Recapping Bishop Barron vs. The Cosmic Skeptic

[@tlockerk]

The fact that Alex was solid enough in his faith to RISK being teased about his Rosary praying indicates it was a large part of his youthful experience. He's very likeable and bright!

[@alicestrassweg1115]

This is a much needed conversation. I am so in awe of Bishop Barron’s intellectual knowledge, but even more of his ability to convey it to the average mind. I will continue to pray daily for the gift of Bishop Barron.!!! The one good thing is the internet, because he can reach so many people.

[@avi7278]

I found him quite utterly dreadful. A poor representation for theists on the matter. From where exactly do you form such a valiant opinion? His answers were clearly rehearsed and often times right off-topic! I found myself wondering just what is his point more than a few times during his extended dialogs. This man clearly loves to hear his own voice but at last is of little substance. Much like a leaky faucet, he was running non-stop but very little was actually coming out. He is a clearly an intelligent and talented man in some respects, but defending theists on matters of God is not one of them. I was right down exhausted towards the long of it.

[@georgedoyle2487]

@@avi7278 “I found him quite utterly dreadful” “Loves to hear his own voice” “Much like a leaky faucet” “But very little was actually coming out” “His answers were clearly rehearsed” Ho the irony!! The fact is that he definitely responded well enough to rattle your little cage!! Sorry but under a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism there is no such thing as “utterly” or “dreadful” as this is an absolute, a value claim, an ought claim, that is a metaphysical presupposition that can not be proven, justified or grounded in a strictly reductive, causally closed, effectively complete system that clearly excludes metaphysical realities!! The irony is that it obviously leads to epistemological nihilism at worst and total relativism at best!! And we are all on equal footing at the very least under relativism!! Equally, the irony and the absurdity is that whether you believe in pink fluffy leprechauns or conscious agents and free will, that is rationality itself we are all on equal footing at the very least under a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism!! Your world view, your relativism, your absurdity, your existential crisis and your epistemological crisis not the theists!! Sorry but the fact is that under this strictly reductive, causally closed, effectively complete system “you” and your ironic “leaky faucet” argument including your very ironic accusations of “loves to hear his own voice” are nothing more substantive than the delusions an overgrown amoeba with illusions of grandeur. A cosmic accident that went neither “utterly” wrong nor “utterly” right as everything just (is) ultimately amoral, ultimately meaningless, ultimately purposeless and there is no objective standard and everything is just totally relativistic!! Basically it’s all just ultimately meaningless under your world view and deep down you know it!! Your world view, your absurdity, your existential crisis and your epistemological crisis not the theists buddy!! Sorry but the fact is that under this strictly reductive, causally closed, effectively complete system “you” are ultimately just a determined machine, a chemical and biological robot and nothing more substantive than brain chemicals creating the illusion of stable patterns and regularities!! Your world view, your existential crisis and your epistemological crisis not the theists!! Furthermore, under this literally self refuting world view “you” and your very ironic accusations of “liking the sound of your own voice” including your hilarious “leaky faucet” argument are nothing more than the delusions of an evolved ape who shares half their DNA with bananas!! Sorry but the fact is that under this strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism, “you” including your ironic “utterly dreadful” argument are just the brains user illusion of “self” and nothing more substantive than the science project of vinegar and baking soda bubbling over!! Your world view, your existential crisis and your epistemological crisis not the theists!! Does the science project of vinegar and baking soda bubble over with “logic” and “truth”? that is value claims, that is ought claims when it claims that Bishop Barron was “utterly dreadful”. This is comedy gold and is hilarious!! “You can not get an (ought) out of an (is)” - (David Hume) Why “ought” we take the truth claims of an overgrown amoeba with illusions of grandeur seriously? Why should we believe the myths, delusions and “truth” claims of an evolved ape who shares half their DNA with bananas?? Your world view, your existential crisis and your epistemological crisis not the theists buddy!! Better for them to deny metaphysics, that is truth, that is value claims, ought claims, the prescriptive laws of logic, objective morality, universals, the conscious agent, free will and with it rationality, truth, and science itself than to admit the soul/self. Once again, the strictly reductive materialist, atheist or philosophical naturalist manifests the very (dogmatism) of which he accuses the religious believer, and in rationalizing it is willing to contemplate absurdities of which no religious believer has ever dreamed!! I rest my case!!

[@georgedoyle2487]

“I found him quite utterly dreadful” “Loves to hear his own voice” “Much like a leaky faucet” “But very little was actually coming out” “His answers were clearly rehearsed” This is beyond ironic!! Sorry but as I pointed out already under this strictly reductive, causally closed, effectively complete system your ironic truth claims have no more truth “value” than leaves blowing in the wind!! The irony and the absurdity and the “utterly dreadful” elephant in the room is that under this strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism “you”, the leaves and your very ironic “utterly dreadful” argument are destined for the same place (The Fertiliser Pit/the void). Sorry but the fact is that.. “You can not get an (ought) out of an (is)” - (David Hume) Why “ought” we take the truth claims of an overgrown amoeba with illusions of grandeur seriously? Why should we believe the myths, delusions and “truth” claims of an evolved ape who shares half their DNA with bananas?? Your world view, your absurdity, your existential crisis and your epistemological crisis not the theists buddy!! (Relativism, strictly reductive materialism, militant atheism or philosophical naturalism): “The belief that there was “nothing”, and nothing didn’t really mean nothing as there was no such thing as meaning, and then nothing much happened to nothing except nothing and then nothing suddenly magically exploded for no reason whatsoever, creating everything, and then a bunch of everything suddenly magically rearranged itself -- for no reason whatsoever -- into self replicating bits which then turned into something that meant everything. But ultimately it didn’t really mean everything or anything as everything is ultimately meaningless.” (Atheism) And they mock other peoples beliefs!! Yeah perfectly “sane” and makes perfect sense!! About as much sense as your “leaky faucet” argument lol!!

[@avi7278]

@@georgedoyle2487 and it was quite the case... that no person in their right mind would read start to finish; a real word salad if I've ever seen one. Practice on your conciseness if you desire an effective exchange of ideas.

[@georgedoyle2487]

@@avi7278 “Practice on your conciseness” “Word salad” Ho the irony!! Sorry but (Ad hominem Fallacies) and (Appeal to stone, that is Appeal to Dismissal Fallacies) aren’t evidence that a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism is true or even coherent. Evidence please not logical fallacies and personal attacks!! I’ll wait!! (Relativism, strictly reductive materialism, militant atheism or philosophical naturalism): “The belief that there was “nothing”, and nothing didn’t really mean nothing as there was no such thing as meaning, and then nothing much happened to nothing except nothing and then nothing suddenly magically exploded for no reason whatsoever, creating everything, and then a bunch of everything suddenly magically rearranged itself -- for no reason whatsoever -- into self replicating bits which then turned into something that meant everything. But ultimately it didn’t really mean everything or anything as everything is ultimately meaningless.” (Atheism) And they mock other peoples beliefs!! Yeah perfectly “sane” and makes perfect sense!! About as much sense as your “word salad” argument and your “practise on your conciseness” argument lol!!

[@kiutpi]

Bishop Barron, one thing that I did get about Alex's demeanor is that he seems to have a genuine deep care for people and their suffering, he cares about the environment and has a sensibility about the injustices caused by industrial farming and disregard for the environment (hence him being a Vegetarian/Vegan) and he also seems to have a thurst for knowlege and truth. I think he has a beautiful intuition about the importance of this truth, and his love for God, (although he would not call it that way) in his deep desire to find truth by his studies in Theology. He has a compassion for humanity's suffering and also a compassion for the suffering of animals in the context of the cruel system of industrial meat farming. He seems to me to be a spiritual man, that is having a major fight "wrestling" with God, and in is anger and despair of asking God "why do you allow this suffering to exist?!" he has unfortunately renounced God by proclaiming he does not exist. I think he is closer to God than he realizes. What do you think 🤔 ?

[@ABB14-11]

I got that same vibe, I hope he finds the Truth ASAP

[@witchesbeans]

or it’s possible to be all that without believing in god so why thrust that onto him

[@6williamson]

As a scientist, I find my faith has given me a disposition to explore in a much more liberated way the world around me. It drives me to forsake the oppressive 'dogma' of senior scientists who have told me that "oh it was all done 30 years ago, so there is no use looking further" or that the 'big boys' surely know more so just follow the incremental path that will lead to well-accepted articles. This has led me to propose the regulation of DNA-histone interactions s as a grad student 20 years before the field of epigenetics developed, and more recently to find a cure for a disease, for which the hardest question was, "why didn't your field figure this out 60 years ago when all these drugs were available." Sometimes faith gives one a freedom, a liberation to explore God's world in a way that, at least I, would not consider otherwise.

[@jaytea4390]

That's absolutely awesome ! Probably the coolest thing I read today

[@bane1504]

That's nothing short of inspiring. God is an intelligent God and has blessed us similarly with intellect and it brings him glory to use that gift for such good as you have. Amazing that your faith opened up a way of thinking that led to an important discovery and development that will help countless people. May God bless you and all other scientists and innovators of faith.

[@tripp8833]

God bless you!

[@malkavian6275]

I agree, I find that faith lets you explore and perceive the world in a more meaningful, beautiful way.

[@ABB14-11]

Hmm, cool story but you could just be some random dude on the internet making this up. What disease was cured? If I searched Peter Pensive would I find your work? Not trying to be a jerk. Nonetheless, your comment still makes sense in a way. Faith in God though is very different from having faith to breakthrough a new frontier.

[@dynamic9016]

Love listening to Bishop Barron n he is very insightful and intellectual, but it was through Alex that I became aware of him..Alex let me consider Atheism tremendously, but Bishop Barron let me develop a deep appreciation for Roman Catholicism..Bishop Barron n Dr. Peter Kreef are two of the most insightful n deepest thinkers I've ever listen to..

