Refuting Atheist Alex O'Connor W/James White

Join us for the newest episode of Apologia Radio in which we are joined by Dr. James White from ‪@AominOrg‬ to engage with some of the claims of the famous Atheist/Agnostic, Alex O'Connor from his recent engagements on the "1 Atheist vs. 25 Christians" and with Ruslan. Tell someone!
Get your tickets for ReformCon 2025!!!! reformcon.org
To give: ean.link/GiveEAN
Check out our new sponsor, Rooted Pine Homestead!
A family business that works to create natural wooden toys and herbal remedies. Their wooden toys/other wooden items are coated with only 2 ingredients (Coconut MCT oil and beeswax). Use discount code APOLOGIA for 10% off your first order.
www.rootedpine...
-Get the NAD treatment Jeff is on, go to ionlayer.com and put "IONAPOLOGIA" into the coupon code and get $100 off your first three months!
www.ionlayer.com
-Check out our new partner at www.amtacblades... and use code APOLOGIA in the check out for 5% off!
-You can get in touch with Heritage Defense at heritagedefense.org and use coupon code “APOLOGIA” to get your first month free!
-For some Presip Blend Coffee Check out our store at shop.apologias...
-Check out the Ezra Institute: www.ezrainstit...
ad music: PIXYOEGMJ99LLG0N

[@bernielarson34]

Use this as a Jeff Durbin vs Alex O'Connor debate button 👇

[@S_117]

Yes

[@jeremycremeans1854]

Treasure

[@paytons6767]

That would be a great debate. Besides Durbins calvinism views. Alex could get him on easy points.

[@xAgent_Smithx]

@@paytons6767Jeff Calvinism views would totally confuse Alex line of questioning, I’m sure he would prep but I’m sure he would get a lot wrong

[@Particularly_John_Gill]

Alex isn’t going to want to debate a presuppositionalist.

[@tylerbuckner3750]

Topic starts at 10:32.

[@timothyvenable3336]

And then the actual video topic shortly after 43

[@Logan_Bishop_YT]

Thanks! :)

[@TimothyC.84]

You’re the man. Idc what they say about you. 💯

[@pimplecheese337]

Thank you guys for this video. Alex O’Connor has shaken my faith on a few occasions and many times his questions/statements I have little to no response to. Praise God he won’t let me go, but this has caused me to sink back into sins that I struggle with whenever I get to that low spot listening. I feel like the fool getting swept around by every wind of doctrine. I don’t want to be a blind faith Christian, but I haven’t heard people really respond to Alex until recently. Thank you guys again for what you do.

[@MansterBear]

Someone’s always going to be able to come up with some obscure question that you don’t know the answer to. At some point you have to believe and trust God and His word. Not saying it’s not good to have answers, but if your faith is shaken anytime you hear an argument you don’t have an answer to, then you may have placed your faith in your own understanding.

[@puritanpioneer1646]

Watch How To Answer The Fool by Sye Ten Bruggencate, Apologia reccoemdns it and I do too, it'll help I hope.

[@carrieparrett6945]

I struggle in this way too sometimes when I listen to too many people with too many doctrines. Luckily, the Holy Spirit tells me when to step away and hold on to the Faith and Doctrine I already believe in. It’s difficult when you’ve lived an entire 50 years in a material world and only 4 knowing Jesus and studying the Bible. If it feels false, it likely is. Hang in there

[@carrieparrett6945]

Can I do anything in Ohio to help the bill?

[@NickAlphason]

​@@puritanpioneer1646 I second this

[@corleyjohnson1097]

If you are able i love to see yall talk with Alex O'Connor i think that could be a real blessing

[@kodacervantes8272]

They scared 😅

[@WarmGoldenNectar]

Careful what you wish for my man, if you think this pressup BS of an answer they are giving here is an answer at all then I can't wait to see this blessing 😂

[@cagebeast]

I guarantee jeff during will never debate any reputable atheists. He shines when he's arguing with Random people off the street

[@robertreynolds7123]

For those of you who may have missed it, James said 900-1000, not 900,000 lol

[@Yesica1993]

Hahaha! Thank you! I thought my brain was melting.

