Frank Turek vs Cosmic Skeptic • Debating the Moral Argument

Christian apologist Frank Turek and atheist KZbinr Alex O’Conner (aka Cosmic Skeptic) join Justin Brierley for an edition of Unbelievable? debating whether we need God as a foundation for morality.
Download the Unbelievable? podcast for weekly faith debates www.premierchri...
For updates and bonus content sign up www.premier.org...

[@medleysa]

This is a great showing of a beneficial, peaceful debate. There was no name calling, and both sides seemed relatively open to hearing the other. I doubt that either side was fully willing to sacrifice their viewpoint in order to replace it with the other, but they at least listened to each other, conceded some points, gave credit to a genuinely good argument, and came to a peaceful conclusion of "agreeing to disagree." Even to the end, when Frank says to Alex, "Way to go, man," there was peace, openness, willingness to listen, and willingness to learn. Good job on both debaters and on the moderator.

[@tdtyyuf]

Frank certainly did it for me but Alex was very professional and respectful.

[@yr2180]

Alex O'Conner has a very good way of debating. He is so respectful and does not belittle. I am a Christian but Alex has my respect (much more so than Michael Shermer and friends)

[@brandond2868]

"If evil exists, good must exist" - Sure. - "And if good exists, God must exist" Woooah that escalated quickly.

[@brando3342]

@Brandon D Correction "objective" good and evil.

[@ManoverSuperman]

@@brando3342 The doubtfulness of the one immediately illustrates the doubtfulness of the other, forwards or backwards.

[@brando3342]

Joshua Schantz Not sure what that means.

[@BeachsideHank]

@@brando3342 Saw that in a fortune cookie once...

[@ConceptHut]

If there is an up there is a down. If there is a down then squirrels exist.

[@CoreyBrass]

I am a subscriber to the Cosmic Skeptic and now to this from the wonderful debates I've seen you put on through his channel.

[@ItsMisterWilliams]

Alex is so smart and humble. I'm not on his 'team', if you will...He is, however, by far, one of my favorite atheists/agnostics (whatever 'label' is most suitable) I've heard defend his [lack of] worldview. Very well spoken, very kind, and very...productive. I love this kid.

[@ronakio]

He's not making any sense though.

[@bcp5135]

Skeptic, when backed into a corner will always say “not necessarily.” The comment of “not necessarily” is a statement against any absolute, as well as an “out” of any requirement to stand for anything. Thus he stands for nothing except his own subjective assumptions. He is subjectively, within his own mind, correct, which follows that he can’t be incorrect within himself. If we are all subjective, then truth is an opinion and we are all correct and all incorrect at the same time to no one and everyone at the same time. Seems as though cosmic skeptic cannot be convinced of anything outside of his own subjective perspective.

[@NathanAMeyers]

That's because "not necessarily" indicates exceptions - which he pointed out right after. Being backed into a corner is fine, but if the goal is to reach the exit, it's fair enough for Alex to point out that this corner isnt necessarily the way to the exit

[@bcp5135]

Nathan Genesee that’s fair. However there is only one exit when it comes to truth. Truth is actually freedom from subjective opinion. It does, through revelations exist within a person, almost if not always as a result of experience... yes, but more importantly it comes from OUTSIDE subjective opinion and shattered it. When we are freed from the physical subject, we begin to receive the added truth, that not only does the spirit exist, but the spirit world. And the Holy God of the Bible will appear. This is a faith step that happens this way: I do not know if God exists. I cannot explain God with my current physical understanding. I will believe in God. God then gives me knowledge, understanding and wisdom. The skeptic chooses to not make this step because it “doesn’t make sense based on subjective assumptions and reasoning. So until he lets go of that, he will always say “not necessarily.”

[@isanna6075]

@@bcp5135 great breakdown/explanation, thanks👍 Did you also hear CS say that torturing babies was a bad thing only if it affected human flourishing?

[@bcp5135]

Isanna unfortunately. Atheists or agnostics say things like this, again, because they aren’t themselves doing the thing. Such as killing babies. They can’t say it’s wrong because people like Dawkins try to explain it as “if it’s necessary for a culture/society to do that, it’s ok and becomes a norm.” Ok thanks, whatever you say Thanos. Killing babies is wrong because it is “killing”. CS would argue that the Bible doesn’t negate killing as a bad thing. Because CS removes all commentary from any form of context. Intentional killing is by definition, murder. So CS agrees with murder only “not necessarily.” He’s a fool that has built in an “out” of every conversation for the sake of conversation...and it is very sad that a guy that “seems” to be very intelligent will have nothing but filthy rags to show for his efforts come the end of all that is old. .

[@georgedoyle7971]

@@bcp5135 Well said!

[@crazydrummerofdoom]

I come back to hear these lovely debates as well as learn from the gentleman's attitudes they both carry which is just as important in dialogue as the information.

[@LKJKSLDJ]

The answer to Frank is simple: There is no evil, not as a universal truth. Evil is a term made up by humans to describe what they perceive as wrong. The problem of evil doesn't require evil to actually exist, it shows inconsistency within the "Good God" theory. And when I say inconsistency I mean, it totally tears that whole theory apart.

[@carloschris2792]

I'm with Plato and Camus on evil. The source of human evil is ignorance. Evil doesn't exist without a concept of it. Seems to me that morality is hard-wired to evolution and that they are conjoined twins on a journey to no known destiny. The unknown known is a state of being, not a consequence of it and faith is a compensation for ignorance, it doesn't override it.

[@josequintana9617]

By your reasoning... So someone ends you. Not evil. No on cares. No purpose in life. Everything random. Then there is no reason. What you said is pointless. Therefore who cares about the promulgation of life. Very weak deck of cards to construct any foundation.

[@TheMajorG]

A very polite and thoughtful debate. Alex is a nice kid and I wish more atheists were like him. He wasn't able to make much of a case for his side and I suspect he will have to seriously relook his views on the moral argument.

[@l-cornelius-dol]

I disagree with Alex's reasoning, but I appreciate his demeanor. Frank, well done! Justin, love your show.

[@cinikcynic3087]

Yes, there was only one of them using reason in this debate. Frank was using the opposite..

[@cinikcynic3087]

Milk Man Which one of the gods are you refering to? ..many people-many gods.. Many gods many opinions

[@cinikcynic3087]

Milk Man I believe in all of the gods. One my favourites at the moment is Thor. I believe he rides a fire spitting dragon. Which is your favourite to believe in? Also, what kind of clothing do you believe elves like to wear? I chose to believe they wear lederhosen. Do you believe they wear something else?

[@cinikcynic3087]

Milk Man Thanks! And you go with angels.. Not Hells Angels. Real ones..I mean not real but the ones you believe in..

[@cinikcynic3087]

Milk Man Yes Poseidon and the other eleven Olympians are the wellspring of both reason and foolishness.. I believe...

[@guilhermeparreiras8467]

This young man showed lots of maturity here.

[@ronakio]

He's just arguing for agument's sake.

[@hlulanizitha9920]

And bravery

[@theunholyhorseman7139]

An excellent debate! At the very least, the Cosmic Skeptic holds his own against all of Turek's sorties against his logic and reasoning. On the other horn, when Turek falls back on his christian god to justify his claims and counter-arguments, he cannot go any further than that, short of special pleading.

[@johnetanpitaluga89]

I would love for Frank turek to debate Dr James white on predistanation.

[@ItsMisterWilliams]

I'd watch that.

[@benedict331]

The presup Doge

[@fredharvey2720]

Predestination exists in the Bible. The issue is to what extent it exists.

[@georgedoyle7971]

Dawkins was asked if all our morality is essentially a product of undirected evolution wether he can say that rape is wrong. ? Dawkins said I do believe rape is wrong that may be a product of my evolutionary past but that’s a value judgement I’m going to make. Dawkins was then asked how do you make that value judgement when you have to step outside of this evolutionary process to say that’s wrong. Dawkins responded well maybe but it doesn’t show that anything supernatural exists. Dawkins was then asked wether, that as far as he was concerned the fact that we believe rape is wrong is as arbitrary as the fact that we’ve evolved five fingers instead of six, and Dawkins replied yes. The fact is that Dawkins was right if naturalism is true morality is arbitrary so it’s hardly surprising that people recoil from this and intuitively recognise that materialism is an incomplete theory of reality and so gravitate towards exploring objective morality and religious thought or idealism (The facts regarding the fundamental nature of mind and consciousness) instead. It’s just the most obvious logical and rational thing to do. It’s just natural to recoil from someone like Dawkins who could calmly and collectively claim that the belief that the rape and murder of a child is immoral and evil is just an arbitrary belief. Morality is clearly beyond the reach of the natural sciences. Alex then like Dawkins calmly and collectively, very cleverly I might add, but dishonestly skirts around this disturbing issue by stating.... “In the same sense this is what frustrates me about atheists they’ll do the same thing but the opposite. They’ll look at God and evil and they’ll listen to Hitchens about some celestial North Korea and they’ll recoil at that and say that’s a horrible thing I can’t imagine that reality. Just because you don’t like a reality does not make it not real.” Alex finds this frustrating ? Do you really Alex! ?. Alex also manages to dishonestly slip in a straw man argument and a non sequitur and even manages to shift the blame onto someone else for this (Hitchens) whilst maintaining the rational high ground and appearing to be metaphysically neutral. He’s a political genius and completely convincing to the untrained eye. He seemed to not hesitate for a second in his use of diversion tactics including the fact he didn’t even actually answer the question or address the fundamental issue, that is the elephant in the room the fact that Alex also believes that the belief that the murder of a child is morally wrong is just arbitrary. I wouldn’t be surprised if Alex runs for parliament some day. However, “Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil.” (C.S.Lewis). I think the bereaved parents of children who have been raped and murdered would beg to differ that it’s “frustrating” that parents recoil from those who claim that the parents belief that the rape and murder of their child was morally wrong and evil is just arbitrary. (Arbitrary) “Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.” (Oxford Dictionary).

[@ManoverSuperman]

@@georgedoyle7971 Yet the god I am almost positive you believe in countenanced and commanded the murder of infants. You have lost the right to pronounce moral judgment, much less to task another for an alternative account of morals.

[@diegotobaski9801]

Bring on Michael Jones from Inspiring Philosophy please. I'd wager his video on Moral Realism is one of the best there's ever been

[@Soaptoaster]

Shermer brings nothing new to the atheism debate at all. He re-hashes the same old cliches for years. I'm amazed he's managed to convince himself of those tired old thoughts.

[@diegotobaski9801]

@@Soaptoaster You're joking right? I mean, sure he does repeat some things, but you have to not be watching to see his arguments, though familiar, actually holds good depth as compared to say Frank Turek for instance. No one is bringing anything new to the theist-atheist debates, people just find better ways to explain previous thoughts.

[@Soaptoaster]

@@diegotobaski9801 I'm definitely not joking, I've been to events where he was one of the speakers and he was functional as a public speaker but unimpressive intellectually.

[@l-cornelius-dol]

I think you mean Michael Jones. And yes, he produces excellent videos. Michael Brant Shermer is the founder of The Skeptics Society.

[@diegotobaski9801]

@@l-cornelius-dol forgive the absolute blunder. I did mean Michael Jones. I'm going to clean that up now

[@deepdiscussions5728]

I’d like to point out that the topic never got brought up during the entire debate.

[@mickeynoah6352]

Lol I was thinking the same thing

[@mrb532]

Around the 30:00 minute mark, Alex claimed that consciousness and reason can be explained in terms of evolution. I wish Frank pressed him on that because if Alex could explain how consciousness arose by evolutionary processes he would have a Nobel Prize awaiting him.