[@tappanzee3490]

i like that bb doesnt shy away from any topic, challenge or differing opinions. his confidence is so calm, and intelligent. it makes me at least believe that he believes..

[@kelechukwuanozyk7605]

35 years of good and awesome priesthood. We thank you for the numerous gifts you have been endowed with and shared with us

[@curlyguybry]

If a Christian must deny the existence of an all-loving God because suffering is presence in the world, shouldn’t then an atheist accept the existence of an all-loving God because joy and beauty are also present in the world?

[@faithbycatholicism1416]

God is perfect love, but what they always forget (conveniently) is that God is also perfect JUSTICE!! They never like talking about that.

[@frodberserk]

@Brain I am not sure how that follows. Lets grant for the sake of the argument that a God actually exists. "Denying the existence of all-loving God because suffering is present" shouldn't necessarily imply "Accepting the existence of all-loving God because joy is present". You could say "Denying the existence of all-hating God because joy is present" or "Accepting the existence of semi-good God because joy is present."

[@curlyguybry]

@@frodberserk The argument for God's existence, as expressed by centuries of deeply considered Christian theology (and articulated by Bishop Barron in the original video), is not one of simple correlation...Joy + Beauty = GOD. It is the atheist argument that is making the simple correlation...Suffering = NO GOD. The point I'm making is that if this is the basis of the atheist's argument for the non-existence of God they would be required, by their own logic, to accept the alternative simple correlation. It is, therefore, an absurd line of reasoning by Alex (and most other atheists). Now, I obviously don't know your own religious views, so accept my apologies if I'm jumping to any inappropriate conclusions. But consider your statement, "Let's grant for the sake of the argument that a God actually exists." Such an argument is being framed in atheistic terms. That then allows for new categories of God to be introduced - the all-hating God and the semi-good God. Why should a Christian have to entertain the possibility of God's existence for the sake of an argument? Why can't we start, for the sake of the argument, with a position that the existence of God is an immutable fact? If we start there, then I would suggest we have the basis to better understand the purpose of suffering in the world than what atheists are offering. Because all I see in the atheist argument regarding suffering is "tough luck, suffering exists, learn to live with it and abandon all hope that anything comes out of it." I choose hope and love over nihilism.

[@frodberserk]

@@curlyguybry Appreciate the response. I think it will be better to keep my religious views anonymous to avoid any bias. But I think there is some misunderstanding here. Firstly, from my understanding, the atheist is claiming that the presence of suffering implies an "all-loving" God does not exist. Its still different from the existence of a God in general. It's just about an "all-loving" God. "All loving" is the key here. Secondly, I think your statement suggests [Suffering(along with joy) = no "all-loving" God] should imply [Joy(along with suffering) = "all loving" God]. Not just God, but "all-loving" God. I'm just thinking from a neutral position and from a logical point of view without making any assumptions. That's why I said "granted that God exists". If I say "granted that God doesn't exist", I am not sure how I can even think about or analyze your statement. A theist does not have to entertain it as an assumption and can take it as a fact. But even then, I am still not sure how that above statement follows. Now a theist can say that God is, by definition, all loving. But you have specifically mentioned "all-loving", so I'm keeping both love and God separate here. These are just my thoughts and I could obviously be wrong here and would be glad if you can correct me or discuss it more.

[@faithbycatholicism1416]

@@frodberserk I don't even agree with the set-up. "an all-loving god would not allow suffering".......says who? where is that written?? That's just Alex's opinion! It means absolutely NOTHING! The Bible NEVER says that. The Catholic church NEVER teaches that. We're not God's pets.....this isn't a terrarium.......God is under no obligation to manage the world "Alex's" way. That's silly. Alex has absolutely ZERO experience as an "all-loving" being or an "all powerful" being. How does he know what God should or shouldn't do?? And Alex may say, "well it's not logical for an all-loving God to allow suffering". Yes, and why would an all-powerful God be constrained by the rules of "logic"?? that's silly. God is in no way obliged to follow rules of reason or any other set of rules....nonsense. It's a weak argument.

[@GoinDownhill361]

I heard once that a catholic that abandoned his faith was because he didn't understand it. That's why maybe he opted for Theology. It's tough for an intelligent mind to not understand something and leave it there. I pray he finally understands it and makes it his again.

[@annette4660]

I just love Bishop Barron's discussion of faith. When he says, "the delicious sense of eternal adventure into the mystery of God," I know I'm in the right place, doing the right thing.

[@marypinakat8594]

Fabulous comment☆

[@lourdesdelapena1852]

👍❤️🙏🏻

[@justsome-guy7596]

when Bishop Barron was discussing faith and said, ".. the delicious sense of eternal adventure into the mystery of God." I was struck by the similarity of my own feelings when I reflect on the marvellous, ineffable and numinous mysteries of the universe. Yet I do so from the position of an atheist so do not require the imposition of divine creator (Zeus, Yahweh, Shiva, etc....). Your results may vary, yadda, yadda, yadda.

[@annette4660]

@@justsome-guy7596 Hi, no I get it. Interestingly, things have changed since I posted this two months ago, after a pretty intensive God-immersion. Let's just say the adventure has become way more interesting.

[@justsome-guy7596]

@@annette4660 hi Anette - sometimes I think there may be opportunities for Atheists and Theists to see each other, as more alike than dissimilar. When I do catch these glimpses, I smile.

[@ignacioamorosrodriguez-fra3067]

It’s always a pleasure to listen to bishop Barron! Thanks

[@Lavos243]

I used to be an atheist, and I watched Alex all the time. The fact that he admits that if it is true then it's the most important thing made my jaw drop. It reminds me of CS Lewis who had a skeptic friend who became somewhat convinced of the bible, and CS Lewis said about him, "If he was convinced, the cynic of cynics, then who could be safe?"

[@LarsPallesen]

So what convinced you since you stopped being an atheist and became a theist?

[@guygeorgesvoet4177]

Good to hear of your birthday Brandon - may God bless you and concede you a hundredfold of all the graces your ministry in WOF bestowed upon us; Also many congratulations to Bishop Robert - may God concede him a long and very fruitful ministry and peace of heart.

[@andremourato4220]

My biggest question is how can a Christian assert and know that a God exists, but when asked about suffering and God's plan they say they don't know. How is it possible that you can know for sure that a being beyond the realm of human comprehension exists? But when it comes to suffering leading to a greater good you are not afraid to say 'I don't know'? How come 2 questions from beyond our comprehension have different levels of assertion to their claim?

[@selderane]

Yet you know light exists. Can you tell me how it functions? You know time exists. Can you tell me how it functions? To know a thing is real, and to know all there is to know about that thing, are two wildly different propositions. Men and women dedicate their lives trying to understand the cosmos and barely scratch the surface. How much more is there to know about the Author of the cosmos?

[@andremourato4220]

@@selderane I see your point. Mostly to light existing and me being able to see it. But even if I dont know exactly how it or time works, I can keep searching and researching and trying to find out the answer without major suffering. In the case of God's Plan we can either just believe in it without question and accept that sacrifices must be made or we can keep on searching for clues on how it works and meanwhile let the suffering and pain continue. In both cases, the victims keep dying. The point Im trying to make here is: while there are things that we can witness and not fully understand, we can search for the answers as long as it doesnt compromise other being's right to not suffer

[@fakename3208]

@@andremourato4220 I highly recommend you check out CS Lewis’s “The problem of pain.” It dives into all of this. It is a dense and at times difficult read book, both in terms of complexity and the implications that you realize once you understand it. I think it is fantastic.

[@georgedoyle2487]

@@fakename3208 Anthony Hopkins does a really moving portrayal of C.S. Lewis in the movie Shadowlands. He was close friends with JR Tolkien who wrote (The Lord of The Rings) and they used to critique each other’s books and give advice etc “Friendship is unnecessary, like philosophy, like art.... It has no survival value; rather it is one of those things which give value to survival” (CS Lewis).

[@bman5257]

37:35 As C.S. Lewis put it: you can’t call a crooked line crooked unless you have a concept of a straight line.

[@jarrod5179]

Indeed. C.S. Lewis was pretty daft, and is an embarrassment to Christian philosophy.

[@bman5257]

@@jarrod5179 no ❤️

[@marypinakat8594]

@@jarrod5179 How on earth?

[@jarrod5179]

@@marypinakat8594 What? What do you mean how on Earth?

[@rabbitrun777]

@@jarrod5179 you read etienne gilson?

[@joaofarias6473]

This was wonderful! Would absolutely love to see a discussion between Bishop Barron and CosmicSkeptic about the fundamental metaphysical nature of evil VS good. That would be very interesting indeed 👏

[@packersfan1999]

Hi Bishop Barron, I am a Catholic, and I really struggle with the Problem of Evil. I feel like you often have very sound explanations and arguments, but I don’t know if I agree with you here. At about the 31:00 minute mark where you talk about God creating greater goods out of suffering, it is unfair for Alex to expect you to name how greater goods could come about. I agree with that, it’s not really a logically sound argument. At the same time though, are you making an argument that God essentially practices an “ends justify the means” way of interacting with the world? Is it not wrong for God to permit evils in order to create goods because then he’d be using evil means to create a greater end? That seems to make God no longer all loving. Rather, I would argue that God created all things good and it is just that all things are less than perfectly good (otherwise they would be God) and are therefore fallible and corruptible, causing evil to occur from them. Isn’t that a better argument than God using evil to create goods?

[@AladerPoop78]

Look at the cross in the crucifixion. Out of the great torture and suffering of Christ. What comes this? The defeat of death by death. Its turning evil against itself.

