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]

😀

[@joegallegos9109]

🤣🤣🤣 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

[@callumsharman4980]

You guys have phenomenal chemistry

[@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😏

[@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

[@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 ?

[@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

[@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.

[@MindShift-Brandon]

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

[@Nighthawkinlight]

Thanks for taking my question on consciousness. Much appreciated

[@jinx5349]

Hi! ✌️🙂

[@jinx5349]

Love your videos...😊

[@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.

[@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

[@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

[@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

[@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?

[@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.

[@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.

[@rawcopper604]

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

[@simonbastrup486]

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

[@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.

[@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

[@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.

[@j0s3phXO]

One day won't make a difference

[@GeoffV-k1h]

Why does maths exist?

[@crazytuber4522]

WHAT'S THE PURPOSE?

[@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.

[@kevinod771]

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

[@fredbob7169]

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

[@trentotts]

😂

[@alistairmaleficent8776]

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.

[@alistairmaleficent8776]

@@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]

@@alistairmaleficent8776 Holy strawman.

[@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.

[@vinyltherapy9410]

The tension in this one is insane!

[@Hangrier]

right????

[@DarkLight-Ascending]

By tension, mean bromance?

[@dobby2270]

@@DarkLight-Ascending*romance

[@jamescoconut1282]

I felt it too

[@arrownibent5980]

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

[@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.

[@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.

[@HACUNA89]

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

[@livingexiled]

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

[@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 😂😂😂

[@Har9000]

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

[@harrytowers1076]

@@Har9000rookie*

[@samuelcharles7642]

Yup, it’s pretty cringe

[@Durzo1259]

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

[@villainandproud9458]

I'm loving this collab.

[@coffeedude]

Happy to see Joe back on the show!

[@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.

[@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!

[@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 😂

[@LucrismLukas]

Thank you Alex for paying tribute to Freddie

[@gustavbruunkjr5123]

This was the most intellectually/philosophically stimulating piece of content I've seen in a pong while! Great episode Alex. I loved it The way in which a lot of the time you're functionally taking the theist time in the debate/back-and-forth, just works so beautifully.

[@NicoSanchez-bz7he]

Freddie would be so proud Alex 👏

[@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

[@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.

[@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.

[@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

[@pietanicev1044]

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

[@BlazyBob1]

Amazing episode with two of my favorite philosophers on KZbin! I’ve been thinking a lot about most of those exact questions, and I obviously don’t have any answers, but I do think there are avenues of thought that open up possibilities that you guys may not be aware of… For Alex’s growing interest in consciousness and Joe’s interest in the deep epistemological and metaphysical questions, I think this could be a journey well-worth a deep-dive: Drawing from my own path in philosophy in the last year, the fields and positions that helped me the most in feeling like I got a little bit of a deeper insight each time are the ones that are dedicated to very closely examining the human experience, qualia, the “subjective” - those are fields like cognitive science (especially the work of John Vervaeke), psychology (especially phenomenology, humanistic psychology, evolutionary psychology, developmental psychology, a certain strand of behaviorism, neuroscience and neurobiology), and then in philosophy there are huge sources of insights in phenomenology and eastern philosophies and religious traditions - especially the non-theistic ones, such as Advaita Vedanta, certain strands of Buddhism and Taoism. To me, Advaita Vedanta was especially foundational for understanding very interesting ways in which atheism and theism might be conciliated, and I highly recommend it if you’re interested in exploring consciousness and the nature of human experience, and how that could relate to metaphysics, although I am skeptical of the metaphysical bit. I don’t think we can get very far if we don’t pay attention to the one doing philosophy, you, or I, the philosopher who experiences sensations and thoughts. That’s why I think it’s essential for a philosopher to take an interest in psychology and phenomenology, and for a theologian to take an interest in eastern and non-theistic conceptions of the divine. If I was gonna suggest a path, I’d suggest one similar to mine because it’s the one I’ve had access to: watch the conversations between John Vervaeke and Bernardo Kastrup on the Theories of Everything channel, then the conversation between Kastrup and Michael James on Sri Ramana Maharshi’s metaphysics. Then, take a deep dive into Advaita Vedanta with Swami Sarvapriyananda in the New York Vedanta Society YT channel. Finally, top it off reading A. H. Maslow’s original works (at least his paper “A Theory of Human Motivation”) and Scott Barry Kaufman’s reimagining of Maslow’s hierarchy of human needs, especially the part about the overarching Having-Mode and Being-Mode, which are ideas from Erich Fromm. All throughout this, watch John Vervaeke’s series “Awakening from the meaning crisis”. Oh, and check Michael Levin’s work on bioelectricity and collective intelligence on TOE. That should get you to think about these ideas in a possibly deeper way, and you may find answers to important questions you weren’t even considering before you started.