[@josiahferrell5022]

It very likely can be, whether we know how yet or not.

[@KRGruner]

Just read Douglas Hofstadter's works. No one knows for sure how to explain consciousness (and therefore reason), but there are very promising avenues of explorations regarding naturalistic explanations. See also a very different (but still naturalistic) hypothesis in Sir Roger Penrose's works.

[@mrb532]

Josiah Ferrell I never said it couldn’t be, we just have no idea one way or the other.

[@mrb532]

Karl Gruner Thanks, but I’ll pass on reading either of their books. Any current piece of literature that has a naturalistic (or super natural) explanation of the origins of consciousness is just a work of mental masturbation, at this point.

[@josiahferrell5022]

@@mrb532 Fine, but you made it sound like you expected him to be able to explain it or else his point was false.

[@samdg1234]

At 29:45, Alex asks that "if reason is not subjective, then how do you and I come to different conclusions?" Isn't the obvious answer to that that one person can be using reason and the other person not using reason, or is misusing reason. An analogy that comes to mind is; you and I are in an airplane with 2 parachutes. We both jump out. One lives. One dies. To correspond to the idea of using reason and not using it - one person used the parachute, while the other didn't put it on. To correspond to my suggestion of misusing reason, while both of us put the parachute on, one of us pulled the ripcord while the other did not.

[@japanbeta]

Alex is a good thinker, but I think that this was one of his weaker arguments. It is displayed nicely in his "imaginary plane with hills and valleys" analogy. This analogy backfires because in order to interpret anything from this geometric picture, one needs to define axes and to get all the information, one needs to define an origin as well. Otherwise, one cannot, as he claims, distinguish between hills, valleys, and a neutral plane.

[@mattknapp2942]

His neutral plane is “the straight line” that he claims is unnecessary.

[@GertGybels]

You did a great Job Alex.

[@chrismackay5725]

If atheists are right in saying that we could come to moral reasoning through natural processes, then how as currency (money) been the establishment of all civilizations? Everyone has said that money is the root to all evil, it has also separated humans into classes, we have done so much evil because of money but yet money still controls so much and so many.

[@karlazeen]

The reason why is because the people with the most power in society keep it that way to benefit their own interests.

[@gardenladyjimenez1257]

Through the entire conversation, I kept waiting for someone to question Alex's many references to evolution as the cause of human behavior and beliefs. This was his key premise to explain the existence of morality. At a time where top scientists (cosmology, chemistry, physics, biology) are skeptical about material evolution (first living cell), the claim that evolution determines human values of good/evil cannot stand as a valid argument without meeting a tremendous burden of proof. In this conversation it simply substituted God with an indeterminant and unprovable hypothesis for the cause/existence of morality.

[@TheMapleSight]

Totally agree ... That's even common cognitive bias called Argumentum ad naturam. We can't get hierarchy of values from either from science or nature. After all, we have so many natural impulses that we don't pursue, like sexual impulses for example. And if nature is objective standard of morality, the highest value is reproduction... So then Czyngis-Chan was the most moral man in the world XD

[@CMBradley]

Alex, as a philosophy student, should be aware that the standard definition in philosophy for atheism is the proposition that there is no God or gods. Perhaps atheist philosophers don't shy from the standard definition because they aren't petrified of having a burden of proof.

[@waitingandwatching9328]

Thanks. Really enjoyed the show

[@HomicideHenry]

"The Spirit of the Age wishes to allow argument and not to allow argument.... If anyone argues with them they say that he is rationalizing his own desires, and therefore need not be answered. But if anyone listens to them they will then argue themselves to show that their own doctrines are true.... You must ask them whether any reasoning is valid or not. If they say no, then their own doctrines, being reached by reasoning, fall to the ground. If they say yes, then they will have to examine your arguments and refute them on their merits: for if some reasoning is valid, for all they know, your bit of reasoning may be one of the valid bits." Clive Staples Lewis To put this argument in a shorter context, Lewis is saying: "Any theory that says human reason is not valid is therefore not true--- because you came to that conclusion by your own reason."

[@DJRickard2010]

CS Lewis knew nothing of science. Read a basic description if cognitive biases and the science of them, and you’ll see that reason is fraught with problems. It’s why philosophy-which is the basis of all of Tureks arguments-was replaced with the scientific method

[@HomicideHenry]

@@DJRickard2010 The problem with your assertion is that science, in and of itself, is built on a foundation of philosophy and faith. First, you must have the faith that science can be done at all, that an answer can be achieved. You must have faith in the scientific method as well as the concept of falsification. A quick review of criticisms of science (or I should say sciencism) and falsification will show that indeed, science has its limitations and that falsification, too, has its limitations. Because of this, you cannot concretely say that either premise can ever completely answer the questions that are the most meaningful: purpose, reason, value, ethics, morality, etc. The WHY questions. To quote the atheist philosopher John Gray, who is oftentimes critical of Dawkins and others, "According to the most influential twentieth-century philosopher of science, Karl Popper, a theory is scientific only in so far as it is falsifiable, and should be given up as soon as it has been falsified. By this standard, the theories of Darwin and Einstein should never have been accepted." There are many atheists out there who are honest enough to admit that naturalism cannot answer the questions most people want an answer for, such as Thomas Nagel and his book "Mind & Cosmos: Why the Neodarwinian View is Certainly False," or Paul Davies who says that the impression of design is overwhelming, or even Sabine Hossenfelder who says that science is powerless in answering the God question because by definition God is beyond the universe and scientific consensuses about things within the universe has no real effect on the God question. As for saying Lewis knew nothing of science, that's quite comical because not only did the man read up on every scientific paper of the time, he was just a few doors down from Schrodinger and other scientists of the time and attended many of their lectures and of course had correspondence with them. Lewis wasn't simply using philosophy, but cut to the quick and down to the root of the scientific pretensions and logical conclusions of atheism. As John Gray said, which verifies the very things that Lewis pointed out over sixty years ago, to quote him again: ""Darwinist thinkers such as Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett are militant opponents of Christianity. Yet their atheism and humanism are versions of Christian concepts. As a defender of Darwinism, Dawkins is committed to the view that humans are like other animal species in being ‘gene machines’ ruled by the laws of natural selection. He asserts nevertheless that humans, uniquely, can defy these natural laws: ‘We, alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators.’ In affirming human uniqueness in this way, Dawkins relies on a Christian world-view." And furthermore, "Modern humanism is the faith that through science humankind can know the truth-and so be free. But if Darwin’s theory of natural selection is true this is impossible. The human mind serves evolutionary success, not truth." And lastly, "If we “are” survival machines, it is unclear how “we” can decide anything. The idea of free will, after all, comes from religion and not from science." This is where philosophy comes in, once science has confirmed the obvious. In order to believe that our conclusions actually mirror reality, and that our logic and reason is capable of discerning the truth from the nonsensical, then you must believe that our minds are the product of purposeful design, because evolution cannot get you there and neither can mindless emotionless deaf blind random goalless processes of physics and chemistry. Chaos and disorder will always produce chaos and disorder. Irrationality will always produce irrationality. Therefore, it begs the question why so many men and women who know better and are qualified scientists reject the self evident design of life and the universe? Paul Davies is honest enough to say he doesn't want it to be true. Most of these people, when pressed, will admit that they don't want it to be true. And my question to them would be, "Since when has want ever been a rational argument in science or any other discipline?", as a true objective scientist or investigator goes wherever the evidence leads regardless of personal feeling. That's why I don't really uphold people like Peter Adkins (or is it Atkins?) to be serious debaters because he's said countless times no amount of evidence would ever change his mind and if he went to heaven he'd believe he was dreaming rather than accept Jesus Christ Almighty God is real. That kind of bull stubbornness and irrationality has no place in debates or serious arguments scientific or otherwise. Anyways, Jesus Christ Almighty God bless your family and Jesus Christ Almighty God bless you 😊

[@georgedoyle7971]

@@HomicideHenry Well said! I enjoyed reading your comments and am a big fan of Lewis and GK Chesterton. Thanks for sharing. All the best to you and your family and keep safe during this Corona virus crisis ❤️

[@Gorpmeat]

@@HomicideHenry Thank you for your well thought out and insightful commentary.

[@jamessmith785]

The glaring hole in Alex's logic and reason here is that even if we remove his underlying premise for experiencing morality from the sphere of moral decision making, that being that the survival of our species is good and that we strive toward that because of evolutionary processes, that only explains those moral decisions that would affect that underlying assumption. For instance, in his logic because of that underlying assumption, murder is then experienced as wrong. Which sounds all well and good. However, there are a number of moral decisions that many would say are objective moral truths that if broken do not destroy or hinder the survival of our species, in fact they would advance it. Rape is one of those things, this would simply be the forced spreading of genetic material to the next generation which would propagate more of our species not less. This doesn't harm that underlying assumption that evolution is supposed to have placed within us if there is no God. Proof for this is that millions of people alive on the earth today carry the Gengis Kahn gene because of his forced spreading of his genetics by the means of rape that most rational people, including Alex, would see as morally wrong. This is the problem with this type of thinking it opens Pandora's Box of depravity where you can do anything you want and it not be wrong as long as it doesn't hinder that underlying premise.

[@zackdorward5403]

Alex is not basing morality on what would help advance the population of a species. He is saying that evolution is just one aspect of why we experience morality the way we do.

[@sammy_trix]

Well put there.

[@josequintana9617]

​@@zackdorward5403But an experience with no reason because we can't trust our subjective instrument is then we have no reasoning at all. Alex tightropes a semantics game but still admits when something is inconsistent it bothers him. It's called objective reality. Because he can't get rid of God, he tries to obscure objective reality. Get rid of objective reality you destroy reasoning. Self defeating argument.

[@HYN_Media]

The obvious rebuttal that is missing is the fact that evolution IS NOT random. Evolution is a product of natural selection and random selection. However the natural selection negates the random selection over time.

[@ItsMisterWilliams]

So...Frank starts with an evidentialist strategy and moves into presuppositionalism. Is this recent? I remember Frank being more evidence based than presupposition based in the past. Just realizing recently that both approaches exist...I had always leaned more towards evidentialism until I heard Sye Ten's video!

[@TJump]

Hi Justin, i am also an atheist youtuber id love to be on your show and debate the argument/evidence of god

[@eliasarches2575]

You should send an email through to them. It starts "unbelievable@"... full email should be somewhere on their website. I saw your debate with Joshua Rasmussen. Your system is much more sophisticated than Cosmic Skeptic's - this is coming from a theist.

[@TJump]

@@eliasarches2575 thanks i will try that

[@biggregg5]

Justin, I subscribe to TJump's channel. He is as good as it gets. He would be an excellent guest.

[@joellukewarriorforjesusthe293]

God loves you :)

[@ksf3519]

Very respectful conversation by all parties. Nice to see. Turek had an advantage being God exists.

[@AsixA6]

Alex had an advantage being Frank has zero evidence any 'god' exists.

[@TheFinalRevelation]

@@AsixA6 lol what

[@AsixA6]

@@TheFinalRevelation Did I not type loud enough?

[@mm7411]

Yes, I agree Andrew and believe this young man will soon come to know the truth. Glory to God. Be Blessed and pray for our front liners like Turek among so many others in the line if fire.

[@AsixA6]

@@mm7411 You're delusional to assert Alex or anyone else is going to suddenly become convinced invisible magicians exist.