[@brendansheehan6180]

Why dont the ends ever justify the means? Because *our* means and *our* ends are imperfect. Rather amazingly, God's means are whatever *our* means are, in a sense. And God's end for us is whatever would be perfect for us.

[@sarasofiacastro6750]

Praying fot Alex. God bless your ministry, Word on Fire! 🙏🙏🙏

[@fr.rudolfv.dsouza83]

I strongly feel that Alex is in a sort of dark night. He is searching for answers learning Theology. The very fact that he is searching for the most important thing in life points to his inner being turned to the Ultimate Reality. He might get there one day after going through this dark night. God bless him. A very fruitful and theologically inspirational reflections by Bishop Barron. God Bless

[@LarsPallesen]

What gives you the impression that Alex is in a dark night? He seems pretty illuminated as fas as I can tell. Arguable more so than the bishop.

[@101stumphead]

I have ben an atheist for 12 years now While I appreciated the conversion, it was very similar dialogue my proest gave me when trying to re convert me a few years ago I still do not agree with the answers about evil in the world. They will say god allows the evil, but then god Does good. God does both the good and bad if there is a god. Allowing something to occur is itself an action. If I watch someone get raped and do nothing at all even though it is within my power to stop it, am I a good person? When they say we cannot fathom the true meaning behind evil events, that is the biggest lack of giving a substantial answer. Any religion, cult, or belief could give that answer. It is irresponsible at best. Again, if someone gets raped and you you cannot even conceive of a single reason how it could better the world, how could you possibly say "well god knows how it makes the world better"

[@eb0632]

What made you deconvert? The problem of evil?

[@fruzsimih7214]

Maybe you should get more into Original Sin to understand this one. As someone else here said, atheists seem to assume that we live in a perfect world, or at least in a world that is like God intended it to be. But that's not the case and the whole point about Christ's coming is about patching the broken world up, so to speak.

[@G-MIP]

Thank you Bishop ...and Brandon!

[@marypinakat8594]

"Education is man's going forward from cocksure ignorance to thoughtful uncertainty. Where there is an open mind, there will always be a frontier." CHARLES KETTERING

[@Elcubanogus]

“Like most atheists he had an inadequate understanding of God and he wants to brush those away”. Dude was raised Catholic, studies theology at Oxford and is an open-minded intellectual listener. Cmon man. Really patronizing and dismissive of YOU. Just because you couldn’t make a convincing argument for your definition of God, it doesn’t make him ignorant, dismissive or lacking in understanding your point.

[@Eserr7856]

It is not patronizing for a Bishop to state that an atheist has an inadequate understanding of God when atheists keep thinking and saying over and over that God is a "a being among many". Rather, Bishop teaches using St Thomas' definition that God is "the sheer act of being itself". I see no malicious or condescending words in Bishop Barron giving us a well defined theological and philosophical definition of God. There is no need to feel offended when Bishop and an atheist have an intelligent, respectful debate with brutal honesty.

[@LHWakefield]

Great conversation, Bishop Barron. Whenever I hear an atheist explain that belief in God could close off scientific inquiry, I think of something like the theory of gravity. In the ancient world, lots of people explored some vague notion of what it was, which led to people like Galileo, Newton and Einstein forming a more complete theory. Now we believe in gravity as the explanation for all sorts of phenomena. But has that stopped further exploration of how it works or how other things have been affected by it? I would say the opposite has happened. Our "belief" in gravity has opened up exploration of quantum physics, particle physics, cosmology, and all sorts of other exciting frontiers. Why should a causal explanation stunt scientific inquiry?

[@IllustriousCrocoduck]

When that happens they are referring to using god as an explanation. Perhaps you wouldn't stop investigating something at that point, but there are many others who do. Thatbis a problem, sure, but the real hangup is using that explanation in the first place. It's never a justified position.

[@HonkiDonki]

There is no "belief" in gravity and there never was. It is a phenomenon that is directly observed by everyone every day through the sheer fact that everything wants to accelerate towards the ground.

[@alveolate]

you see, that's what i found very disingenuous in a lot of theistic responses to atheist objections of dogmatic faith. how much does science "require" belief? would the object of scientific description be changed if half the population did not "believe" it, or had a different "version of belief" in it? there is this fundamental error in conflating scientific knowledge/inquiry with faith/belief. it'd be very unbecoming for catholic theologians to use such cheap tricks in a response. science and religion are obviously very different things, most saliently here, in how they acquire specific information about the object of their study (natural law for science and god for religion). if we applied a rigorous scientific method to the observation of god, what do you think we'd find? every study would end up at best inconclusive, with way too little statistical significance to be publishable. and in fact, there were some fairly famous scientific studies on the effects of prayer that did get published, iirc. if religion really wanted to drape this mantle of good faith reliability (which science has acquired for itself over the past few centuries), perhaps they would fund more scientific studies into god-related topics, adhering rigorously to the scientific method and not giving any excuses. imagine how much more exciting theology classes would be, if they ACTUALLY had real scientific experiments! but until that is done -- and it shouldn't be that hard really, many catholic universities have fully equipped science faculties -- theistic arguments need to stop casually analogising itself with science. it's both a sign of fundamental errors in understanding and a LOT of hubris. reminds me of how priests used to enjoy saying "theology is the queen of philosophy because it studies god" -- bruh, you guys haven't proven jack shit in 2,000 years of theology. it only took science 4-500 years since the renaissance to explain the entire galaxy we live in, and provide the world with huge leaps in technological advancement. what has augustine or (gasp) aquinas even done, other than torment seminarians with polemics for their homework?

[@fruzsimih7214]

​@@HonkiDonki Well, the idea that it is the mass of an object, i e. the Earth in this case, that causes things to fall on the ground, is a pretty recent discovery in historical terms... and the one that mass distorts space and time is even more recent. Of course you observe objects falling, but the reason for it is more obscure to everyday experience.

[@HonkiDonki]

@@fruzsimih7214 You are talking about theories of gravity, not gravity itself. This concept of 'heaviness' is at least 2500 years old.

[@Carlos-ln8fd]

Alex seems like a really bright guy. Always great to hear discussions about this kind of stuff, although I wish he had touched on something more interesting than the problem of evil.

[@Telcontarnz]

It’s a pretty big problem, usually side-stepped.

[@Carlos-ln8fd]

@@Telcontarnz You think so? I guess it's a big problem for many but it has been discussed many times by many people. Like they say on the video, there's a whole book of the Bible dedicated to it. I feel like the discussion would have been more interesting for me if Alex had brought up points that the bishop had not heard before.

[@Telcontarnz]

@@Carlos-ln8fd Well he did say that if Christians think evil is created by god and therefore good, then Christians should celebrate the suffering, such as Covid. Again, side-stepped in the debate and in this summary.

[@Carlos-ln8fd]

@@Telcontarnz Well, yeah. If you're familiar with christinianity that's definitely a thing. Like when some calamity happens, christians will tell you that you should accept God's will. There's the whole idea of the cross, that God will constantly give you burdens to carry throughout life and that you should humbly accept them. Aside from the book of Job, you can see it in the gospels with Jesus accepting suffering because that's God's will. In Catholicism at least, you're told that enduring suffering with dignity is a good thing and a form of love towards God. And I wouldn't say christians celebrate COVID, but I have heard many priests talking about how hard times like these allow us to become stronger and appreciate the things that we have. And, I mean, if you believe God, you believe that he has given you life, health, intelligence, family, friends and so many other things. You did nothing to earn any of it, yet you still have them. Don't you think that then saying, "actually that's not enough. I also want to live life without any harships or adversity of any kind" is a little arrogant? But whatever, I find it a boring problem but I get it if you disagree. There's a reason it's one of the big problems in philosophy I guess. If you haven't read it I would recommend the book Varieties of Religious Experience, that explores religion from the point of view of psychology and a big part of it is how, to some people, the problem of evil is the one thing about christianity they can never get make sense of. It's some really fascinating stuff if you're into these types of topics.

[@Telcontarnz]

@@Carlos-ln8fd I was a confirmed Christian, so fully understand the Christian viewpoint. The problem is it is nonsense to say all-loving all-powerful and have suffering. If it is gods will then he’s not all-loving. If he is all-powerful he could have created a process of learning without the need for suffering. And no it is not arrogant, its just pointing out the inconsistent logic. And if God created everything what right has he to inflict suffering…I dont do that to animals I’ve brought into my life.

[@das3841]

Loved the discussion with Alex, a true skeptical Searcher, in a way having far more 'faith" than I find in the 'I've boxed it all" pseudo faith of some trad caths I see! And a far nicer person to boot!

[@HonkiDonki]

CosmicSceptic studies Philosophy & Theology, which is a combined course about assessing religious claims. It is NOT pure theology.

[@lostsidewalk]

I thank God everyday for all of the difficulties I've experienced in my life

[@courgette3401]

That makes me very sad. My children were born perfect. No inherited sins. They never have to worry about evil. They don’t have to spend their whole life worrying about whether they have done enough to get in to heaven. They can masturbate without shame. If they were gay they would know that their parents would love and support them in the same way as though they were straight. I know that this is my only life so I will strive to leave the world ina better position than when I was born. This isn’t a trial run. This is it and I spend every day trying to ensure that the world will be a terrific place for my grandchildren and beyond. My life is just too full of love and potential for me to worry about an almost certainly non existent god. In my experience it is only people indoctrinated into a particular religion who have time for said nonsense.

[@jhbanks4911]

@@courgette3401 you didn't address my comment at all but that's typical of the "betting on nothingness crowd" in which you are firmly and arrogantly entrenched. Those that believe in God and those who do not have been studied extensively... guess which group is significantly happier and more at peace?

[@k-3402]

@@jhbanks4911 Let me guess: the ones who embrace a comforting fairy tale?