[@alexyounkin1476]

Thank you. I didn't know if he was turning into a reverse-old-earther there for a second. 😂

[@alexyounkin1476]

What a boomer. 😂

[@unkown312]

Lol

[@timothyvenable3336]

I was literally thinking that exactly lol

[@Blacktorch27]

I find it no coincidence that the “Mormon” who you don’t view reaches the standard of being called Christian, was not included in your section addressing the Alex’s claim about the Divinity of Jesus Christ. He did by far the best at responding to that claim and even used the argument James made about the reliability of the gospels, and the argument Jeff made about the gospels describing a someone doing and saying things a mere man wouldn’t do. You didn’t want to include it though because that wouldn’t fit the slander-style claims repeatedly made against Mormonism. He also voiced another one of Jeff’s points to Alex about the emptiness of the Atheistic world-view. Go ahead and keep dunking on him without debating him because you know he’s the LDS opponent you would have the hardest time debating. P.S. there was another LDS man there named Hayden who you probably loved because of his consciousness argument during the suffering claim.

[@Coley.stephens]

Yoo That's me in the debate!

[@ExploringReality]

Why they always showing you but not me. 😢 it’s probably cause you’re so good looking

[@MizzElle-kp6nl]

Subbed😊 Do you know the name of the guy with dark hair who brought up the Epstein theme(why he did that when he actually did well enough to make Alex nervous is beyond me though) thanks

[@Coley.stephens]

@ Thank you! I probably do but I can’t remember that part What was he wearing?

[@ProvisionoftheGospels]

Yes brother, I’ve seen multiple times you are trying to be an attention seeker on KZbin. While I liked your argument with Alex O’Conner and wanted you to speak longer, you have to not put the arrow and “me” in all your videos. Seems like you’re wanting the glory. You’re smart, and want you to grow, but go about it a different way led by the spirit. But that’s just my opinion. God bless and keep up the good work!

[@hashtagzema]

In a situation like the Jubilee videos - here's the perfect response to "So, I think the book of John is the least historically reliable, in this case." ----> "Why?" The goal of the Group in Jubilee is not get the guy in the seat to repent. It's to put on display that their position is indefensible. He came into a room to get a bunch of Christians to defend if Jesus claimed to be God. It's not a good look for him to just start saying he rejects the words of the Bible. No matter how well he can defend that he doesn't believe the Bible ...that's not the prompt. Me: Here in Mark, Jesus calls himself Lord of the Sabbath. Is there more than one Lord? Alex: Well, Mark wasn't there. Me: So should I go to the next text on my list, or are you going to just say you don't think anything on my list is authentic? Why are you even here? Is there a book in the NT you think is reliable? Give me something you're willing to actually work with. So far you've demonstrated you just don't believe something that doesn't agree with your presupposition. You want me to show you where in the GOSPELS Jesus claims to be God, which Gospel am I allowed to use, Alex? As I finish typing this, White states the ultimate point of my comment. 58:07. Alex can't state "Jesus never claimed to be God" as a serious prompt for this if he's going to "gotcha" on saying He rejects every quote Jesus is credited with.. And the Group's job is to point THAT out.

[@dogescout5868]

You guys are an absolute blessing! Someone tell O’Connor these are the guys he needs to converse with.

[@CapnMal]

They don't really want that. They know O'Connor would tear them up. They're not even willing to debate a Mormon who knows his stuff.

[@js1423]

Not exactly the cream of the crop. Jame White has a diploma-mill ThD

[@dogescout5868]

@ This is such a tired trope people try to use against Dr. White.