[@MD-jp5oc]

Great debate, gracious and polite aethiest, which I've previously thought never could exist! Well done Alex. And Frank rocks it even though his data on LDS faith is incorrect (from a previous KZbin video he posted).

[@mrchristopherjones]

Wow that's one for theism.... American guy was consistent in his logical approach...

[@biggregg5]

You can't be serious.

[@johnhammond6423]

​@@biggregg5 Sadly, I think he is.

[@goor1322]

He's correct in every word. Frank was arguing from an objective point of view. That applies to everyone everywhere regardless how you personally think or feel. Relativism is self defeating. So the moment Alex began to argue from a subjective point of view, which is not valid or binding on anyone else, it was over.

[@cinikcynic3087]

@@goor1322 Did you just speak for god in writing your reply? Or was that a bit of relativism?

[@johnhammond6423]

@@goor1322 Frank's argument[s] only apply or make sense if his God exists. As the actual evidence for Gods existence is zero I reject Frank Turek's apologetics.

[@guacamoleniqqapeniss7317]

The debate 'bout the evidence starts in 19:35...

[@AshGeo]

22:25

[@DH-kl3ob]

The incredible thing about Frank that he’s completely unwilling to say, “I don’t know.” Alex, on the other hand, IS willing to say this. That’s the difference between the two. Frank is so wrapped up in Christianity that he would lose everything if he left the church.

[@Lrapsody27]

If someone knows the truth, why would they claim not to know and lie?

[@georgedoyle7971]

Alex is willing to say “I don’t know” It didn’t occur to me that Alex’s false dialectic and redefinition of agnosticism was him just admitting he didn’t know anything! And there was me thinking he was just trying to shift the burden of proof as he actually has no evidence that atheism is true and that “matter” is fundamental to reality not mind and consciousness. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence lol.

[@mackdmara]

This was a very good conversation here. I was able to agree with both of them at times, regardless of my original view point. That is rare in this kind of discussion. I really dislike Darwin's doubt. It is not because of the implications, but because when you bring it up, it just makes the other person think you are calling them irrational & incapable of being rational. Alex falls into a very defensive argument there. It is not a good way to exchange ideas. I really think it has no point, unless you can clearly evidence it as fruitful. I like Plantingia's version much better. That said, no matter how bright you are, that just means you can hide from reality better, if you disapprove of it. Alex makes a number of conflicting remarks, & it is all due to the fact that he maintains reality is not real. If you have to carefully choose every word like that, it is a web of deception or your not fully sure. He said the sun would be objectively there, even if we don't exist, because it fits his beliefs. Then he does not accept that there would be one sun, evidenced by his two rocks are only two rocks if we are there to say so. That line of reasoning also requires that object permanence is only real, as long as someone is there to witness it. Otherwise, if the number is indeterminate without us, how can any number of things exist without us? He also plays heavily on symantecs. The microphone is an atheist, even though that implies the microphone can think. Then he states that it is just a lack of belief. Let's think that logically through. I claim a chair exists, you deny you can know the chair exists (agnostic) so you are an agnostic achairist. I may not be able to 100% prove the chair exists, but I accept the probalistic likely hold it does. That informed my belief, there is a chair. That tiny doubt is not enough to say I am agnostic about the chair. Same for Alex. He wants to avoid being responsible for his own assertions, therefore he claims agnosticism, even though he is almost 100% certain. It is simply dishonest. You cannot be on the fence about an issue with only one finger. You know what you believe, & he is standing on the atheist side of that fence.

[@donaldmcronald8989]

No. 'Rock' is a sound and a word and a symbol that humans use to conceptualise an idea. Whether the material remains there (without conscious beings) is a question of realism, but the word/sound/concept of a 'rock' and the ideas that it entail would be meaningless if the organism that utilise the construct were absent. Semantics* are very important. Especially if people are in exchange of ideas. Errors increase exponentially, else. Alex was insinuating as much (I felt) without 'spelling it out', but it didn't seem to 'land' for Turek. Justin was suspiciously silent though... I think he may have understood what was happening. We have to be clear on each other's definitions (semantics) before we smash our ideas into one another. Trouble is, that often occupies the majority of the time in these conversations.

[@mackdmara]

@@donaldmcronald8989 I have no issue with definitions. Philosophers spend an extraordinary amount of time on them. That I can fully agree with Alex about their importance. I don't agree with his use, just the necessity. I also find Frank overly reliant on the few arguments he uses regularly. He will doggedly will repeat & return to them. In & of themselves, they are good, but they do not always apply. He is not very flexible, but neither is Alex. The issue I take with Alex is the dance he constantly is doing. It is needed at times, but he simply ignores the fact of the matter (something brilliant people do with many words & dim people do with few). He simply cannot be taken seriously, if every time some asks him about his views he will claim agnosticism if he is anything less that 100% certain (a thing he claims cannot be achieved), & then turns around & demand the other person provide 100% certainly. It is consistent, but then it also denies Alex knows anything, because he cannot. He literally is asking for the impossible, from his point of view, for anyone to change his mind. That is just shutting your eyes & ears & hoping the world goes away. Just say what you mean & mean what you say. Alex is so very certain that God is not, that he should acknowledge it. He will not, because (& he said this) it gives him a burden of proof. He wants his beliefs to be untouchable, & therefore inscrutable. Such things are worthless. Saying you could be wrong, regardless of your word choice & meaning, is not enough to claim you don't know. You live by the odds that something will be, admit it. Instead he will demure. He is a fine philosopher, but I would have to place him in the absurd. I take him at face value, & he has no idea what that is unfortunate. He would find God, if he just looked, but he will not, so he cannot.

[@donaldmcronald8989]

@@mackdmara We can't be 100% sure about anything though, can we? Granted, this is not something that should be the starting place of every conversation, but it has a space in any conversation regarding faith, certainty and the unknown/unknowable, surely! 'God' is a symbol like the word 'Rock'. It is an idea with concepts. What you've done is declare something with a category of attributes, but haven't listed them - It doesn't mean anything yet!? 'He would find God, if he just looked, but he will not, so he cannot.' Think about what this ^ means to someone that doesn't share access to your brain... It's essentially cryptic nonsense. Decipherable (apparently), only by you. If what you have in your head is a truth that can be properly proven and properly worded so as to convince everyone, then you need to do that. You need to take your evidence and give it to everyone. Now! If what you instead have, is unworthy of the label ''true', then you will have to accept that you are agnostic with regards to your god and the ideas and concepts residing therein.

[@georgedoyle7971]

Totally agree with you. Alex’s description of his “agnosticism” is a false dialectic and it leaves Alex’s arguments empty and hollow to anyone who isn’t misled by sophistry and a privileged English accent. Hitchens utilised the same technique and sadly a lot of people found it convincing when he constantly used rhetoric, straw men and tu quoque fallacies. Alex is a big fan of Hitchens and is basically emulating Hitchens but has removed the obvious flaws and cheap shots inherent in Hitchens style of debating. Im not sure if this is a good or bad thing. Sadly, Hitchens demonised moderate believers whilst supporting the Iraq war. A war that caused the deaths of thousands of innocent men women and children and turned out to be unjustified.

[@sandina2cents779]

Alex is all over the place. He couldn't make any direct statement about anything. Getting him to get to a complete point is like pulling teeth. He could write a 50 page report for college and the report doesn't actuality say anything. It's like he's circling every point. He thinks he's more educated than he is or at least that he is demonstrating here. He can't even stick to a direct definition of any words. "It greatly frustrates me that I will never know if I exist" Really?

[@georgedoyle7971]

“It greatly frustrates me that I will never know if I exist” This is a frustration only the privileged few experience. Most of the third world is frustrated that they haven’t eaten for weeks or don’t even have clean water and access to health care. Non of these people in the third world experience the privilege of worrying if they don’t exist nor do they doubt that greed, sophistry and intellectual dishonesty is objectively wrong.

[@sandina2cents779]

@@georgedoyle7971 “This is a frustration only the privileged few experience”????? Yes that is true, because the rest of us are sane. Are you telling me you can really say that with a straight face? If so, I would not want to meet you in a dark alley....something wrong. Let me help you out, you are talking to me so I’m pretty sure you exist because I’m pretty sure I am not schizophrenic.

[@sandina2cents779]

@@georgedoyle7971 I actually feel that I have been corrected by the Holy Spirit. My thought was that doubting that you exist was either insanity or stupidity, but I was told I was wrong. It’s actually an offshoot of atheism. It’s an attempt idea (planted by satan) that the only way to escape judgement is either try to get rid of God or the sin. It’s absurd that nothing created everything. So those that acknowledge that have to come up with something else. So if you can’t say that God doesn’t exist then maybe you can say you don’t? If you don’t actually exist then sin and judgement doesn’t apply to you because you didn’t actually do anything and the people that you sinned against didn’t have anything done to them because they don’t exist either. Satan is not weak or stupid. To underestimate your enemy is a mistake, that I do not plan on making. Well, the truth is that you do exist and so does God. And we have free will to make good or bad choices. God created this universe and the beings in it and therefore gets to make the rules and the consequences for breaking those rules. We will be held accountable for our actions unless you put your face to the ground at the cross like I did. To the atheist it sounds belittling almost but I can tell you from experience it’s not. By letting Jesus take my payment for my sins I have never felt so free and so much love and peace. He didn’t have to offer this option to us and yet he did. That’s amazing love! I absolutely deserve hell and yet in his grace and mercy he has set me free, not just from hell, but more importantly from destructive myself.

[@isaakquinones9448]

This is not new

[@MyNameIsJ3ffrey]

Isaak Quiñones to be fair, no side has really posed new arguments for the last 60 years. The Big Bang gave some cannon fodder for theist who believe in the notion that the universe had a beginning. The problem of evil, inerrancy, and etc. those arguments have literally existed since Roman times on the side of skepticism. The fine tuning argument has existed in one form or another since the 5th century.

[@grantkohler7612]

​@@MyNameIsJ3ffrey Here I was thinking Isaak meant this video is not new. You don't need to read this. As I see it, this video is about a year old and has been reposted after having been taken down for some reason unknown to me similar to the other video of Alex that was referenced in the beginning of this one. If someone were to cross-check the dates like I did of Alex's videos from 2017 on his channel Cosmic Skeptic with the language Justin Brierley used a year ago, one could reason this video was originally posted in 2018 instead of on March 26, 2019.

[@MyNameIsJ3ffrey]

grant kohler oh lol, like the video itself is not new. Gotcha.

[@jeffreythompson6802]

I echo everyone’s comments concerning Alex’s polite demeanor which is rare for an atheist these days. Here’s a couple thoughts. 1. When Alex confronted Frank about Frank making statements about atheism being true or not “ not making sense”, Frank should have said what he means when he says that is Atheism=God doesn’t exist being true or not. In other words, Is “ God ( or gods) not existing” true or not? 2. I think Frank had a good counterargument to Alex claiming he “lacks belief” in God when he said this microphone lacks belief in God or this book lacks belief in God. When Alex attempted to turn that argument around he said if you define a vegan as a person who doesn’t eat meat then this book is a vegan. My response to Alex is…. No the book is not a person and as such can’t eat anything. This is in stark contrast to describing yourself as lacking a belief. That leaves it wide open for anything ( people, inanimate objects) to lack that which you claim to lack. Calling anything other than a person a vegan therefore doesn’t make any sense, while calling anything or anyone an atheist when you define an atheist as that which lacks belief dues make sense.