[@lostsidewalk]

@@k-3402 okay if that's how you want to characterize what they do sure aren't you rational don't you want to be happy it works... I'd rather be humble and happy than arrogant and bitter like most atheists are

[@ABB14-11]

if sincere, that is a bold things to say

[@casanova07scrr]

Saludos from The Church of Puerto Rico 🙋🏽‍♀️🇵🇷☦️

[@jerryg3524]

Very belated Happy Birthday Wishes Brandon! 🎂 🍰

[@jeffreylromine8351]

The thing that strikes me is the enormous delusion (held by atheists) that we already live in the eternal existence God intends. The atheist challenges on a false basis, asserting the presence of evil speaks against a good God. Rather, God permits evil that we might long for the actual and eternal existence that stands eminently before us all. Yes, if evil exits in eternity, then atheists have a point. The argument Christians make is that the presence of evil among us here and now does much to provoke a longing for what ought to be, and will be, eternally.

[@bane1504]

Indeed, truth. I think what needs to be clarified is that the suffering we experience here on the current earth is ultimately TEMPORAL, i.e it is not eternal, it is restricted by time and eventually, it subsides or ends. We do not exist in eternal suffering. What we do have, is a temporal world that is clearly disordered, one which there is suffering and evil when we know that this should not be the case. Within the context of a temporal, fallen world with suffering and evil, one which requires fixing, everything is different. Then you can see how through the incarnation, God is restoring the world and bringing it into the perfect eternal creation in a most beautiful way through the most powerful act of love that would not be possible without the existence of temporal suffering and evil. Ultimately, what is temporal suffering in the grand scale of eternal life with God? I will also say, that the most profound response to this question was from a teenager back when I was at an after school youth group. He said while he doesn't have a complete answer to why God would permit suffering, he said that in spite of that, Jesus is present with us in our suffering.

[@IllustriousCrocoduck]

Can you give an example of anybody asserting that? It's a contradiction. Non-believers do not believe we live in any eternal existence or that god is real to intend anything.

[@worldpeace1822]

You are aware that good and bad is defined buy god himself in your worldview. Saying that bad stuff is good because god defined it as such totally decouple it from what is good and bad for the individual human. Yet here we are talking as if it is the same. To me that is far fetched and takes a lot of trust in something hypothetical only based on reason that you can not name. It comes full circle. For nothing or nobody else we would make such exception in reasoning.

[@shsch492]

If evil is here to test us... then evil is good and being tested is good? So why do some kids die before they can be tested? Is being sent to heaven without knowing that "longing" good? Lastly The devil gave us free will, when "he told eve to eat the apple" of good and evil. God was the one to curse an entire species for the "mistake" of 2 clueless people who didn't know evil at the time of their choice?

[@LarsPallesen]

Can you please point me to just ONE atheist who has ever argued that 'we live in the eternal existence God intends' ? I mean, the very notion is an absurd contradiction in terms. Either he's an atheist or he believes in God. He can't do both simultaneously.

[@wkbeats]

In my opinion, the saddest part of this debate is that Bishop Barron knows deep down that Alex could've been on the righteous path of Christianity if he had been guided properly by a mentor such as Bishop Barron himself. It's rather a tragedy in itself, but I hope Alex was inspired to relook at Catholicism under a newfound respect and reference he's been given for the Catholic thinkers of the past. I know this was supposed to be a debate, but I just went away from it feeling sad for Alex and so many others like him.

[@Autobotmatt428]

Me to. I still am not a fan but I do feel he was lead astray do to bullying. The UK got the blunt of the NA and I feel bad for them. on the Plus side I do hope Alex comes around.

[@firefly9838]

Well yeah anyone could've been made to believe almost anything if you interfere at a young enough age and indoctrinate them in one ideology... no surprise there...

[@casanova07scrr]

Thank you for this site.... It helps me a lot!

[@fragwagon]

Good to see a recap! Michael Lofton (Reason & Theology) has been doing these after debates and it's great to unpack some of the missed details.

[@sickturtle1901]

The pain and suffering argument is real road block for me. Seeing my grandmothers humanity and dignity being stripped from her due to Alzheimer is a mental boulder I cant seem to move.

[@Eserr7856]

Christ crucified also hangs with his humanity literally stripped from the scourges and his dignity stripped as well as he is cursed, spit at, mocked...I believe there is much sanctification and closeness to God in suffering and death because of Christs suffering and death. Christ is our head, and we will follow him in His Resurrection and glorification into heaven.

[@carljalkh9778]

I feel you bro both my grandfathers died very slow deaths, one of them had alzeimer for like 8 years, and when he started loosing his memory i was very sad and triggered especialy that i was very close to him and he was like a model for me, but after some times i came to the realisation that his illness may have been a gift, yes it's painful to see changes and suffering but at least i had some more time to spend with him wich i valued a lot. I know that what you are passing threw isn't easy but my advice ld be that you seize the time and spend with her as mutch time as possible cause once she's dead it ld be too late.

[@whatisiswhatable]

Can you elaborate on what you can’t get over?

[@cromBumny]

How can knowledge of good exist if everything is always good. Can a rich person appreciate and know fully his/her blessings IF everyone around them is equally rich? For some reason God created us to experience the universe to take intellectual ideals into the real world

[@marianomazzieri6560]

17:55 It strikes me that the bishop doesn't realize that any assessment of someone's reliability also counts as what you'd consider reasons to believe (or not) what a person is revealing. Depending on the claim, reliability might be sufficient reason. There's also risk analysis and a bunch of other stuff the mind does in these situations. When people fail to do these mental processes they are being gullible, when they ignore them then it is faith.

[@mikelopez8564]

Mariano, if you are saying faith is not reasoned you’d be wrong. That is why we have the term “blind faith” to describe your idea. I’d guess few people follow blind faith. The bishop’s analogy to a relationship where you come to know someone through what they have revealed to you is so representative

[@marktaylor7963]

I watched the discussion on Unbelievable and found Alex very amiable and sincere. I hope you two get together again. I think his sincerity is going to lead him back to belief

[@Wakeup382]

We are all about saving souls and making sure we bring the GOOD NEWS to those who don’t know about life eternal and the price of sin without Jesus. There’s so many people that love you H.E. Barron and Fr Grunow and Word on Fire. I’m not shilling but, I do want you to check out some of the books, and the project to compile the rest of the New Testament completing the Matthew, Mark, Luke and John into more of Paul’s work and letters. “Blessed are the ones that don’t see me and still believe” - Jesus of Nazareth

[@brixan...]

29:20 There is sufficient reason, otherwise God would be a wicked god... Why do you not look into that possibility? Why do you think that's impossible and decide that there must be sufficient reason for the evil?

[@tommore3263]

First , it is quite easy to prove the existence of God. Even quantum theory is arriving at freedom in physical systems. Check out Bishop Barrons proofs for the existence of God. They are solid. And God is synonymous with BEING itself. We exist in God. Your free will and ability to work with non material things like numbers and universals which are not physical show that death cannot even be the last call. How much does the number 3 weigh and what color is it. Was Christ a bad guy? Our finite nature and suffering can serve the good of not thinking material riches or pleasure can be the final cause or reality. We're pretty stupid so constant reminders aren't a bad idea, right? :-)

[@brixan...]

@@tommore3263 I'm referring to the fact that Barron brought up two possibilities and did not engage with the one that didn't align with his belief. What you said doesn't address this at all

[@tommore3263]

@@brixan... He certainly did in his actual debate, and his essential point that even calling something "evil" can only be intelligible if one starts from the premise that existence and life itself is good.... stunningly good as it is to me. I find Augustine's definition of evil as an absence of a good that should be there to be the universal human experience of evil, as a broken leg is the absence of a good that should be there, a toothache; losing your temper hurting another etc. This premise as Bishop Barron argues is the obvious starting point for even rationality. And its pretty much the universal view of mankind today.

[@brixan...]

@@tommore3263 you can certainly believe in God and evil even if you don't believe that life and existence are good. And I disagree: the starting point for explaining evil should not be God because it isn't proven that he exists. You should start with the least assumptions, maddening you start with evil, which is something can see in the world. Evil is something that you know exists, it just requires explanation. If you start with God, you're starting with something that you believe, rather than something objectively true

[@tommore3263]

@@brixan... Firstly, I don't at all start with "evil" which I do not understand to be a positive reality but rather the absence of a good that should be there as Augustine showed us. And the "evil you can see in the world" vs God which is something I just "believe" and can't see , is doubly fallacious. Mankind naturally sees God as the Oxford 2011 worldwide study on Cognition and Religion shows. I experience my free will and ability to do non physical things like using numbers and universals .. the "spiritual" dimension directly and its easier to see that our cause must be spiritual than it is to "see" evil. You don't "see" evil at all. You naturally repel from the absence of good and you may innately "know" it, but "evil" is only seen because it opposes the GOOD that is in everything. You have adopted the largely Protestant view of faith which I reject as rather absurd which places the "belief" and "faith" realm outside of the rational and objective. The existence of God is kinda blatant and obvious as ground of being and source of our own spiritual natures, free will etc. And its easy to prove the existence of God as professor Ed Feser shows as does Bishop Barron in one of his videos. I studied the demonstrations at a good university along with the attempts to refute them by Hume, Kant and others. They demonstrations are solid. And what is demonstrated is BEING itself..Himself... and absolute BEING is absolute Goodness... So I already know that God is GOODNESS or LOVE itself. THis is why there are such things in the world we live in. We are all moved by love. Love of drugs, love of sex, love of children, love of money, love of God. LOVE is the rationale of existence.