[@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

[@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

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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]

😂😂😂😂

[@sincerelybells_]

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

[@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.

[@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

[@joelonsdale]

Loved the conversation and I accept your moustache.

[@purpleniumowlbear2952]

You spelled “except” wrong

[@joelonsdale]

@@purpleniumowlbear2952 Chortle! Perhaps I did...

[@dutchthenightmonkey3457]

@@purpleniumowlbear2952based reply

[@tlSdaed]

This was just great! Love listening to these kinds of conversations when on the go.

[@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...

[@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😂😂

[@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.

[@davidramos5559]

Great video, on the more superficial level, you are looking great Alex, love the look

[@hugomarx1324]

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

[@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.

[@EzaleaGraves]

Here's a question athiests can't answer: When is my dad coming home? 😢

[@snyggmikael]

My two current favorite youtubers together 👍😊 excellent

[@PolarSuntherapy]

Freddie would be proud of your mustache

[@se7enhaender]

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

[@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

[@theDanishMermaid]

Love your programs, One big learning opportunity Thanks❤

[@usavietnamesetranslationse8078]

There are thousands of questions atheists can’t answer. At least not yet. But instead of saying “God did it”, which is not an answer, they are willing to work hard to find a real, scientific answers.

[@villhelm]

Science can’t answer the question of meaning. and it can never truly map the universe because it’s reductionist in nature. You can’t understand the meaning or feeling of music by studting the mathematical properties or patterns of musical notes. Atheism only works if you think the universe is material rather than non material (mental) in nature. There is nothing in modern science that agrees with the notion that the world is fundamentally material in nature.

[@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]

😉

[@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.

[@ambinintsoahasina]

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

[@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.

[@LucrismLukas]

Alex honoring Freddie mercury with that mustache

[@djpinkteddy]

STOP THE MUSTACHE SLANDER!! we stan 😤🙏🏻

[@ionasmith1998]

Yeah I think he’s still fine af tbh

[@michaelh878]

It is awful.

[@x1PMac1x]

Love these longer episodes!

[@PolarSuntherapy]

Love the Freddie mercury mustache

[@mithilbhoras5951]

Guys, I can't handle so much heat from two handsome and smart men 🤤

[@Wulk]

If all philosophers look like this the Greeks were so right to do the stuff they did back then lol

[@gorilmod9667]

So true

[@tracik1277]

@@Wulkthe Greeks did it naked tho

[@Har9000]

​@@WulkNot sure how this justifies pediastry but w/e

[@阳明子]

@@Wulk oh my goodness lmao

[@temmaxtemma9570]

I believe Alex is a Viltrumite!

[@leviathanv3135]

He’s rather malnourished

[@NeuroPulse]

As a former militant atheist I really enjoyed your engagement with the question at 1:14:37 That issue is what made me second guess my youthful battle against religion.

[@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.

[@ShireTown1824]

The moustache is coming in strong, love it

[@sexy1735]

No you don't

[@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.