[@jvt_redbaronspeaks4831]

For crying out loud....not this "lack a belief"-let-me-sit-back-and-not-have-to-defend-my-view-of-reality again. For the love of (insert anything you view sacred), somebody please, PLEASE, bring up Antony Flew who popularized this false philosophical aegis.

[@asix9178]

Please evidence your BELIEF that Thor does not exist. Cricket, cricket, cricket....didn't think so. Atheist=NOT THEIST. Unless a person believes invisible magicians exist, they are NOT THEIST.

[@jvt_redbaronspeaks4831]

@@asix9178 HAHAHA, you ignoramous...there is plenty of evidence Thor doesn't exist. Your false equivocation shows me your lack of understanding. You and Alex-the-unsure contribute NOTHING to philosophy or the theological debate. But do go on sceptic... continue to doubt whatever is inconvenient for your philosophical presuppositions and then turn down the scepto-dial when you want to use common sense. Stay in the closet and play with your hobby-horse... the real philosophers have things to discuss.

[@asix9178]

@@jvt_redbaronspeaks4831 "there is plenty of evidence Thor doesn't exist." *Then you should have no problem evidencing Thor doesn't exist.*

[@jvt_redbaronspeaks4831]

@@asix9178 OMG!....I think you might actually be serious. You ACTUALLY want me to offer evidence that there is no flying viking with a giant warhammer chasing giant sea serpents and causing rain, thunder, crops, fertility. You really can't understand that your attempted argument is an equivocation fallacy, can you? What's with the Thor obsession? Are you wanting a "sky daddy" cause your earth daddy was mean or absent? No, but with all your demand for "evidence" I guess your belief that Thor isn't a real demi-god is not evidential then.

[@asix9178]

@@jvt_redbaronspeaks4831 *Ahahahahaaa!!!! Just like I thought. You can't evidence the non-existence of Thor.* *You're a joke, little boy.*

[@obiwankenobi6871]

Great debate, loved both of them, however there was a problem with what they were arguing against: Frank is arguing for Objective Morality and Alex for Subjective Morality. They cannot refute each other. It’s like playing the same sport but on different fields/courts you know. I would know because I’ve been in three different debates with a agnostic friend who believes in subjective morality and it ended the same each time. Love the debate tho

[@condorman6293]

Would you like to have a live debate with me on subjective morality?

[@DigitalGnosis]

@@condorman6293 I would have a conversation on it if you wanted

[@4lr3m70]

Too easy for Frank.

[@asix9178]

True, it's very easy for Frank to make himself look dumb as a rock.

[@asix9178]

@Andrzej M Of course, Alex made Frank look dumb as a rock. Just like the first time they debated.

[@TyrellWellickEcorp]

asix haha no he didn’t buddy

[@asix9178]

@@TyrellWellickEcorp Haha, yes, he did, 'buddy'.

[@johnhammond6423]

@@asix9178 Agreed. the only way Franks 'evil' can exist is if his God exists. Having faith that God is real and working from that unfalsifiable premise simply does not work.

[@AllAllah777]

I get it. Alex is creating a thinking space. Knowing and understanding. Wisdom.

[@jvt_redbaronspeaks4831]

Pure sceptism destroys any potential wisdom. I saw Alex squirm and sputter, not deliver wisdom. His own philosophical presuppositions prevent wisdom from even being an option.

[@AllAllah777]

@@jvt_redbaronspeaks4831 perhaps

[@georgedoyle7971]

@@jvt_redbaronspeaks4831 I have to agree with you regarding Alex’s pure skepticism and presuppositions as methodological naturalism is supposed to be metaphysically neutral.

[@imagoportraits562]

What is pain? Its an evolved message to consciousness to change the conditions to prevent damage. If you boil every single moral decision down, it gets to these basic evolved emotions to increase the flourishing of the species. Simply asserting it feels objectively true, is not an argument it's an appeal to emotion, nothing more.

[@Software.Engineer]

Why did it mutate to only send a message to the conscience when we 'damage' ourselves? A bit of luck? A bit of extra randomness that the random processes of atoms form this way out of sheer luck. Very convenient I must say.

[@imagoportraits562]

@@Software.Engineer No luck involved. The puddle that gains consciousness would think its very lucky to exactly fit the how he occupies, when in fact he evolved to fit the hole and not the other way around. You evolved to be surprised by coincidence, its part of your pattern finding brain that can see tigers in long grass. The argument from incredulity fallacy is a bad way to form conclusions about the world.

[@logans.butler285]

So.. you're saying that morality just feels objective but that doesn't make it objective?

[@imagoportraits562]

@@logans.butler285 No, I am saying. Once you agree on the goals, every action as an objective effect on those goals. Feelings are not relevant.

[@goor1322]

Imagine a genuine $5 bill from the bank in your right hand. Describing that bill you might say it's good currency. You may even say that it is the standard to measure all other $5 bills you come across in your dealings. Now in your left hand imagine a counterfeit $5 bill. How would you describe that? You could say it's bad currency. In fact you might even call it a source of evil. Here's the thing we all need to understand. Evil is not a thing, it is the corruption of a thing. Just as the counterfeit is a corruption of the genuine $5 bill so too is evil a corruption of good. Lies are a corruption of truth, rust is considered to be a corruption to metal etc. And to prove that evil is not a thing, going back to my illustration of the $5 bill and the counterfeit. Remove the genuine $5 bill from existence. Can the counterfeit still exist without the genuine? No. Because there's nothing to corrupt. Now switch it up. Remove the counterfeit $5 bill instead. Can the genuine $5 bill exist without the counterfeit? Yes! Yes it can. Any evil in the world cannot disprove God, because evil is a corruption of something good. It cannot stand on its own. That's why evil presupposes Good and Good presupposes God.

[@asix9178]

Sorry, son, good does not presuppose a 'god' thing.

[@goor1322]

@@asix9178 No, I agree. Good doesn't presuppose a god thing. Good presupposes God. Atheists do not have a standard above humanity which is called subjective morality to say anything is objectively vile or virtuous. So it's not really good. It's just your opinion vs someone else's opinion. However, we know there is objective evil. Therfore there must be a transcendent objective good standard that an action deviates from in order to be called evil objectively. You are without excuse. God is the standard and good presupposes God. If there is no God, then objective moral values and duties do not exist. Objective moral values and duties do exist. Therfore God exists.

[@asix9178]

@@goor1322 *No, good does not presuppose any 'god' thing.* "Atheists do not have a standard above humanity which is called subjective morality to say anything is objectively vile or virtuous." *Until you evidence your supposed 'objective standard', nor do you.* "It's just your opinion vs someone else's opinion." *As is yours. Continuously claiming you have an 'objective standard', doesn't evidence you have an objective standard.* "However, we know there is objective evil. " *AGAIN, claiming there is 'objective evil' doesn't evidence there is objective evil.* "You are without excuse." *You are without evidence for you absurd claim that a 'god' thing exists to even be an 'objective standard'. Which, BTW, even if it did exist, it's SUBJECTIVE OPINION would still be SUBJECTIVE.* "God is the standard and good presupposes God." *False. You haven't evidence this 'god' thing exists to be a 'standard' and no, 'good' does not presuppose any invisible magicians, never mind your particular invisible magicians.* "If there is no God, then objective moral values and duties do not exist." *Evidence your ridiculous claim.* "Objective moral values and duties do exist." *Evidence your claim!!!* *All you're doing is asserting BS without evidencing anything you claim!*

[@asix9178]

@@brando3342 False. I can see a hill without a depression existing. I can see one light is brighter than another without darkness existing. I can see one action is less harmful than another, without your unevidenced invisible magician existing.

[@asix9178]

@Milk Man Ahahahaaa!!! Talk about lost! You're the epitome of lost!!

[@deepdiscussions5728]

“If good exists then God must exist! Oh, did I mention I’m using God to define what good means?” 🙄 You could literally insert any concept then. If good exists then flying pigs exist. Oh, did I mention I’m using flying pigs to define what good means.

[@Gainmaker1]

you need to think about this more

[@deepdiscussions5728]

Gainmaker1 done!

[@MartTLS]

Gainmaker1 Being brainwashed isn’t thinking about something.

[@Gainmaker1]

@@MartTLS i grew up an Atheist and became a christian, BTW the way to God is through Jesus, God loves you

[@MartTLS]

Gainmaker1 Is that what he told you ?

[@CyprusHot]

Debate starts at 7:00

[@oterosocram25]

Trying to be humble, calling yourself "not arrogant" you are being arrogant by calling Frank arrogant.

[@chzzyg2698]

Either one of these two could take me out in a debate in two minutes, but as a christian I have to say that without a present god dictating what the moral laws of human life are, in todays world not in biblical times, then it'd be very easy for an atheist to win every argument on the nonexistence of god. We're in a time that the only thing that can prove god is real and good, is if god itself arrived to set things straight again. If we all came from the image of god, then there should be no question of his existence at any point in history. If god doesn't return to earth within the next few decades, the fallout from the churches would be completely understandable and should be without punishment if there is an absent christian god behind the curtain. It's like letting the kids play alone without parents, as time goes on their discipline will decline, and the parents know it and they can't be upset about it when the walls and windows get destroyed.

[@jonmiiller1120]

Well, I’m just a Christian that lacks a belief in the belief that God does not exist. Therefore, I don’t need to defend my claim.

[@jdnowell6077]

good convo!

[@jerepurba]

Have watched this probably 10 times now... It is kind of hard to follow Alex's assumptions on objective morality. At a certain point he couldn't deny that he is making an objective claim that morality is subjective?

[@phinch1234]

If morality is subjective then that is an objective claim, I don't believe he was claiming nothing was objective.

[@KJBTRUTH]

If we as Christians say morality could come from a *different god", then what do we do with scriptures such as Colossians 1:16? For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:” That covers all material and immaterial including morality. To me there isn't any room for any other option but the Creator of Heaven and Earth which is one God in the persons of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

[@letfreedomreign3485]

Already, the cosmic guy is just making conversation with no relevance. He knows that if you just keep talking it'll sound like you know what your talking about. This Alex dude is out of his league. He's so confused and the only reason he's still talking just to get through the segment. He doesn't believe anything that he is saying.

[@northernlight8857]

If that was what you gleemed from this vid i encourage you to watch it again.

[@lemonheadkw2493]

Point out a specific flaw.

[@georgedoyle7971]

@@northernlight8857 “Point out a specific flaw” 1. Mathematics is arbitrary ? 2. It’s not objectively wrong to torture children ? 3. Alex makes absolute claims regarding morality, reality and “truth” then claims morality is subjective ? 4. Methodological naturalism can create a moral framework ? 1. Mathematics is the most precise and objective technique we have for describing the universe, including the natural sciences, empirical research, modal logic linguistics etc. The list goes on. Alex is using “science” to make a claim to “truth” regarding reality but he’s just undermined science by claiming the language of science, that is mathematics is arbitrary. (Arbitrary) “Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.” (Oxford Dictionary). 2. Alex is blind to the elephant in the room as he enthusiastically accepts rationality and logic that are less deductively/a priori true than objective morality and harder to empirically prove but still chooses to argue that it’s not objectively wrong to torture and murder a child and is just a matter of opinion (subjective) to skirt around the issue and avoid the fact that the argument for objective morality is so powerful and compelling. Alex is clearly very inexperienced and can’t answer the question regarding morality including the intelligibility of the universe as it has been debated for centuries and still remains mystery to the natural sciences so why not just admit this. Love and altruism is a paradox beyond the reach of the natural sciences.... “It would be possible to describe everything scientifically, but it would make no sense; it would be without meaning, as if you described a Beethoven symphony as a variation of wave pressure.” (Albert Einstein). The fact is that in reality moral “subjectivists” and skeptics quickly come out of their closet and turn out to be the most sophisticated and enthusiastic moral objectivists when it’s their money, property and life that is under threat. 3. The fact is wether you are an atheist who believes Alex’s arguments contained no presuppositions., Wether you believe in Martin Luther kings great love for Jesus, Einstein’s great respect for Jesus, Jesus great love for humanity. Spinoza, Descartes and Aquinas belief that Jesus was the embodiment of truth. Wether you believe it isn’t objectively wrong to torture children or leave them to die in order to care for a full grown chimp, crystals, Mother Earth, Peter Singer or anything else that takes your fancy, all are held to be on the same footing; all have equal validity for the relativist. 4. Methodological naturalism is supposed to be metaphysically neutral. Any claim to “truth” is a metaphysical, that is philosophical claim. The fact is that “evolutionary naturalism implies that we shouldn’t take any of our convictions seriously including the scientific world picture on which evolutionary naturalism itself depends.” (Thomas Nagel). Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence!