[@clareanderson676]

I agree, as an atheist, that if religion were to be true it would indeed be the most important thing. However, it isn’t intuition that has brought me to this conclusion. It is that religion makes claims on eternal salvation and eternal damnation, therefore as a person who would prefer not spend all of eternity in the worst imaginable suffering, religion would be my greatest concern if I actually believed in it. So it’s not some intuitive pull that makes me be of this opinion, but reason. Because the claims that religion makes concern themselves with the very nature of the universe and destiny of the human species. Therefore, religion obviously is of the greatest importance presuming that it true. I simply don’t believe it true and thus it isn’t the most important thing in my own personal life. I find it a bit patronizing on Bishop Barron’s part to call this acceptance of religion’s significance an intuitive one, that even an atheist is inclined towards whether or not they’ll admit to it, and somehow this is proof of religion’s authenticity? It’s simply a matter of being aware of religion’s claims that would lead one to acknowledge the importance of it. Even Richard Dawkins will say if religion were true it would be the most important thing. It’s not a radical belief for an atheist to hold, let alone anyone.

[@tommore3263]

The truth is PERSONAL. Atheism is too absurd, literally .. for words. Words imply that things are actually ordered towards ends and purposes. Most of us are moved by love and as Aquinas showed, Love is the Unmoved Mover of Aristotle. All of existence is moved by love. Hell is a self imposed thing wherein we use our freedom to eternally choose something smaller than love and that remains eternally unsatisfying. There is no ogre God with a hammer and lightning bolts damning us forever. We use our free wills , which cannot of course be physical to choose emptiness over Love.

[@clareanderson676]

@@tommore3263 lol, no hard feelings Tom, but you’ve written a whole lot of words ordered towards no ends or purposes. I mean, you’ve provided no such evidence for the existence of god(s). FYI, as a former Catholic, I understand that you don’t believe in a “god with thunderbolts damning us forever”. I understand that Christian theology is nuanced and that the Christian god is a god of “love”. I’m simply not convinced of his (their) existence. However, atheism is by no means absurd, rather proclaiming one’s belief in ANYTHING without being able to support one’s belief with evidence is absurd. Finally, in lacking belief in your god, or any of the other thousands of gods which have been conjured throughout the millennia by humans, I have not chosen emptiness over love. Love is indeed personal and cannot be monopolized by your religion or anyone else’s. In fact, in the process and aftermath of deconstructing my faith my mind and thoughts have expanded, and continue to expand, in effect, allowing me to demonstrate and experience love beyond the despotic limitations of doctrine and dogma.

[@tommore3263]

@@clareanderson676 Actually Clare I made statements with back up evidence even from quantum mechanics and the very nature of causality. I also showed that atheism is a view held by few people and runs counter to everyday human experience. I studied these matters at a university level. I'm afraid you're just not that used to metaphysical discussion. These aren't bland assertions. Read a little bit about perfections of being and you will perhaps learn exactly why the "actus purus" of Aquinas, necessary to explain contingent actuality is exactly LOVE Himself. Why love exists in the world.

[@clareanderson676]

Tom, has anyone ever told you that you’re pretentious? I too have studied philosophy at a university level and, although not arrogant about my knowledge, am also familiar with the concept of metaphysics. In short, I am not impressed. Additionally, I didn’t write that you were making “bland claims”, I wrote that your claims lean towards no ends and purposes. Just because Aquinas said something hundreds of years ago doesn’t mean anything in way of your argument. It’s simply an appeal to ethos. FYI, Aquinas also believed that morally speaking, masturbation is worse than rape lol. Anyways he’s definitely not the most logical of philosophers or even Christian theologians for that matter. Likewise claiming that atheism is absurd because it’s a world view held by “few people” also isn’t a real argument against it. Once again you’re just appealing to the bandwagon argument, which is a logical fallacy. Also, obviously atheism does not “run counter to everyday human experiences”(notice how you made an overwhelmingly broad claim and then didn’t explain or provide sound evidence) I honestly don’t know why or how you think that. In my everyday life, atheism is not a huge theme as religion is in yours. It’s in part due to my “everyday life experiences” that I began to question the existence of god(s). Finally, Tom I really do wish you well, no need to be so defensive or upset. This is a mere conversation… no need to become impolite.

[@tommore3263]

@@clareanderson676 Actually I referenced a proof from reason and evidence, specifically change that has never been refuted and still stands. You're just never heard of it. And it is a valid and sound demonstration of the existence of God. Any rough familiarity with the actual literature would have made this response unnecessary. I'm used to people pronouncing without even having heard what the issues are.

[@Atreus21]

My response to the problem of suffering to impugn God's goodness is usually to ask, "What on earth do you mean by 'good'"?

[@Autobotmatt428]

Mine is what did you learn from suffering.

[@timothyboles6457]

It seems like Alex was trying to convince himself that God doesn't exist. And the bullies on the bus "convinced" him that there was no God

[@Autobotmatt428]

Agreed. Though I think the bullies were Reddit guys.

[@timothy209]

Thank you for your insights and perspectives Bishop Robert Barron! I've struggled a few years ago with my faith after an existential crises when I fully realized my finitude. So I challenged my belief in God by objectively looking at all the arguments against and for God and other religions. Because if it's true it should be able to withstand honest investigation. I've come to realize the evidence philosophically is largely in God's favor. I believe if Alex keeps searching for the truth with an open heart and mind he will discover God. Although I can't help but feel people that grow up without spiritual experiences have a subtle fear of God, because if it's true it challenges the way they choose to exist. Call it a bias to self if you will.

[@wenshan9101]

I have met a few good, honest souls who experienced the same. Nothing is a personal effort without God. But as the bible reveals, He hardens the hearts of the prideful and reveals Himself to the humble. Realising our own finitude is a perfect act of humility, a perfect response to the perfect work of grace, leading to a perfecting faith in the perfect God. Sadly, many think they are other ways to God.

[@IllustriousCrocoduck]

I grew up without spiritual experiences. In fact, I find the concept to be ill-defined at best. But I don't believe in any gods, so I don't have any fear of them. It's as simple as that. On the other hand, there are millions who are brought up with concepts of gods that they fear. Fear of hell, for example, is a well-documented mental trauma suffered by believers and non-believers alike. That fear does not need to exist. That it does is an enormous tragedy.

[@maryalphonso4493]

You sing so beautifully Your Grace. I heard you on Bob Dylan's birthday. Thank you.

[@RicardoGarcia-ib8ro]

It is very interesting that most people can not define suffering. In Augustine language, suffering is the resistance on the soul to the corruption and lack of unity. So in the same act of suffering the soul is desperately claiming to integrity and unity, those characteristics are intrinsic to the nature of God. Suffering is at the end the desire to participate in the nature of God.

[@danajudd11]

Thanks for your ever wise and always accessible guidance, Bishop!

[@ironymatt]

35:22 - re: Alex's closing statement. How can he claim with a straight face that the existence of suffering can't lead to the Christian God? At the center of our faith is Christ crucified! Does he think Jesus somehow didn't suffer on the cross?!

[@msgetaways164]

How can "justice" be explained from atheistic rationalism? To say a God would be unjust to allow suffering presumes that justice is accessible from reason alone. It is not.

[@overtexpression2299]

While identifying as a Christian, I have to admit that I feel Comsic to have had the better of the argument concerning the Cornavirus point. However, I also feel that the Bishop brought in the perfect response in the end of this video: "Where sin abounds, grace abounds the more". In the way that I see the case of this virus, the fundamental significance of the "bad" of this virus is only made evident when placed in contrast to the evident grace found in the normality of an unbelievably blessed state that we have found ourselves in, from which we see a mortality rate of ~2% fatality rate concerning the Coronavirus. Yes, every death is a tragedy, though it pales in comparison to the state that we could reasonably be in. I believe that C.S. Lewis gave the best approximation of this paradox in The Problem of Pain when he explains the fundamental reality of "possible worlds" that we can imagine, in comparison to that which we observe around us. Yes, God may be omnipotent; however, this does not negate the reality of the bedrock of reality, which makes the question "can God create a stone so large that he himself could move it" a nonsensical concept.

[@overtexpression2299]

In another way to see this concept, God cannot grant us "free will" and at same time create a perfect existence, free of suffering.

[@elodiagonzalez4159]

Do you know Ricardo castanon? He was an atheist and became Catholic and he is one of the greatest I know. Can you research him so you will know what I am talking about. Blessings with from Elodia wa state and perhaps this young man will hear about him

[@NathanGuerraTV]

Is there somewhere or a video where you address Boyd's God at War to the problem of suffering at the end?

[@mkano7434]

31:35 that's not a pivit, Alex simply never asked "what is this reason?", he used a different argument

[@mickyfrazer786]

Nearly always on these debates (mentioned) someone will state it is not their responsibility to show burden of proof. Irrespective of which side of the argument I dislike this statement. I did watch the debate though and thought it very mature and responsible, though I would remain with the Catholic POV.

[@DrMustacho]

On the hero's journey analogy: A faithful hero takes a light from home to help illuminate the darkness of the unkown, an atheist hero goes into the dark with nothing Feeling around for himself Either because the doesn't trust the light, he recognized the light doesn't always work or he is tossed into the darkness and cut off from home without a chance to gather his things

[@Elcubanogus]

BB during Recap: “Like a lot of the new atheists, he rehearses arguments…not any new ground was open BB during discussion: I think we have to go back to Aquinas….also Aquinas…Ezekiel…Augustus…let’s get back to Aquinas…etc etc etc

[@brandidonn7847]

Hearing a high ranking member of the church, after making multiple statements claiming Alex has a very simple and elementary view of God, and then goes on to claim a great analogy for the faith one uses to follow a religion is the same thing as hearing a women tell you she loves you and choosing to believe her based on previous experience. Either he doesn’t know how terrible that argument is or he thinks it’ll pass on the audience. Whatever the reasoning , your wife exists you can look her in eye, judge her actions, and to have faith in her love is not at all like the faith in a intervening, supervising, judging, loving, creator who wants to have a relationship with each of us. There’s no wife, no eyes, no words, just feelings, and the testimony of a few people experience witnessing a human sacrifice 2000 years ago.