[@paulinthailand]

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

[@idimonemidam]

If "nothing" is the absence of "something" and "something" is the opposite of "nothing," then "nothing" and "something" are both possible simultaneously. That means all the things that do not exist represent "nothing," while all the things that exist represent "something." This means boths "something" and "nothing" are infinite, and therefore, the universe is infinite and exists eternally. Both "nothing" and "something" are necessary, and one can not be without the other. Considering the way the universe is, i think this is what it is.

[@linkbrown6012]

something can be something without nothing. Heat can exist without cold, and cold its just the abscense of heat. Universe didnt create God so to the universe be eternal. God must be something He didn't create, so pantheism cant exist. However, u explained almost perfectly not the "why" of the universe, but the logic of the existence of God. Also, the interview its very long, ill see it later, but, can u resume it for me? Im curious to know.

[@darrylelam256]

I want to know why theists think that such simply questions cannot be answered by an atheist. Because I have heard many theists claim there are questions we can't answer but I have been able to answer all of their questions. 1 "Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing?" Why would there be nothing rather then something? They seem to think that nothing has to be the default and they talk about a type of nothing that to me understanding isn't possible. 2 "Atheists Can’t Answer ‘Why’ Questions" We can answer why questions just fine, but sometimes the questions are just wrong. 3 "Atheists Can't Get an ‘Ought’ From An ‘Is’" But we can, all that is need is a goal one is trying to achieve. If you want to achieve a goal then there are things you ought to do and you get that from an is. 4 "How to Explain Sensus Divinitatus" The idea that there is some innate sense of a god, it doesn't exist. Its something that the religious made up to push their religious ideas. 5 "Why Has Atheism Never Worked on a Civilisational Level?" But it kind of already does. The most secular countries often score highest on happiness. Even here in the US when we are rules but secular laws we do better. 6 "Trusting Human Rationality as a Guide to Truth" Product of evolution. Our minds developed process data and those who processed data better then others had higher chances of passing down their genes. We also understand that our rationality is far from prefect so we developed things like the Scientific Method to help spot and correct our rationality when its faulty. 7 "Where Do the Laws of Logic Come From?" Humans, its just human describing how our thought processes work. 8 "What is Consciousness?" Its an emergence property of the brain, often used in a number of different ways but typically used to talk about our sense of awareness. 9 "How Atheists Respond to Fine-Tuning" Its a trash argument. Its some people looking at the world around us and not understanding how any of it could of happened. While the universe may look fine-tuned to one people doesn't look fine-tuned to another and just because to looks fine-tuned to some people or even if it looked fine-tuned to everyone, it wouldn't mean that it was fine-tuned. There you go 9 questions answered rather easily

[@Jake-mv7yo]

I will also answer them. 1. "Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing?" F*** you that's why 2. "Atheists Can’t Answer ‘Why’ Questions" Why do I have to? 3. "Atheists Can't Get an ‘Ought’ From An ‘Is’" Don't need it 4. "How to Explain Sensus Divinitatus" Take your meds 5. "Why Has Atheism Never Worked on a Civilisational Level?" Communism doesn't count. They were just replacing the existing power structure with their own people. 6. "Trusting Human Rationality as a Guide to Truth" Everyone does this including religious people. It's like asking why do we breathe. 7. "Where Do the Laws of Logic Come From?" It doesn't "come from" anything. It is like asking where pi comes from. 8. "What is Consciousness?" chemicals 9. "How Atheists Respond to Fine-Tuning" We live with a bunch of rube goldberg machines. This is an argument against intelligent design if anything.

[@laureelohnes4231]

😂

[@kengregory413]

Thank you for this. While I enjoyed the video I kept thinking the same thing and had very similar answers to yours.