[@northernlight8857]

@@georgedoyle7971 You dont seem like you are interested in dialogue. Just to run your scripts and preconseptions of what my opinions are. You are strawmanning me. The thing you have to ask yourself is the wording of your question. Always wrong to torture a child. Its a reason why You dont say...is it always wrong to kill a child? And i think we both know the answer to that one. And that is something you and your conscience will have to struggle with.

[@emmanuel5566]

*ERROR1* : 29:43 -> Agnostic atheist says, _"Reason is subjective"_. *DEBUGGING ERROR1* : 32:38 -> Very powerful TRUTH bomb dropped @ this moment by Christian Theist. *ERROR2* : 31:34 -> Agnostic atheist says, "2+2=4 is subjective if no human minds existed" *DEBUGGING ERROR2* : 2+2=4 always. Its so simple. Why so confused? *ERROR3* : Agnostic atheist says, "Morality is subjective". *DEBUGGING ERROR3* : 36:15 -> Racism used to prove morality is objective. All in all, Alex is a wonderful brainy chap. But, he should make up his mind @ some point and come to an end conclusion. He is far better than so many arrogant atheists out there.

[@asix9178]

Wholey crap, dude. You didn't refute a damn thing Alex stated. You just made yourself look stupid. 'Reason' is subjective. If no human minds existed, then 2+2=4 would not exist. Racism in no way proves morality is objective.

[@emmanuel5566]

@@asix9178 did u even listen to the whole debate before replying? If yes, then please enlighten me and 4others who agreed to my comment and explain me why 2+2=4 is subject to change and can result into something else if no human minds existed?

[@asix9178]

@@emmanuel5566 He's not saying the quantities we define as 2+2=4 would change, just that there would be nobody to define the terms used to describe the quantities and define the mathematical operations.

[@jordantanous8139]

Seems to me Alex doesn't want the responsibility of holding the slightest amount of burden of proof, whereas Frank seeks to talk about evidence and psychological reasoning from his videos.

[@jordantanous8139]

@markj6700yes there is a mountain of evidence. Frank Turek discusses the evidence for the one God in many of his videos. To start, I would like to suggest this video of Frank Turek on youtube entitled: Is the Jesus Story stupid and the resurrection a total miracle?

[@jordantanous8139]

@markj6700 Could you explain what you mean by good and evil not existing as an entity? Could you also explain your statement on what we mean by good means that God is not demonstrable? In order to formulate my thoughts, I just need some clarification on those points if you will

[@jordantanous8139]

@markj6700 and what are your thoughts on intelligent design?

[@jordantanous8139]

@markj6700 If you have determined that good is not an entity, how can I adequately demonstrate God to correlate to goodness? And I believe that I can demonstrate that a designer exists, but I would have to ask you this first: what would you require as evidence to demonstrate that a designer exists?

[@Anatolij86]

These are at their best when the usually brilliant moderator sticks to his role of rephrasing and clarifying the participants' arguments to further the debate, resisting the temptation to take an active role. This time it did indeed feel like 2v1 on multiple occasions.

[@gatmyne]

Alex is a fast talker kinda like Ben Shapiro. Its lost on me how Alex assumed everything as subjective - except evolution, and Turek didn't even challenge that assumption!

[@northernlight8857]

You set down subjective values and judge objectivly out of them. I cannot see how religious get any more objective than that either. So if you do please tell me.

[@gatmyne]

@@northernlight8857 😂😂it doesn't work that way. You can't condemn religion for its "lack of evidence" by using an argument that is entirely based on a concept that has zero evidence for its veracity... but hey, since when is logic accepted by evolutionists?

[@northernlight8857]

@@gatmyne you are just trolling and not interrested in an honest conversation it seems. Bye.

[@gatmyne]

@@northernlight8857 😂😂😂being dismissive is an easy way to run away from a challenge 😂😂😂... much easier than providing evidence for evolution 🤷🏾‍♂️

[@gatmyne]

@markj6700 I couldn't keep up with his imagination. "Evolution" is the naturalists' way of saying that they believe in some type of magic... but they can't explain who, what, or how the magic is done... yet they're quick to condemn everyone else for believing in "magic" that's ascribed to a God. It's interesting....

[@AshGeo]

47:23 This claim is just horrific from Alex 56:26 The difference is that the grounding being God is trustworthy since God by definition is a trustworthy mind (of course, assuming that he exists). But if the grounding is random evolutionary process like Alex is saying, there’s no reason for us to trust it.

[@Kratos40595]

Ash Geo we have empathy to our family, and that has extended out to society as our civilisations have developed. That’s what I think Alex meant. Likewise if there’s a god that had an objective form of morality, the Bible, Jesus etc shouldn’t be morally questionable

[@paulv7041]

Listening to the young guy it seems he is redefining what particular words now mean. Ie atheism, So what is the chance of understanding people's position if the are changing what has been traditionally meant by these words.

[@ArgyllPiper90]

Shape shifting slimy Satan....

[@crazyprayingmantis5596]

Atheism has never claimed that a God "doesn't" exist. Atheists aren't convinced that a God exists. basically because nobody has a way of knowing if a God exists.

[@crazyprayingmantis5596]

@@brando3342 Do you understand the difference between these 2 statements. I believe a God doesn't exist. I don't believe a God exists. There's a difference, can you tell me what it is?

[@crazyprayingmantis5596]

@@brando3342 You don't "know", you "believe". Knowledge is demonstrable, you can't demonstrate that a God exists. If you think you can, then go and claim the Nobel Prize, because you'll be the first human being in the history of mankind to be able to demonstrate that a God exists.

[@crazyprayingmantis5596]

@@brando3342 Does faith get you to truth?

[@loganleatherman7647]

To respond to Frank here, evil doesn’t actually exist. All that “evil” is practically is an abstract concept based on the comparison of what we as humans decide is “better” or “worse” in terms of social behavior that contributes to or detracts from well-being. Now what definition any given religion makes up about “evil” past this is another discussion

[@TheMapleSight]

So it boils down to talking about your favorite flavour for ice-cream. And than why even talk about it, after all we can't agree on THE BEST flavour. Then it seems to me, we only group actions by popular and less popular... And in certain time slavery for really really popular, Soo.....

[@editorsphilosophynow3646]

It seems to me the way the skeptic is using his concepts of subjective/objective is inconsistent (as well as being unhelpful)/

[@MarcosBetancort]

No evil is the same as good in the negative sense. There must be a duality. Suffering and not suffering to know intelectually what is each.

[@teaburg]

Bad analogy. Saying atheism is a psychological state then referring to books and microphones which do not have the capacity to think.

[@justchilling704]

Precisely!

[@teaburg]

It wasn't Alex who said that.

[@MyNameIsJ3ffrey]

I think what he was trying to say is that lack of belief is almost always followed by a positive assertion about reality. Such as “i don’t believe in God and therefore.....”. The idea that Atheism doesn’t exists as a worldview is what he was addressing.

[@larjkok1184]

Yeah, that was odd. And a vegan can only be if a thing has the ability to eat.

[@eishiba3916]

Alex is purposely being careful of his words because he doesn't want to say something inconsistent. he knows he is inconsistent and doesn't care I guess.

[@georgedoyle7971]

Fair point! This was a very good debate as it really exposed the weaknesses in a strict naturalism. It was very transparent that Alex was on his guard. Nevertheless, it shouldn’t be about winning the debate at all costs using sophistry. The elephant in the room is that Alex denies that torturing a child isn’t objectively wrong whilst making absolute claims to “truth” regarding the ability of naturalism to provide a moral framework. “Truth” is a metaphysical, that is a philosophical claim. Methodological naturalism is supposed to be metaphysically neutral. How can a purely physical/material reductionist account that is blind, pitiless, merciless, mindless and random possibly be the only component necessary for the qualitative, subjective experience of reality such as morality, ethics, love, altruism, bravery, beauty, meaning and purpose, that is the irreducible nature of mind and consciousness. Materialism/naturalism is clearly an incomplete theory of reality!. Debates should be about a genuine search for truth. We need to be honest about what we actually know because the fact is that the natural sciences can only describe what “is” not what “ought” to be which is clearly why the moral argument for a ground of all being is so compelling. This quote from the eminent atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel speaks volumes regarding Alex’s claim to “truth” regarding naturalistic explanations for morality and ethics.... “Evolutionary naturalism implies that we shouldn’t take any of our convictions seriously including the scientific world picture on which evolutionary naturalism itself depends.” (Thomas Nagel).

[@ManoverSuperman]

@@georgedoyle7971 Let's put it this way: theistic moral stances are convenient, but no less culturally arbitrary. All you have is moral pragmatism. It makes anyone feel good that, not only do they feel as if their actions are rationally and morally justified, but OBJECTIVELY so. But it does not change the fact that religious prohibitions are no more objectively correct than incorrect just because they appeal to some exterior being.

[@bizzaro1988]

Alex the opposite of no "suffering" which you used to define evil is good. He said not necessarily good, WHAT? That's what good is or I'm I missing something here

[@vinluman]

this is late, but there's a big "with respect to 'x'" that they're dancing around here: no suffering [of humans] is good [to humans] because it aims for the betterment of humans [with respect to humans]. that kind of "no suffering" is still subjective because the universe extends beyond humans (which is what alex has been holding on to this entire debate); no suffering for humans is not necessarily an objective moral good for the entire universe

[@Collidedatoms]

This is why it would have been better to talk with Sye Ten Bruggencate or Jeff Durbin or James White. They would have blown him away. There were so many places where frank was pressed for consistency in his own arguments and couldn't provide them because as he stated at the end "I'm not a five point calvinist".

[@aaronkuruppassery3947]

Recommendation for cosmic skeptic had been showing up. So I was wanting to check it out. But now after watching this video, I think I will pass.

[@GertGybels]

And that's how you stay in you own litle biased distorted world. GL.

[@jvt_redbaronspeaks4831]

@@GertGybels Yeah, cause cosmic-unsure has SOOOOOO much to offer intellectually. HAHAHA.

[@asix9178]

@@jvt_redbaronspeaks4831 Compared to you and Frankie, yes, he certainly does.

[@jvt_redbaronspeaks4831]

@@asix9178 you don't know me... way to be a sceptic.

[@asix9178]

@@jvt_redbaronspeaks4831 I know enough to make my comment. Way to be a dumb ass.