[@JohnnyCarthief]

Focusing on suffering is a choice. And, it seems to ignore the experiences of joy and love. Does Alex ever experience love?

[@sug1733]

Exactly, that was my thought during the whole conversation: this boy has not experienced what it is like to be unconditionally loved. I can relate very well to Alex's attitude in the sense that I've always needed to "understand" before l declare myself "convinced". But, unlike him (I can only thank God for that) I was brought up by loving, patient parents within a strong Catholic culture. Then, on my way to becoming an adult and all the humbling experiences that one has to go through, my faith only got stronger. Like Alex, I continued educating myself on faith and philosophical issues because I personally needed it, and again, it only contributed to strengthen my faith. I tend to believe that he is very hurt and still young. The problem is, as he matures, he might turn very resentful and find solace in influencing many others just as hurt.

[@faithbycatholicism1416]

Alex kept whining on and on about "suffering".....but Bishop Barron wouldn't tell him the truth.......he refused to drop the hammer......."suffering" is the consequence of SIN!!! SIN is the reason people die, grow old, and weak. SIN is the cause of disease, violence, chaos, natural disasters, animal suffering, plagues, accidents, rape, murder......etc......NONE of those things were a part of God's original plan! They are fruits of a disease.....the disease of SIN! God has ZERO to do with the suffering that conditions our world. It is the result of SIN. Now God could stop the suffering at any point, but to do that He'd have to stop the CAUSE of the suffering...SIN. so what is sin?? SIN is "the refusal to love God". God "could" (if He chose to) force ALL of us to love Him, all the time, every minute of every day. And all the suffering would end. But if He did that would our "love" be true? Or would we simply be slaves? Zombies forced to love our creator by the pure force of His will?? God continues to gives us freedom. Sin is the result of our misuse of that freedom.....and suffering is the fruit of it.

[@mathieuconklin3146]

Joy, love, and suffering are not mutually exclusive. In fact they are very much related to each other.

[@margokupelian344]

@@faithbycatholicism1416 I couldn’t agree with you more!!! Sin is the cause of suffering most of the time but it’s also for our purification. Sometimes God allows suffering out of love, to purify us. He died on the cross to purify, to purge His creation from sin. Suffering is a very powerful element for purification. Honestly speaking I’m not a big fan of this type of discussions because I believe that faith cannot be taught by philosophical ideas and reason alone. This is the job of the Holy Spirit and for the Holy Spirit to act in the hearts of people like Alex is ONLY through prayer and sacrifice. I strongly believe in this. I pray for sinners (and I won’t sugar coat the word sinners) every single day with so much pain in my heart. As Christians we are called to expiate for the sins of others through our suffering and prayers. This is a hard concept for a secular person to understand. I love and admire Bishop Barron but I find him too cautious when talking about certain matters of faith and spirituality, not to offend certain people in the audience who might think of his ideas as being negative. And I understand him... He’s not the only one though. Most of the priests in the Catholic Church avoid talking about the truth that may sound harsh to some people in the audience and push them away. But the truth hurts but also heals. They don’t talk much about sin, or about God’s coming chastisement, or about the dress code in the church, like women coming to church wearing indecent clothes which is an abomination in the eyes of God. I’ve talked about this to many priests but to no avail. Bottom line... much prayer...

[@faithbycatholicism1416]

@@margokupelian344 Margo, you are speaking bundles of truth ma'am. EXACTLY!! I do think that philosophical debates CAN help people "believe". And Belief is the minimal requirement. Evidence and apologetics CANNOT produce "FAITH".....that's different. FAITH is a supernatural gift from God. It cannot be manufactured.

[@saraanic9436]

I really liked the discussion between O'Connor and Bp. Barron, but for me it had some faults. E.g. at one poin they had a long discussion about faith and reason, but they didn't define "reason". Bp. Barron used the word to mean "rationality" and O'Connor mostly to mean "cause" (but not consistently). I think that lead to much unnecessary and unclear back-and-forth.

[@karlabutler2248]

Agreed that we can’t possibly know why God permits anything. Yet it baffles me with COVID that no one would note how many people were worrying so much about the “problem” of over-population and the earth being unable to support us! !!!!!!

[@stisca]

So the argument of evil isn’t really a problem because it is all moral, but we don’t always know why. Doesn’t follow from this that everything could be moral? If someone kills someone else, how can you say it is wrong? It could be justified, we just don’t know “why” or even “if” that’s the case. We couldn’t know any morality without God-like moral understanding. As I understand it, this response to the argument of evil sacrifices our capability of understanding morality at any level.

[@xaviervelascosuarez]

I think Brandon hit the key to the answer to the "celebrate COVID" question. Pain, suffering, death, are all consequences of sin. Would we as Christians celebrate sin? Well, in a very roundabout kind of way, we did manage to find a good consequence for the original sin "that was the cause of such great a Redeemer", and theologians even speculate whether Incarnation would have taken place when without it. The truth is, we do say felix culpa because we assume that it was the condition for the Incarnation, so we do know the good that came out of it. I guess we could also say felix COVID if we already knew all the goods that will come from it.... Besides, COVID itself is also a consequence of original sin, though not one to celebrate... I guess you could say that God allows COVID because going against the logical consequences of the original sin would defeat the purpose of the initial reason why it had to be allowed. In other words, if original sin had to be allowed, all its consequences had to be allowed as well. Otherwise it would be as saying: "I allow you to freely vote for your government, but not to have it to be the one who wins the elections." We cannot be free to sin, fully free, if the logical consequences of sin weren't allowed to play out.

[@trentrossdale638]

Very well said.

[@faithbycatholicism1416]

EXACTLY.......Alex kept whining on and on about "suffering".....but Bishop Barron wouldn't tell him the truth.......he refused to drop the hammer......."suffering" is the consequence of SIN!!! SIN is the reason people die, grow old, and weak. SIN is the cause of disease, violence, chaos, natural disasters, animal suffering, plagues, accidents, rape, murder......etc......NONE of those things were a part of God's original plan! They are fruits of a disease.....the disease of SIN! God has ZERO to do with the suffering that conditions our world. It is the result of SIN. Now God could stop the suffering at any point, but to do that He'd have to stop the CAUSE of the suffering...SIN. so what is sin?? SIN is "the refusal to love God". God "could" (if He chose to) force ALL of us to love Him, all the time, every minute of every day. And all the suffering would end. But if He did that would our "love" be true? Or would we simply be slaves? Zombies forced to love our creator by the pure force of His will?? God continues to gives us freedom. Sin is the result of our misuse of that freedom.....and suffering is the fruit of it.

[@xaviervelascosuarez]

@@faithbycatholicism1416 I wouldn't go as far as to say that God has ZERO to do with sin and suffering, because God knows (knew?) that it would all happen if free beings were created. That is a mystery, and we are called to believe, to trust, that if God did it anyway, the reason must be totally worth it. I do. And this faith gives me an overwhelming joy in the hope of what it must be like whatever God has in store for those who love Him! In a weird kind of way, the more suffering I see and experience, the higher it grows my expectation of the things to come. You know what I mean? You can contemplate all the evil and suffering in the world and think: "how great must be the final joy for God to think it is all worthwhile!" And I think that the sacrifice of God in the cross is like the summation... actually, it is the summation of all sins, of all evil and suffering. The death of God is actually the death of all mankind. As if He was trying to tell us: "see this? See MY suffering? Will you now believe me that it is all worth it? Because I do... The kind of happiness I want for you, the extent of my love for you, makes it all worthwhile, every single pain of my tortured body."

[@faithbycatholicism1416]

@@xaviervelascosuarez yeah, I agree with all your points, but when confronting an atheist you must be careful with terms like "mystery", "trust", and "faith".....these are wonderful words to you and I.....words of harmony and comfort.......but to a non-believer they are triggering words that can lead to more an more doubt.

[@xaviervelascosuarez]

@@faithbycatholicism1416 I think you are right. However, maybe that shouldn't be a deterrent to use those words, but rather an opportunity to explain why they are necessary. In my experience, a plea for them to step in our shoes, usually works wonders. I ask them to accept the hypothesis that God exists, just for the sake of argument, and they will very likely understand that, before Him, the only rational attitude is that of faith and openness to mystery. After all, who in their right mind will contest that it is irrational to pretend to understand infinite realities with finite minds? Daring to question Einstein because some of his formulas and demonstrations are a mystery to us wouldn’t be anywhere near as irrational as questioning God! If we find it perfectly reasonable to put our faith in scientists who know a lot more than we do, how much more reasonable would it be to put all our faith in the Intelligence who made those scientists’ minds!

[@samyawikeh7537]

We love you Bishop Barron ❤

[@jimluebke3869]

"Is [this bad thing] a good thing to have happened?" Well, would things have been worse had it not happened? (Old jokes about optimism and pessimism have a ring of truth to them.) Also, consider from a utilitarian point of view, the offer of eternity in paradise. If you apply a cost / benefit analysis, what amount of suffering WOULDN'T be worthwhile, to gain it? If that line of reasoning doesn't leave you in a state of "fear and trembling", some might envy the restraint of your imagination. After you've survived even a temporal ordeal, and come off the better or the stronger for it, does that not give you a level of good feeling (and wisdom, and character) you would not have arrived at otherwise?