[@wangsunfuh8889]

1. Pretends question doesn't matter 2. Non-specific and doesn't address the question 3. Goals follow from oughts. 4. I don't know the context of sensus divinitatus, but a similar question can be restated about all transcendental elements of experience, for example, the continuity of consciousness, the me ten years ago is the me in this moment and is the me into the future. 5. Non-specific. Chooses countries that were historically christian and are all on the downslide since mass government indoctrination. 6. Evolution is only a concept developed by rationality. You have just assumed the results based on nothing. The conclusion only stems from your belief in the assumption. 7. Meaningless. Random chemicals have no need for logic. 8. Are you a neuroscientist? Are you qualified to make normative statements on the brain? 9. Doesn't address topic. You haven't answered a single one except maybe sensus divinitatus, though I don't know the exacts on that one.

[@CrazySw3de]

I feel like on some of these they are easily brushed aside by just saying "I don't know, and you don't either". Like "Why is there something rather than nothing?" A. We don't know that there even could have been nothing rather than something. B. We would expect ourselves to be in a universe with something rather than nothing, since we wouldn't be around to think about the question if there was nothing. C. Why does there have to be a "Why?", or what indication is there that there's a reason for it? You can ask "why is purple so purpley?", and just because it's a sentence you can say doesn't mean there is actually an answer. The universe doesn't owe us an explanation. D. In something like the many worlds theory, it may be an inevitability in some senses (but again we don't know) E. Cosmologists are dedicating a lot of time developing mathematical models and trying to come up with better and better explanations for how the universe came to be... If they say we don't know, what makes the theist so confident to say they do know? Ultimately it just runs into the problem of theism being unfalsifiable, so it can mean anything you want it to. Could have gone on and on with the above, but it just always feels like the theist is saying "atheists don't know how to cure all forms of cancer! Therefore God exists". Like it can be fun to think about on both sides, but I think it's despicable how if the atheist's answer is ever "I don't know", then they smuggle in God and try to claim victory as if there is any kind of actual explanation there.

[@Mayadanava]

why is theism unfalsifiable and atheism is not? either both are or neither are.

[@CrazySw3de]

@@Mayadanava Atheism could easily be falsified by God revealing itself. I am sure the omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent creator of the universe has the ability in their skillset to make their presence undeniable. If it can't do that then it isn't omnipotent. This is like saying "not believing in magical unicorns is unfalsifiable. Like just show the magical unicorn and the a-unicornist is refuted. Theism is unfalsifiable because the theist can always come up with post-hoc explanations. Atheism as most use it today (i.e. negative/weak atheism) is also not asserting that God doesn't exist. It is just responding "I don't believe you because there isn't any good evidence and the arguments are unconvincing" to the theistic claim.

[@valjohnson7112]

everyone looks at this question as 'how do i defeat theists who say this' for some reason. i just think its a fascinating thing to think about. why is there something rather than nothing? its a mindblowing idea if you really try to think about it deeply.

[@CrazySw3de]

@@valjohnson7112 I think it's certainly worth pondering and it is interesting in the sense that there really isn't an answer one way or the other, and from a "why" standpoint there may very well not even be a reason, or there could be a reason and we just never know. It's not really looking at it from the perspective of "how do I defeat theists who say this" as it is "why are theists trying to pretend they have a satisfying answer to this by saying 'God did it'?" It's a big question that nobody has the answer to at this point. I just don't like how effectively making up an answer is sometimes treated like it's in any way supported, or in any way a unique problem that atheists have to be able to answer for their worldview to be coherent.

[@CrazySw3de]

@@Mayadanava Atheism would easily be falsified by God presenting itself. It is supposedly all powerful, all knowing. It would know how to present itself in a way that would convince anyone, and would be capable of doing so. Even just solid evidence could at least tilt the scales or make it seem more likely, but there's nothing. Your statement is incoherent and doesn't logically follow.

[@michaelh2099]

Well done, gentlemen.

[@davidmuriithi1809]

Freddie Mercury

[@MirindaMnambi]

Alex paying tribute to Freddie Mercury

[@MarioGarcia-bf6mf]

Freddie Mercury is alive 🤯

[@Sandra_D.9]

Dogmatism a hunger that can’t be satiated a desire that can’t be fulfilled Absolutely, perfect description of the phenomenon