[@trybunt]

Does God determine the morals of other animals too? Just curious on the religious stand on that. Personally I think morals evolved with us, and have changed over time. If morals were determined by god, why did the majority of the world think that slavery was ok? That has changed over time

[@michaelmiky11]

God not only made the moral law. But according to Christians, He is the moral law. He made humans with free will who can choose to separate themselves from God. Because we separate ourselves from God, we commit evil deeds like slavery. Only humans are held responsible for that, not animals, just like we don't hold children responsible.

[@trybunt]

@@michaelmiky11 if the Christian god didn't want us to have slaves, then you would think he would of made that one of his 600+ rules in the bible. Instead there are instructions how to keep slaves, how much we can beat them, etc. If the Christian god exists, and has some sort of moral code we are supposed to follow, how are we supposed to know what that code is? I don't know if you are Christian, so I may not be asking the right person. But I am still curious about the animals too. Chimps in particular have morals that they appear to follow, they understand injustice when they see it, they believe in fair trade etc. But they also would "sin" according to the Christian god, so are they also effected by the same fall as humanity? Do they go to hell for their sins? I don't understand how that works in the Christian world view, and I'd like to understand it better.

[@trybunt]

@@michaelmiky11 I'm not trying to be insulting here, I'm honestly unsure about these things. I've read the bible, but I'm simply not convinced that it's an accurate representation of reality. When I see debates like this, I have questions about how a Christian might view the morals of animals. I also have questions about how they decide what is moral, what is immoral, how do they come to that conclusion, because I found the bible very confusing in that regard.

[@michaelmiky11]

@@trybunt I'm glad you're curious about this. It shows you care about truth, which is good no matter your religion or non-religion. I was an agnostic atheist but I'm since recently a Christian, so I had to find answers to what you said not very long ago. You're correct, in The Old Testament there are laws that protected slaves, including: -Slaves (and animals) are not allowed to work on the Sabbath. -You can't return a slave who fled. -If you murder a slave you get the death penalty, and if you severely injure a slave he goes free. -After 6 years, you must release the slave with a portion of your wealth. God doesn't explicitly say: you can't have slaves. But he did condemn almost every form of slavery on Earth. The African slave trade broke every law for example. And right before the ten commandments, he says you must listen to Him because: "I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of egypt, out of slavery." So as you can see, the central message of the Torah rests on the fact that God saved the Israelites from slavery. He wants us to appreciate the freedoms of being released from slavery. And therefore He wants to see it's abolishment (which ultimately came from a Christian group in the UK). About the chimps, yes you're right, they know about fair trade, but only when it happens to them. They don't react when they see an unfair trade happening to another chimp. Therefore this can't be described as morality, because it's not about treating other chimps, it's about the chimp's own survival and well-being.

[@robertbethel4341]

Cosmic skeptic didn’t even debate. He just wanted to talk definitions. He believes nothing but defends everything. I think he was afraid to get caught in a comment because he did say he believes we got here through evolution along with logic and consciousness.

[@xxsageonexx8910]

The debate in itself is a false dichotomy as Alex’s main point was anyway. It’s not atheism vs. the Christian god.

[@eliasarches2575]

Why do people keep getting Cosmic Skepic in on debates. He certainly is not the cream of the crop.

[@biggregg5]

For his age, he is very impressive.

[@condorman6293]

Link to your debates?

[@biggregg5]

@@condorman6293 😎

[@MrJamesdryable]

It really isn't that confusing. If I'm an Atheist on the subject of whether or not Santa is real, I'm not affirming that he isn't real, I've just never seen him, so I'm guessing he isn't.

[@michaelmiky11]

You're not just taking a wild guess that Santa doesn't exist. You know that because of the cultural context of Santa's origin. In fact, it would be pretty disturbing if you were neutral about that issue.

[@TheJusticeDuck]

The cosmic skeptic guys view on math is... Not entirely thought through

[@trybunt]

That math is a language? But... it is, and we created it. 10,000 years ago we didn't count the same way, math and numbers were created by us, and have evolved over time

[@Carther101]

@@trybunt The logic behind numbers wasn't created by us. What we created were the symbols to represent that logic. What's evolved over time is the increasing depth we can extend this logic. The issue is that the cosmic skeptic struggled to prove that math is subjective. The existence of objective logic completely destroys the determinism and subjectivism arguments.

[@trybunt]

@@Carther101 how does the existence of objective logic completely destroy any argument? If we take away all the humans, would their still be mathematics? That's what it comes down to here. Mathematics is abstract. It doesnt exist in the physical world. It exists in our brains. We use it to describe the world. Plus, even if there was no disagreement on the philosophical question, and I grant that mathematics exists objectively, that doesn't indicate that it was created by an intelligent conscious entity that exists outside of space and time. That is a very large lead of logic. All we can honestly say is that we don't know what created the universe, if anything, because it is possible that the universe always existed. Yes, I am aware that our visible universe appears to have a beginning, but that does not mean the entire universe actually began then, we are only working with what is visible. That is why cosmologists say "visible universe" when taking about the big bang.

[@Carther101]

@@trybunt How does a universe exist without space and time. It definitionally can't because universe is one-verse (one long combination of words: the use/embodiment of logos). So, technically, a universe is only possible where there's a logic behind everything; mathematical or verbal symbols (likw words, or equations, or our dna) behind our whole reality. When the big bang occurred space and time was created along with all light and matter, and all the logical rules conducting the orchestra of our reality. So yes he entire universe actually began at this point. Of course math exists outside of humans, that's silly. Gravity didn't begin dropping fruits from trees when humans appeared on the scene with reason... Humans just figured out how to easily relate and work with logic. Philosophy does it as well in the form of argumentation. For example, they regularly label arguments in the form of equations. Abstract reason/logic exists independent of us, yet we're fully capable of making sense of it all. Determinism and subjectivism relies on the existence of a subjective reality, but that's entirely counter to logic. Even figuring out if this claim is true or false relies on objectivity. The most important dichotomy is if someone's being unreasonable or reasonable. Reasonable arguments withstand the tests of time, just like the saying says the cream always rises to the top. Cosmicskeptic didn't rise to the top when he tried to make the claim that mathematics and reason can be subjective because that's a self-evident logical contradiction.

[@trybunt]

@@Carther101 To show my point I will present a thought experiment. I don't think this is necessarily true, but it helps explain my point.. First an explanation of the observable universe - the cosmic horizon is the limit if our observable universe. As the universe expands, the most distant galaxies become so far away that light will never reach us, because we are expanding as the light travels. In the distance future each galaxy will seperate so far that no galaxy will be able to see another. If civilizations look to the sky, they will see only their galaxy, and that will be their observable universe. So hopefully now you can understand why we don't necessarily see all of it. Ok, thought experiment- Trillions of years in the future, each galaxy has collapsed into its central black hole, and each is beyond the cosmic horizon of each other. At the edge of each black hole, particles appear and disappear (yes, this really happens in space) some of which add to the black holes mass. After an unfathomable amount of time, when the black hole had increased past some tipping point, something happens that we don't understand in physics yet, and the black hole explodes into a new observable universe. Maybe 15 billions years later, another species is arguing about how their universe was created. One will say how obvious it is that everything was created 15billion years before, the other one will suggest the maybe, just maybe....

[@nithionvanlithe9369]

24:08, Alex: "The only way you can argue that that is wrong is to have some kind of transcendent being". At this point Alex has chosen the only way out for the atheist with regard to the moral argument. He denies premise 2, which is that objective morals exist. In fact, he then goes on to say that Frank needs God to prove the existence of objective morality! Now this is the point in the argument that I believe most christians go wrong, because they usually try to argue why objective morality does exist. And this is what Frank does. The problem is, while the case for objective morality is a good one, the arguments all come down to an appeal to subjective perception of the objectivity of morality! Which means atheists can rationally deny it. They can say that they simply distrust any instinctive feeling that morality is objective. In other words, the moral argument only works on certain people! It only works on those people that believe their perception of an objective right and wrong is real. christians should acknowledge this, because it is the only way to make it clear to listeners that are undecided, what is really at stake here: yes, you can deny the existence of objective morals, but you are going to pay a high price, both intellectually and morally, for doing this! Listeners of such a debate see Alex's bold faced denial of objective morality, and think, it is an easy way out. Only by acknowledging that this is a valid and rational way to deny the moral argument, can we make it clear what the implications of this denial really are. Firstly, the denier, pays an high intellectual price because he is denying something that is obvious to most people. That some things are really right and other are really wrong is as obvious to most people as the existence of an external reality. But the materialistic atheist must deny this: the baseball bat is real, but hitting someone over the head with it is not really wrong! And the moral cost is equally high. If morals are not objective, then an evil act is comparable to a bad smelling cheese: if you can get it past your nose, then there is nothing wrong with partaking in it! And if this is the case, then their is ultimately never any justice., and no-one will eventually be held accountable for what they do. The moral argument makes it clear that, as an atheist, you MUST deny the existence of objective morality, the only other option is to give up your atheism. Alex really has no other choice, but to say what he says. This dilema should be made clear by the christian, when you get to this point in the argument.

[@georgedoyle7971]

Well said!! All the best to you and your family and keep safe during this Corona virus crisis ❤️

[@mrb532]

I can’t remember at what point in the video this happened, but Alex said that if no humans existed, then murder wouldn’t be ‘wrong’. This is so stupid lol. If no humans existed, murder wouldn’t be possible lmao

[@madnomad1515]

Fascinating conversation. One terribly interesting point was that if atheism is simply a lack of belief in God, then a book is an atheist. Alex’s response was that then a book could also be a vegan because it doesn’t eat meat. Incorrect my young friend. A Vegan is not simply a person who doesn’t eat meat, but it’s a person who eats food other than meat. A book does not eat anything. So it is an absurdity to claim to be an atheist. You are simply agnostic. As Alex rightly pointed out, atheism is a belief claim. However to claim a lack of belief in God, without affirming the opposite is to make no claim. That is an agnostic claim. For example, to say I don’t believe it will rain today, and to then say I won’t say that I believe it will not rain today, is to make no belief claim whatsoever. It is equal to saying I don’t know if it will rain. And that is agnostic, pure and simple.

[@drumrnva]

I don't understand the point of quibbling over labels. Alex has made his position clear. Doesn't matter what name we give it. Books can't eat; neither can they believe or disbelieve. Never understood what FT was trying to say here.

[@madnomad1515]

drumrnva I think the point is that atheists wear that label as a badge of honor while, quite conveniently, not being subjected to the burden of evidence. To say you’re an atheist that simply does not believe in God is absurd as saying “a book is an atheist.” Claim the burden or just say you’re an agnostic. I think that was the point.

[@drumrnva]

@@madnomad1515 Well, for myself, I've never seen it as a badge of honor or dishonor. If "agnostic" has to precede "atheist", then it must also precede "theist". Also, regarding the burden--what possible evidence could support the assertion that no gods exist?

[@madnomad1515]

drumrnva I don’t think it proceeds either. Putting agnostic before atheist is still not accepting the burden of evidence. And to your point, what burden of evidence goes with a non belief? That’s exactly the point. Either say I believe there is no God and accept the BOE, or just say it’s not of your damn business what I believe. (That last part was a joke) Claiming that God does not exist is a positive belief claim. If you can’t offer evidence of that claim, why would you believe it?

[@drumrnva]

@@madnomad1515 an atheist is someone who has the capacity to be convinced of things (the external world exists, gravity is predictable, germs carry disease, etc ) , and who also is NOT convinced that any of the things we call gods are real. What is the burden, exactly?