[@mendez704]

Ok, following your use of faith as a form of trust that is allowed by reason, but goes beyond it, and the example you use with a relation between spouses (you trust a person a person to be your spouse or believe him or her when he or she says to love you based on your experiences with that person), I think you still have a serious problem vis a vis the problem of evil. God will be, in relation to the amount of evil he allows in the evil, equivalent to that person you use in one of your examples, that mistreats you and abuse you and then says "I love you": It is not credible, and the same goes with evil. A God that allows stuff the holocaust, natural disasters or epidemics that kill millions of persons, is not trustworthy, in your own terms and understanding of the concept of faith,.

[@BenBel2103]

By the way, the Oxford dictionary has an excellent definition Faith

[@ironymatt]

9:33 - that Brandon should even have to make mention of this is a damning indictment on the current state of the average attention span if ever there was

[@nmdale78]

I've always seen faith as the interpretive lens through which reason can perceive the world truly. It is necessarily an evidential construct otherwise reason would clash with interpretation. But it isn't something that can be derived through reason. Which would necessitate a circular argument, thus it has to be a revealed gift. And I think it chimes truly with the experience of yes, the married couple but more importantly the confession of so many who proclaim: I once was lost but now am found, was blind but now I see.

[@Jburrell01videos]

You misquote Tillich. It’s not religion that he defines as an ultimate concern, but faith. There is a distinction between these.

[@joannware6228]

The Cosmic Skeptic Alex's appeal & popularity is more about his charm than his ideas. He's more a performer than a philosopher.

[@Eserr7856]

Can you give examples of his charm and of his performance?

[@joannware6228]

@@Eserr7856 Can you give an example of his ability as a philosopher? An example of his charm is when he feints humility. An example of performance is when he confuses the issues by quick deception. He confuses instead of clarifying.

[@Eserr7856]

@@joannware6228 I don't know him personally so I can't comment on his character, but from what I can observe from this 90 minute video is that he is well educated in philosophy and theology, he is a quick thinker, and he can articulate well thought out philosophical arguments. I can't say if they are valid or not, because I am not qualified to do so as I don't have a degree in theology and philosophy.

[@joannware6228]

@@Eserr7856 He's probably a good guy.

[@markgallemore8856]

Your last bit is a category error. suffering is a state of being experienced by humans. You used the term evil evil implies agency. You haven’t demonstrated that God exists so where do you get the ability to call something evil ? You could call it bad because it doesn’t promote well-being. But you can’t Call it evil because you haven’t demonstrated agency.

[@johnendalk6537]

If it is true, it would be the most important thing only because of Hell. Nothing else. In terms of Faith defined as believing a best friend you've came to know, imagine the best friend told you "they can beam through walls, or walk on water or fly". Do you automatically believe them or ask for evidence?

[@IvyLeather13]

You're spot on. The fact that their god destroys the disobedient and disbelieving is why it's so important.

[@dirtlifenz]

I wouldn’t say that Alex’s desire to study theology is an underlying sense of Christianity’s importance rather a way to better understand and engage with Christian’s. saying that it’s a deep seated kind of belief is not being honest. There is no proof of anything of the sort.

[@johnpro2847]

8:25 Dr Bart Ehrman is a non believer in any celestial being, yet he teaches the bible at university .

[@processrauwill7922]

It' seemed to me to use the language of John Vervaeke, Bishop Barron is trying to show Alex the scared canopy above him, but Alex says the canopy isn't necessary and cuts it down. Followed again by Barron replanting it. I see this largely as a struggle with the thought of William of Ockham. The problem I have with Ockham is that he cut down the nominalist canopy with Occam's razor, and ever since then at least intellectually we haven't been able to climb back up again. We didn't realize the problem until years later when the baking sun had wilted all of the fruits below which were once protected by the canopy. We've lost our connection to God in the culture by destroying the divine hierarchy and reduced God to the will. David Bentley Hart has an excellent talk about this on KZbin when he discuss Nihilism and freedom. (He doesn't talk so much about the divine hierarchy more so the will) I think Bishop Barron does an interesting thing in trying to replant the canopy. Instead of agreeing with Alex that faith is the will imposing itself on reality, it is instead a response. Faith isn't believe in a set of propositions, where in, if we believe those propositions we go to the good place when we die. It's instead a response to the revealing God which requires not only belief, but acting in that way of being which has been revealed to us. This is my problem with justification by faith alone, because it seems to me just imposing our will upon reality, or believing in a set of claims isn't sufficient. We can't just ponder a thing, we need to respond. Without the response we are marching straight down the road to nihilism.

[@ZenWithKen]

The bishop was born into the religion and never had a chance to view life through the lens of someone who does not believe. Though he appears to be a nice guy, well spoken and represents the Catholic faith well, he is just another 'god salesman' to me. What seems so obvious to him is not so obvious to me all for want of some actual evidence. Let me ask a simple question for any theist who may read this. What is it that is required from a god in order to live a full, meaningful, love filled life? If I can do that without a god, then what need of it?

[@tommore3263]

So.. You are the cause of your existence? You caused yourself and hold the cosmos in being? You decided to have fingernails and hair? You decided to find the complementary sex attractive? You caused attraction? You gave yourself free will and a mind that does non material things like working with numbers or logic, spiritual things as they are classically understood. You and the guy down the street are the ones who imbued existence with value and purpose? You chartered this world 14 billion years ago for free willed intelligent life to emerge from stardust and spirit? Who knew! Thank od. You have the common mistaken notion of God as some kind of additional power out there. God is the ground of being itself and why you have a mind that seeks truth.

[@ZenWithKen]

​@@tommore3263 Even if a god kicked off the universe, what need do I have of it in my life? Everything I have. want, need, experience appears to be a natural progression so why complicate it with a god? In the interest of advancing this conversation, can answer my question without using an empty assertion?

[@cameronroot]

@@tommore3263 None of those things you listed in your sarcastic reply require a God as far as we know and understand and the time to believe such is when it is proven to be the most likely case. God is an "additional" power out there if you are in the position of not being convinced and speaking with someone that has only "Faith" as their claim as to why they believe. I have seen your response thousands of times and it's as slydigg says, an absolutely empty assertion.

[@dodyeid7591]

"Our heart is restless until we rest in you" - St. Augustine. "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light." - Christ "God is Love." - Isaiah I hope these will bring you peace even when life brings turbulent waters.

[@ZenWithKen]

@@dodyeid7591 Thanks? I hope you have a wonderful day, no gods required.

[@1minchess123]

Being an atheist I like Bishop Barron.

[@MilesMariae]

I am quite with you on the argument of evil. It isn't strong at all. It annoys me, its emotionally powerful and comes up in my ministry all the time, but really it isn't going to be a clincher.

[@moniquemonique6074]

I watched the debate between Bishop Barron & Alex O’Connor, I commented with this question to Alex O’Connor; what is the reason why you want to prove that there is no God? Evil, I equate it with free will. 2 or more paths & 1 path is the good path, which one will you choose? On another note, Alex O’Connor should be asked what is the purpose of his existence on earth ? So, you do not believe there is a God, although in Jesus Christ name, I hope you come to a point where you become a believer, so, you do not believe, then don’t. Why do you want others to agree with you? So you can have a group to back you up? As a Catholic, a Christian, I want people to believe in God & do His will so we can all go to Heaven. Thank you Brandon. Thank you Bishop Barron. God bless us all.

[@LarsPallesen]

Who says Alex O'Connor wants to prove that there is no God? He's an atheist. It simply means that he doesn't believe in any gods. Not that he's out to 'prove there is no God'. What do you imagine Alex would answer to the question "What is the purpose of your existence on this earth" ?

[@albertjurcisin8944]

Suffering and evil attract the absolute attention of our minds and hearts. The inability to answer it equally convincingly is the biggest drawback of christianity.

[@MilesMariae]

his point about suffering as the starting point, he is really going to down a black hole there.... I wish you had time to pursue that.

[@brycew2]

Let me attempt to explain a partial solution to the problem of evil - we are God's children. He created us and put us here. We don't learn and grow without opposition and suffering. Through this suffering, we also learn about joy and how to value and appreciate the good. We also come grow and use free will to choose to follow God and become the people God wants us to become. In the life hereafter we will learn about the great things God has I'm store for us. We become joint heirs with Christ and share in that glory. We can't do this without living through suffering as Christ did. In this life, if we coddle our children and shield them from all suffering, what kind of people do they become? Definitely not what they could become if they over me suffering. You also have to have suffering when you allow free will. You can't have growth without this free will. Anyway, it doesn't solve every atheist objection to the problem of evil, but it makes sense to me and this is outlined in scripture.

[@mohamedali2858]

Glory be to the one who knows the truths, he sees the atom as he sees the galaxy, his knowledge does not decrease in darkness and does not increase in the light, O Allah, forgive what your knowledge can of our sins

[@worldpeace1822]

Could it also be possible that we are made by a non empathetic perfect orb? Would be the most important thing…

[@JJ-cn2ud]

Why in religious channels There is heavy comment-censorship like.....why?

[@grosty2353]

There isn’t.

[@courgette3401]

I’m English and I’m fourth generation atheist . Am not very familiar in the term new atheist. I am just an atheist. I have not been convinced that there is a god. For me, if there were a god it would not be the most important thing. It would be fascinating. It wouldn’t lead to me worshipping said being. This god presumably had some sort of free will and chose to create us . The idea that we should then worship is offensive to me. Alex’s views about the possible God show nothing more than the indoctrination that he was raised with . I wasn’t raised in a religion so I don’t fear death. I don’t give god much thought at all. Almost all of the KZbin atheists are deconverted Christians. Unfortunately those of Us who never had religion just don’t feel the need to talk about it a lot. The problem then is that religious people never hear from the majority of atheists who frankly care no more about Christianity than I care about Thor or Ra. We don’t know what happened before the Big Bang. Perhaps one day we will perhaps we won’t but I don’t feel the need to put a god ( any god)in there.

[@No_BS_policy]

Non sense blabber.

