a small group of Amazonian foragers, between 500-1000 people, who live around the Maici River in the northern Brazilian state of Amazonas, do not have a deity, have no creation myth and have no need of a god.

[@wangsunfuh8889]

They belief in spirits and animism lol

[@EricBryant-k8t]

My guess is that these 100 people would be too busy eating their pudding to worry about myths.

[@brenatevi]

"Why does the universe exist?" "Because shit happens."

[@ExistenceUniversity]

Better answer: "Because shit can not not happen"

[@bobSeigar]

Parmenides level of notting​@@ExistenceUniversity

[@Olyfrun]

This has widely been seen as a bad move.

[@laapache1]

I knew plato wasn't dead

[@TurinTuramber]

A universe always will exist whenever someone is asking such questions. There is no other scenario.

[@infidelcastro5129]

Hey Alex. Notice how Joe doesn’t have a 70s porn moustache? 😂

[@Nancy20012]

😂😂

[@redmed10]

Everybody had a tache in the 70s. Try looking at any other sort of media from 70s apart from porn and you'll see what I mean.

[@De_Selby]

That's craaaaazy

[@CMA418]

The stache is a red herring. Something else is afoot.

[@ChrisLee-yr7tz]

😂😂😂😂

[@BrianBrayMedia]

As an atheist I can answer all these questions: "I don't know. And neither do you."

[@hugomarx1324]

Queen needs a new frontman, Alex definitely looks the part. 👨