[@spalding1968]

Great debate . Cosmic skeptic had a hard time explaining why he should trust a brain that has come from purely non logic immoral random physical processes and tried to say that frank was doing the same thing by substituting God for evolution . But he is fundamentally wrong . Frank argues that a supreme purposeful ,conscious moral mind has passed on logic, consciousness and morality through design to mankind . It at least makes theoretic sense that we are then bestowed with similar characteristics to our creator in having consciousness , logic and morality . Despite cosmic skeptics arguments it still boils down to no. Conscious , random and without purpose or direction processes (evolution) producing conscious , purposeful moral people . He can make the argument but it doesn’t sound as persuasive at all to me

[@mrb532]

Worth Quarrie you could see his body language change when Frank challenged him on this lol. I don’t think he ever considered this point before.

[@mikealcock4034]

We have strikingly similar characteristics to our creator because we made him that way in our image! All the minds that we know of are intimately associated with brains. If god is mind where is gods brain? Seriously, mind does seem to emerge from extremely complex physical networks. If you wish to talk about god, it is unhelpful to use the word mind as this implies the existence of such networks. God must be different, so, it is hardly logical to say we have a rational mind like his. Which just shows how difficult conversation about god can be. Frank seems to know the mind of god... good luck to him.

[@spalding1968]

Mike Alcock maybe someone has not explained coherently to you that God is spirit and not matter . If we are to answer your question based upon a materialistic understanding of God it’s a false question as God ,as Christians and most religions describe him is not material and existed before all matter was made because.he created time space and matter . You are essentially arguing belief in a created God and then limiting him by physical materialistic properties . That’s a straw man argument. It’s certainly not the God I believe in .

[@spalding1968]

markj6700 So let me get this straight ,you are using the example of the concept of consciousness that cannot be explained by naturalistic materialistic explanations. And saying that if I can’t find an example of another form of consciousness outside of the Physical biological brain my argument fails ? how about if I said to you “find me a cellular unit of consciousness that has a materialistic, naturalistic explanation and unless you can do that your argument fails.? “ .good luck with that ....

[@Mr.H-YT42]

The answer is, of course, nothing is ever fully knowable with 100% certainty because even our senses have limits and can be fooled or otherwise provide incorrect information, so if we don't extend some level of trust to our own brains, what else do we have to utilize if we want to explore, learn, and grow? Another way to think of it is that when we apply our brains as informed by our senses, we often get reliable results. Not 100% success, but reliable. I usually don't walk into trees because my eyes see them ahead and my brain knows to step around it. But it could be dark, or I might be distracted, sick, drunk, etc. So I exercise caution, knowing that every once in a while, I could walk bump into an obstacle instead of stepping around it. That consistency of results (sidestepping the tree most of the time) gives us a certain level of confidence that our brains are reliable. But not fully, which is why we use rigorous checks and balances to sidestep our biases and limitations... a method of guarded skepticism we sometimes call science.

[@carloschris2792]

I come to these videos, an agnostic, with one a posteriori question. If God exists why is it not self-evident like sunshine or breathing? Am I wrong in thinking that it is incumbent on theists to explain, not the existence of god, but why that existence is not self- evident. Seems to me that to answer that question theists need to know the mind of a supreme being who opts for uncertainty about his (?) own existence. Or to put it another way, why is there a hierarchy of 'chosen people?'

[@paullooper1090]

Alex did a good job... Frank is being Frank as always...

[@georgedoyle7971]

I didn’t find Alex’s arguments convincing at all especially his claim that our most precise technique for describing reality objectively, that is mathematics is “arbitrary”. He basically just undermined all scientific knowledge including his own arguments. (Arbitrary) “Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.” (Oxford Dictionary). In contrast the moral argument that Turkek used was actually very compelling and Alex is clearly blind to the elephant in the room when he promotes the idea that torturing a child isn’t objectively wrong but is ironically happy to make absolute objective claims to “truth” regarding the reach of methodological naturalism.

[@goranmilic442]

Frank says math can't exists without God, Alex says math can't exists without man. They're both wrong. Without man, Earth would still evolved around Sun, because it's smaller. Smaller is a math thing, therefore it exists without man. In world created without God, same thing, Earth is smaller than Sun, therefore math exists without God.

[@loganleatherman7647]

All that math is is the conceptual framework that humans have given to observable/predictable patterns in the universe. “Math” is purely abstract so no, math doesn’t exist without an entity with the capacity to understand it existing

[@goranmilic442]

@@loganleatherman7647 It depends how we define word "math". If by "math" you mean mathematical language and concepts, then yes, I agree with you, math doesn’t exist without an entity with the capacity to understand and develop it. But when I used word "math", I was talking about observable and predictable patterns. They do exist, even without us. Therefore, math does exist without us.

[@johnetanpitaluga89]

It's sad in my opinion that the young man as intelligent and well mannered as he is has adopted the position of fools.

[@AsixA6]

Stated the fool.

[@mm7411]

Great point, just think of how influential this young man could be as a warrior for Christ. In time he will come to Know God. Be Blessed My Brother.

[@AsixA6]

@@mm7411 You're delusional

[@peytonsingh1038]

@@AsixA6 The fool says there is no God. The fool also slews adjectives at others without bringing anything relevant into the conversation.

[@AsixA6]

@@peytonsingh1038 *The fool says there is a 'god' thingy.*

[@deepdiscussions5728]

“If morality is subjective, what gives you the right to tell them their wrong?” How does holding an objective view give you the right? If two opposing moralities were both objective, how does that solve the problem any better? It doesn’t.

[@tonyoliver2750]

How can "two opposing moralities" both be objective?

[@deepdiscussions5728]

Tony Oliver by having two different definitions of words like “right” and “wrong”

[@deepdiscussions5728]

Tony Oliver the definitions we use for a particular word is always subjective. What’s not subjective is what phenomena fit the definition once it’s established.

[@tonyoliver2750]

@@deepdiscussions5728 You're not making much sense. Alice had a similar problem with Humpty Dumpty "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean-neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

[@deepdiscussions5728]

Tony Oliver give me an example of something objectively true?

[@michaelj.spencer5276]

The young academic is firmly stuck in the heliocentric/BIg Bang/Darwinism lie and is unlikely to be able to see the truth until and unless he is able to break the mould - this is extremely difficult while he's still in the establishment's education system. Let's pray that the Holy Spirit will move him to faith in our Creator God through Jesus Christ...

[@unknown9106]

The irony of this comment lol

[@aleksanderanan2119]

Yes, all 3 theories with no connections to each other, explaining different subjects, accepted by the smartest scientists of this world are all lies. This one book with multiple inconsistencies in it that an average human can see them and religion leaders need to make some excuses to them in order to appeal to people like you is the only truth. Gj mate.

[@michaelj.spencer5276]

@@aleksanderanan2119 - Firstly, I'm NOT your mate! Secondly, if all you can muster is a personal attack then you have no argument, no debate, other than what appears to be your belief in scientism, which aggressively attempts to exclude and intellectually remove God from existence. Clearly, English is not your first language, however, if you have the ability to debate without personal insults then bring it on.

[@aleksanderanan2119]

@@michaelj.spencer5276 Wouldn't consider sarcasm as that much of an insult. Other than "mate", I didn't say anything personal to you and getting mad for being called that is rather stupid. Also, why say I don't have any argument or don't engage in a debate when that's EXACTLY what I'm doing? You wrote a comment -> I answered it -> you answered back. It's a conversation, debate or whatever else you want to call it. Your argument: The 3 theories are lies but the young man doesn't understand it. My argument: 3 theories that you brought up are widely confirmed true by millions of scientists. You claim that such a huge number of people lie for the reasons you didn't specify when it's practically impossible. I also noticed that religion is more likely to be a lie. If anything, you're the one personally attacking others, accusing them of lying. My answer was the same "attack" as yours because all I did was turn it around and say it's the religious people who are lying.

[@seth956]

This entire argument stands on the person's identity. This is the starting point that people often assume. Are we just advanced animals or are we created in the image of God. The bible states that the most important commandment is to love God with all your heart, soul, and mind which is also a declaration of the human identity. If you perform an honest investigation of this being, said to be created in the image of God, their maybe some strong personal proof that you're more than an advanced animal. Its funny when people ask where the evidence is because its been them the entire time. It just cannot be shared with anyone, which irritates the skeptic. Its sad when people use their faculties given by God to declare he doesnt exist. It would be a strange negation to claim your dad doesnt exist even if you never met him. Ironically its the most intelligent people that are often the farthest from the truth because of their relentless effort.

[@alexanderg8466]

Alex certainly dabates very hard... Congratulations ;)

[@WackyConundrum]

Weird debate. 2 vs 1. The main topic quickly sank under some less relevant issues. Alex should spend some time learning about science and biology, evolution in particular, to be equipped to explain his position. It is perfectly sensible to explain good (as in: performant), functioning faculty of reason with evolutionary forces. Just as we explain other functions of various organisms, be it flying, digestion, teeth, or eyes. Reason is just another function that evolved through evolutionary processes that help organisms excel in their environments.

[@guacamoleniqqapeniss7317]

The atheist is certainly out of the context of his words wishing he did not said that... Ool

[@georgedoyle7971]

“Alex should spend some time learning about science and biology, evolution in particular” It wouldn’t make any difference as Alex believes the language of science is arbitrary, that is mathematics is arbitrary! So he’s basically undermined science already. Also Alex knows this would just lead to a scientism and materialism of the gaps fallacy” which is why he prefers to play to his strengths and present his own rehearsed arguments for presuppositional metaphysics. Equally, Methodological naturalism is supposed to be metaphysically neutral. Any claim to “truth” is a metaphysical, that is philosophical claim. The fact is that “evolutionary naturalism implies that we shouldn’t take any of our convictions seriously including the scientific world picture on which evolutionary naturalism itself depends.” (Thomas Nagel). Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence!

[@goor1322]

Atheist: Math is a human concept. Theist: Suppose there were no humans in existence. And there are two rocks on the Earth. Would there still be two rocks on the Earth? Atheist: It depends what do you mean by two. (...Crickets...) Frank whipped this illogical, relativistic, self refuting rug rats butt.

[@asix9178]

No, Frank and you are apparently too stupid to understand very basic concepts. The #2 is a human concept. If there were no humans, there'd be no #2. What we are describing by using the #2 would still exist, but the #2 would not. You're a theist so, it's understandable that you have trouble with critical thinking.

[@goor1322]

Folks. asix's response is a prime example of the irrational thought process of the Internet atheist. I rest my case.

[@asix9178]

@@goor1322 Folks, Go Or's response is a prime example of the irrational thought process of Go Or. All he can do is pretend it's irrational, but not actually address what was stated. I rest my case.

[@goor1322]

@@asix9178 You're done here Troll :) You have no sufficient rebuttal. Just an emotional reason to reject a rational truth claim. All your posts have been irrational. To everyone you've responded to. Which is quite a few. Trying to compensate for something hmmm? That's what I thought...

[@asix9178]

@@goor1322 "You have no sufficient rebuttal." *Ahahahahaaaa!!!! To what? You haven't offered any argument to rebut.* "All your posts have been irrational." *Claiming they are irrational, doesn't demonstrate them as irrational. Try again.*

[@scottlafleur4148]

Disproving atheism? I'm not really sure what that means. You can not disprove my non belief. You are making the claim god exists. I say you haven't convinced me.

[@MrDzoni955]

When serious people use the term "atheism", they are referring to a philosophical position that there is no God or gods. Clearly you can use the term to describe your personal mental state of non-belief, but how useful is that in a discussion?