[@LarsPallesen]

Well, Alex, like billions of kids around the globe, don't really have a say in what sort of religion they're being brought up in, do they? He was brought up as a catholic, but it could have been muslim or hindu or mormon for that matter. That's not really the point here. The point is what conclusion he himself came to when he started thinking about this stuff. Why does it disqualify Alex and his arguments that he was brought up in a family of believers? That is simply a matter of happenstance.

[@Custodes21]

I like C.S. Lewis's discussion about when he was considering the problem of evil and that it only works as an argument if you already expect the good. In other words, for an atheist to offer the critique they need to state the underlying expectation that itself needs to be justified. The problem of evil makes sense in the context of Christianity. But it is not clear that it makes sense within a secular materialist worldview--how can a secular materialist even employ a term like "evil" without stepping into another world?

[@ironymatt]

They can't, and the lengths they'll go to avoid conceding such are almost comical

[@LarsPallesen]

Non sequiteur. Atheists are simply responding to the Christian claim that an all loving and all powerful God is ruling the universe. Atheists have no inherent belief that the world should be either all good or all bad. In fact most of us understand why it's both. The problem of evil is one that arises from theological claims.

[@Custodes21]

@@LarsPallesen But what is good/evil within a secular materialist/atheist metaphysic?

[@yenthi2012]

Why does God allow Atheism i our world? My answer is: To strengthen my faith who want to break down what I have built up. I am proud to be catholic!

[@spiderrico7709]

When an Atheist brings on the topic of suffering,, I always bring up the ripple effects of sin. Starting in the garden. Am I wrong???. Please answer me if possible

[@someone6170]

I'm an Atheist (sorry not sure if you were looking for a response from an Atheist or Christian), however I don't believe in the garden of Eden and original sin. I believe in the scientific understanding of the history of the world which has the Earth about 4.5 billion years old and life on earth starting about 3.6 billion years ago. With hundreds of millions of years of animal life which involves terrible suffering at times (starvation, disease, being killed by other animals) prior to the arrival of humans. Both prior to and after the arrival of humans there appears to be suffering that is caused independently of human action/sin for instance natural disasters, such that sin doesn't appear to be the only cause of suffering both for humans and animals. I notice that there are Christians, who because of science's understanding of the history of the earth and life on in, consider the story of the garden of Eden to be a matter of allegory rather than a historical event. What is your understanding as to whether the story of the garden of Eden is historical and why?

[@LarsPallesen]

Oh, you're wrong alright.

[@spiderrico7709]

@@someone6170 hey, sorry for late response. The story of creation in Genesis Is not meant to be taken in a hyper literal interpretation, the word Day , can take on a few different meanings,, if I said my mom was a good babysitter in her Day”. Doesn’t mean one day. Genesis 1 is a poetic way of tell a historical truth. The whole meaning of Genesis one is that there is a Creator,, We are the creation. We have to take an account that when genesis one was written in the Hebrews were fleeing out of Egypt. They weren’t worried about the creation timetable remember back then there was no Bibles. It was just being written, because people communicated with each other back then in a poetic way a lot more than we do today, the whole point is is that we have a creator, no matter which way you look at it big bang theory or whatever there has to be a creator believe me I question all the stuff just five years ago I was a fierce atheist until something Trumatic happened to me and when we bring up the word suffering, and what good can come of it I can go on forever telling you about how much good can come from suffering even though the world was created for suffering, the great adversary put his hands in there and infected it with sin, might have to open up your mind a little bit and keep seeking I pray and hope that you find the truth. God bless you.

[@someone6170]

@@spiderrico7709 , thanks for the response :)

[@jayvansickle7607]

"There has to be a moral good to the suffering....because we Know that God is good. Otherwise he wouldn't be good" (paraphrase). Isn't there something inherently something wrong with that argument?

[@LarsPallesen]

No, there's something inherently wrong with the religion that promotes such a nonsensical view :-)

[@matthewmartin725]

He blames Catholicism for not connecting to him as a child … well what modern child connects to the suffering of the Bible ! There is the lack of connection

[@krishnamayimarianni8026]

Fascinating

[@laurocasaclang8895]

Something we should learn from atheist is that our faith is taught poorly. Even the word faith is defined using a dictionary. A lot of the message is lost in translation or limited by terms.

[@gariochsionnach2608]

... may be the thing of great importance for religion is the insight that in the ultimate depth or height of existence is Good.

[@worldpeacepatriot9448]

The analogy used by the bishop between a real person and an invisible God is ridiculous ! Certainly one can respond intimately to someone that one can interact with and get to know , but there is no such mechanism to get to know a presuppositional invisibie god entity on a real personal basis aside from what has been described about him in the O T and N T and the character and description of such a god entity ( especially the O T. one ) leaves much to be desired !

[@fruzsimih7214]

Most people who believe in God have a relational experience with him that is very powerful. You may put that down to illusion, but that only means that you are making your own experiences absolute.

[@Philip-uy3bx]

How do we know there's bad if good doesn't exist?

[@pcm9969]

If you believe in eternal life, what is 80-100 years here on earth? For example, you may have burned your hand on a stove when you were 2 and it may have been the most pain you could imagine at the time. Would you remember that incident now? Likely not, as it was a minor incident years ago. To extend this, no matter how painful life on earth may be for you, would you remember it a million years from now in Eternity? Keep in mind too that you wouldn't carry the damage into the afterlife, unlike a possible disfigured hand from the burn. I've never heard discussion on this point. I'd be interested in hearing more on this.

[@zenon3021]

why would you believe eternal life is real? Because an anonymously-written book with zombies and talking trees/animals said so?

[@pcm9969]

@@zenon3021 You need to reread my post, especially the first 3 words. I said IF you believe. I'm commenting on a typical argument. The argument is, if God is so wonderful, how come there is so much pain and suffering? Also, there is a separation between a religion and the existence of a supreme being. The bible is the book for Christians and Jews (old testament). Those religions (as well as other world religions) were created by humans as a means to ritualize their beliefs. You can poke holes in the logic of a religion, but that does not prove nonexistence of a supreme being. It's the classic unanswerable question: if God created the earth, who created God? But you can ask the opposite as well: If the earth were created from the Big Bang, who created the mass that created that? Take your pick and go with it. And addressing your question, can there be eternal life outside of a religious interpretation? If there is a certain pattern of atoms in our brain that make us a self aware individual, is it possible that another human, present or future, could have the same enough pattern of atoms to essentially duplicate us? Would that be considered reincarnation? Obviously, this pattern wouldn't include our life experiences, but we could become self aware again in another body.

[@zenon3021]

@@pcm9969 RE: "If the earth were created from the Big Bang, who created the mass that created that?" - 1) you're assuming it was a "who" 2) you're assuming that "who" was a supernatural all powerful being 3) you mysteriously ruled out natural causes as a possible explanation. For example, big bangs could be a common thing within an eternal multi-verse, all completely natural, no mythical super-beings required. RE: "You can poke holes in the logic of a religion, but that does not prove nonexistence of a supreme being." The time to believe in that supreme being is AFTER you have evidence. Extraordinary claims (like a supreme being) require extraordinary evidence. For example, you could look at the big bang and assume "god did it," I could look at the big bang and said "magic did it" - neither of us have any evidence it was god or magic. It's much more likely big bangs are just part of the natural world. You don't see astronomers and astrophysicists flocking to religion because there was a big bang. Lastly, the big bang was likely not the beginning of everything, just the beginning of our particular universe as we know it.

[@jimluebke3869]

Atheists believe death is a cessation of suffering, right? Take the most pessimistic case, and this life is a nightmare... but when the horrors go beyond a certain point, it ends. (At which point the Christian wakes up in a sunlit room, surrounded by everyone who has gone before you, and because this is outside of time, all those who have gone after as well. Everything that is good in you is there, perfected; everything that is evil in you is gone. How much of you would be left? That's a question worth pondering.) Anyway, I'm not sure how anyone can believe that both life's suffering and death can both be simultaneously evil. Either it's good to face the suffering of life because death is bad, or it's bad to suffer in life, which makes death at least comparatively better. Complaining about both at the same time, just shows how impossible to please, some people are.

[@LarsPallesen]

'Atheists believe death is a cessation of suffering, right?' Is that a belief you found in the atheist Bible, or how did you come up such a that strange idea?

[@rainer-unsinn]

What does it tell you about theistic arguments when Alex can study them in a very academic setting and still is not convinced?

[@pheidipp]

Alex sought refuge in the emotional fallacy too readily & too often, and the moderator was too courteous to rein that in (civility is novel & welcome). But otherwise a good first exchange. Where have the productive, thoughtful atheists been hiding themselves? I thought it was all aneurysm atheism nowadays, replete with exploding tomato countenances.

[@pheidipp]

@Real Atheology Principally concerning the problem of evil. The latter half of his effort was characterised by appeals to emotion regarding the place of suffering in existence. This is always emotionally compelling. The rest was a decent exchange, but I'd be interested in a deeper, more intellectual engagement.

[@Autobotmatt428]

@@pheidipp I agree to me that argument is not good for it offers no solution to evil and its mostly. "Look at this horrible thing be angry and how can God allow ......" Its trying to get some one emotional instead of trying to solve or fix the problem. And when people get emotional it can be hard for them to think clearly.

[@tommore3263]

I'm kinda surprised that our experience of radical freedom and moral responsibility which presupposes what even quantum reality is showing... freedom.. the spiritual.... which proves .. if you believe in reason and causality. .. that we must be created by Spirit. Oxford's 2011 study worldwide shows we are all naturally religious. Its simple sanity. And the contingency argument really does prove the existence of God. Only 3.1% of Americans identify as atheists and only 1.6% of Americans with college educations. Bishop Barron's point about evil presupposing goodness is also pretty obvious.