[@asix9178]

@@MrDzoni955 *When 'serious' people use the term 'atheism', they are referring to not believing invisible fucking magicians exist.* "how useful is that in a discussion?" *Very*

[@nic12344]

​@@MrDzoni955 The word "atheism" is formed by the word "theism", which is the believe that a god exists, and the prefix "a", which is used to signify the lack of the word it is affixed to. Therefore, "atheism" in it's etymological sense means "the lack of believe that a god exists". The lack of believe always predates the believe itself. Therefore, atheism is the starting position. You have to be convinced that a god exists in order to believe that a god exists. While you have not been convinced yet (or ever) you are an atheist. When you are convinced, you become a theist. However, if you are convinced of the nonexistence of a god (or any god), you become a naturalist (strong atheist and antitheist are also used). Also, you should never use _argumentum ad verecundiam_ ("serious people") as it is a logical fallacy, but still, I'm curious : What word "serious people" use to describe someone that don't believe the claim that a god exists?

[@glasspreacher8436]

Frank would have had more success pressing this man on his worldview if he used a presuppositional approach.

[@glasspreacher8436]

@O P The point is, apart from God's existence you have no grounding for universal laws of logic, morality, uniformity in nature, and induction. You cannot explain these things without demonstrating your absurdity. You might want to take a look at some of Van Til or Greg Bahnsens arguments. Smith vs Bahnsen debate is a good demonstration of the transcendental or presuppositional argument. Most atheists get defensive when this argument is applied because it exposes they have to steal from God in order to make sense of their own world views

[@condorman6293]

@@glasspreacher8436 Everyone presupposes that logic works. Presuppositions don't need justification else they wouldn't be presuppositions. Without first assuming logic, how can you say God can not both be the foundation for logic and also not the foundation for logic at the same time?

[@glasspreacher8436]

@@condorman6293 Why does logic work? Where does it come from? What is truth? Of course everyone presupposes logic, and live like it exists. The point is, they have no rational explanation for its existence. Where do you get logic? Has truth, logic, morality truly come about by some random evolutionary process? Is it a physical construct? No sir, it's not. Which is why naturalism and atheism are absurd. They have to steal from the Christian world view in order to make sense of their own.

[@condorman6293]

@@glasspreacher8436 It's presupposed. You need logic to make any of the claims you are. Saying it needs an explanation is just using logic to explain logic.

[@glasspreacher8436]

@@condorman6293 Again, logic such as the law of non contradiction, the law of the excluded middle, and the law of identity are universal. Can these be explained from a naturalists world view? All you can say is they exist just because? For me, the evidence is clear, these laws of logic as well as all the other overwhelming evidence for design points to God. The problem for atheists isnt the lack of evidence it's volitional. Unbelievers don't want God to exist because they love their sin. God is good though, and has provided a way to be righteous before him. That is, he provided himself as a sacrifice on the behalf of sinners like you and me through the person of Jesus. Listen, with all do respect, no one can rationally say that Jesus has not had the most profound impact on history than any living being. He is worth searching out with an honest and sincere heart, at the very least. If I'm wrong about Christ then I would have lived a moral life (to the best of my ability) and will subsequently take an eternal dirt nap. If you are wrong and reject him... I don't want that for anyone. Just give Him a chance. God bless you my friend. I appreciate the dialogue.

[@sbwetherbe]

One of the more cogent discussions I've heard on the topic of theism/atheism.

[@ajboggie87]

Cosmic Skeptic appears to be better at choreography than philosophy.

[@joehinojosa8314]

Science attempts to answer HOW reality got here and it's nature Without the supernatural. Assuming this presupposition, the next logical step is to explain consciousness, reasoning, spirituality in all cultures (religiosity),agreement on basic moral,ethical prescripts by all cultures historically,Without a Divine Template. These questions have eluded Philosophy for ages.

[@joehinojosa8314]

@markj6700 It is possible I misunderstand. However geneticists have tried to licate a possible genetic- component towards spirituality in the human brain. They popular nomenclature for this is called "The God-Gene" or Vesicular monoamine transporter or VMAT2. Spirituality even from Neanderthal times may have nothing to do with statistics but more anthropological discoveries of Neanderthal burial rites.

[@joehinojosa8314]

@markj6700 I'm not doing the research though. You advised me to use Google. I did and I found that. It's NOT My theory. I don't take credit for it.

[@joehinojosa8314]

@markj6700 I can't believe in God but I can believe YOU'RE a "Mind Reader"! OK.

[@joehinojosa8314]

@markj6700 Honest dialectic. Well I am talking to you. I suppose THAT is a good starting point. You made a good point about supernatural claims that are untestable. I suppose if a supernatural intervention DID occur, you would just sweep it under the rug as "ultimately having a NATURAL explanation,awaiting further research". There are different kinds of "truth". You honestly have a good desire to help people. But I cannot PROVE That in a laboratory. How do we measure "good"?

[@joehinojosa8314]

@markj6700 Usually I cringe a little when someone DEFINES the terms in a discussion. However in this case,very well: We can use "Well Being".

[@Soaptoaster]

The ag-theist is articulate but swimming in confusion and contradiction.

[@biggregg5]

What's an ag-theist?

[@Soaptoaster]

@@biggregg5 Did you not watch the video?

[@biggregg5]

@@Soaptoaster Most of it....may have missed some. Turek puts me to sleep.

[@XXgamemaster]

Frank Turek's claim that even a book can be an atheist is ridiculous. The definition of an atheist is a PERSON that does not believe in god. That's it. It doesn't make sense to assign an inanimate object, like a book, a belief because they are incapable of holding beliefs.

[@takeosensei4276]

the boy trying to sound clever, he thinks he can out-clever the master. the bible say "For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. As it is written: "He catches the wise in their craftiness";

[@SecularDrift]

From minute 31:00 to minute 31:17 mind is blown. This Alex guy cant be serious and this isn’t the only moment I’m like ______________??? My guys says “This is where things get confusing” Oh yeah!! I bet it does lol

[@Software.Engineer]

@34:41 to @34:57 is where Alex's argument gets proven wrong. It's self defeating to say that reason is subjective, because to say that reason is subjective is to say that that statement is true, which is objective. Reason is objective, it's self defeating to say reason is subjective.

[@georgedoyle7971]

@@Software.Engineer Fair point! (Alex) “It depends on what you mean by two” “Mathematics is arbitrary” Nearly everything in the universe can be described mathematically even modal logic can be described using mathematical theorems, hence Kurt Godels incompleteness theorems that demonstrated all knowledge is ultimately founded on something you can’t empirically prove which was as ground breaking as anything Einstein discovered. Mathematics is clearly not arbitrary because if it was then you reach an absurdity as you’ve just undermined scientific knowledge ? (Arbitrary): Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system (Oxford Dictionary).

[@merlepatterson]

One could say that a lion eating a fawn is evil as an act of the lion. But the lion is born with genetic instructions to survive and it's simply the hunger of the lion which dictates to the lion's mind to pounce upon something which it sees as something which will serve to satisfy the hunger and survival instinct. There is nothing inherently evil in a lion eating a fawn or any other creature for it's own survival. One could make the parallel to the lion's act much like a hostile corporate takeover which ends in thousands of workers losing their jobs and pensions. Like the lion, it is the survival instinct of the company as a living entity with a desire to survive, thrive and grow. If evil exists as what could be construed as an immoral act, then anything which one sees as immoral can then be labeled subjectively evil. Might some people see baseball, curse words, Wall St hedge fund mgr's or movie theater goers as inherently evil? Yes, and this still wouldn't provide evidence for the existence of god, or that these acts are inherently and objectively good or evil in and of themselves. It only serves to differentiate conscious status of the subjective being observing the suspected evil. At the end of the day, the burden of proof still lays in Frank Turek's lap and he hasn't satisfied that burden in this discussion, or any other discussion one could watch where Frank is making his deistic claims.

[@Software.Engineer]

If there is no God, there is no good and evil, it is only subjective to the individual. Don't get confused here, the idea of objective morality isn't an argument for God. It is simply a statement that it exists IF God exists. That's all that was being said. You can't prove God with morality like in your example. With the evidence laid out on the table, I think it makes more sense for a God to exist than no God because it seems to explain reality a lot better to me.

[@merlepatterson]

​@@Software.Engineer Not a good analogy to "think something existing makes sense" therefor it exists, because I think it should. That is a subjective conclusion which is absent evidence. Everyone can know what is good and what is evil in a secular context. We're taught from childhood by our parents how to be good from a folkloric traditional sense. "Don't pull the dogs ears" "Don't put your hand on the stove" "Don't hit your sister" etc. In other words, goodness is as much learned as is evil in subjective terms from environmental input. Culturally everyone is indoctrinated into norms of patterns of what is to be considered good and evil by parents and peer groups.

[@thischannel973]

@@merlepatterson, well, I have an intuition of what is good and evil, and I will be pleased to hand you the burden of proof.

[@merlepatterson]

@@thischannel973 Incorrect application of the burden of proof. It isn't mine for you to "hand it to". I'm not making a claim which must have a burden of proof.

[@thischannel973]

​@@merlepatterson I think there is a misunderstanding about two things, my argument and my figure of speech. I was making a joke about the burden of proof. What I was saying was, I feel that some things are bad and good, therefore, you have to justify why you think "goodness" and "badness" is a scam.

[@lesliecunliffe4450]

Atheists claim that atheism is not a belief system but the absence of belief in a god. Wittgenstein exposed the sleight of hand in such a move in this way: “All that philosophy can do is to destroy idols. And that means not creating a new one - for instance as in “absence of an idol”. Alex believes in the absence of an idol. Furthermore, if atheism is just the absence of a belief in a god, why is the atheist philosopher John Gray (2018) able to describe these seven types of atheism in his recent book of the same title: 1.the so-called ‘new atheism’ - ‘which contains little that is novel or interesting’; 2. atheism as ‘secular humanism’ - ‘a hollowed-out version of the Christian belief in salvation in history’; 3. ‘atheism as a kind of religion from science’ (scientism) - ‘a category that includes evolutionary humanism, Mesmerism, dialectical materialism and contemporary transhumanism’; 4. ‘atheism as manifested in modern political religions, from Jacobinism through communism and Nazism to contemporary evangelical liberalism’; 5. atheism - of ‘God-haters’(anti-theists); 6. atheism - ‘which rejects the idea of a creator-god without having any piety towards “humanity”’; 7. atheism - as ‘mystical… negative theologies, all of which in different ways point to a God that transcends any human conception'? (summarised on p.7)

[@northernlight8857]

This was silly and obviously wrong.

[@lesliecunliffe4450]

@@northernlight8857 - Northern Light states that the comment I posted was ‘was silly and obviously wrong’ but failed to back up this facile remark without the support of reasoned arguments or any detailed reference to Wittgenstein’s or Gray’s work. Therefore, the reader might share my suspicion that he has no arguments to offer to justify his comment. It would be helpful if Northern Light could let us know why Wittgenstein’s and Gray’s thinking, and my use of it, is both ‘silly’ and ‘obviously wrong’. Just to make sure what you are letting yourself in for, take note that in a poll conducted in 1999 amongst professional philosophers working in US universities, Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations was voted the most important philosophical work of the twentieth century. By comparison, Gray is third-rate but this doesn’t necessarily make his analysis of atheism flawed, especially his application of some of Wittgenstein's comments in the opening chapter. Over to you!

[@anthonyesparsen7776]

This young man is changing words to mix people minds up chaos

[@condorman6293]

You only think that because your mind is easily mixed up

[@jonrendell]

Alex puts their minds in a cuisinart and presses blitz.