[@js1423]

@@dogescout5868 Is it true or not? And don’t call him “Dr” if it is not a legitimate dissertation. He wrote a blogpost on the topic

[@dogescout5868]

@ I will refer to him as Doctor White because that is what all respectable men do towards him in debate and in reference. You are attempting to undermine James White knowledge because of his educational background. This guy has engaged in nearly 200 moderated debates against leading critics of the faith, including Bart Erhman. He goes to hostile countries to debate Muslims on Christ. He has dismantled Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, LGBT liberals, Roman Catholics, atheists, Muslims, etc. So no, I could really care less of your opinion because Dr White is far more intelligent than you are, has been in the game far longer, knows the original languages of the Scripture, reads in them, teaches church history, and knows FAR more than both you and I combined. So you can see your way out of the convo with your nonsense because it doesn’t work here. James White and Durbin would clean house with Alex.

[@ProdigalSonMatt]

There was two Latter Day Saints in the “25 Christians vs 1 Atheist video”, Hayden Carrol and Jacob Hansen are both members of my church.

[@feelyoung79]

Well they shouldn't have been there then..😅😅

[@ProdigalSonMatt]

@ very true, but guess what, one day they’ll be released and be in the same community as you.

[@lefebre27]

@@ProdigalSonMattgood the harvest is plentiful

[@Norad-zg8u]

Yessir and they were the only ones who put up a decent coherent argument. Funny to see Jeff struggle and straw man our logic.

[@Norad-zg8u]

@@feelyoung79 If they werent there, the rest of the "christians" would have been steemrolled by Alex. Thanks the LDS for logic and actualy understanding of the bible.

[@bernielarson34]

I've been waiting so long for you guys to engage with Alex's content. Did not disappoint. Keep it coming!

[@correctingculture]

Just ignore jesus saying we will sit with him in his father's throne

[@nathansummers9648]

I will point out that Alex has addressed the worldview question many times when talking to other Christians. Alex's response to Jeff's accusation of him using Christian captial would be that he doesn't believe in objective standards himself, but is simply asking Christians to justify in their own worldview the consistency of their own beliefs. I don't believe as Alex believes, I just feel that's worth mentioning.

[@tfkeaan1246]

When Alex raised the point of non-human animals, Jeff said Alex doesn't have a leg to stand on due to his inability to ground his ethical beliefs. Alex has said time and time again that he is an emotivist; someone who believes all ethical statements are expressions of feelings rather than fact. What Alex means by non-human animals not deserving of suffering, he's saying that, on the Christian purview, their suffering is unexpected due to their suffering not being a direct link to "the fall of man" or "free-will". This needs rectification, and I would have thought a professional apologist could see that.

[@damiantgg]

> What Alex means by non-human animals not deserving of suffering, he's saying that, on the Christian purview, their suffering is unexpected due to their suffering not being a direct link to "the fall of man" or "free-will". Firstly, not deserving suffering and it being an unexpected result aren't the same thing. The "Free-Will" argument can be extrapolated to animals whether you wish to say animals have souls or animals have wills and are capable of doing good. The "Fall of Man" is more obvious as man is the Hierarchical leader of all of Creation, creation suffers when they are led by a bad leader, like a kingdom suffers with a bad King. Animals having pain receptors is not a bad thing. People have found way to include them. Secondly, so what if this is unexpected or is not clear, from the Christian purview, God allowing Animals to suffer is not a Moral wrong, especially since God is not a Moral Agent, so at best Alex is saying "I don't understand the reason why God does this." Which is like saying why did God Choose the Colour Blue for the Sky to be, this is no longer a Logical Contradiction, but rather a Question of Existence, therefore no longer Mandatory for an Apologist to resolve. Thirdly, I believe the reason Jeff brings up the matter of Alex not having a Moral basis to critique God is that the Problem of Animal Suffering is no longer a Logical Contradiction, but rather from a Christian purview is a question of Reality outside of our own perception i.e. not a critique of the Existence of God. Though if taken from another Objective Moral Standard it can be used as a Critique against God (which we would be assuming in this case), which would Logically require Jeff to ask where is his standard to Critique God. TLDR: If what you said about Alex believing Morality is more an expression of feelings then Animals Suffering is a waste of his time, as by Jeff's (and Christians') point of view God isn't mandated to prevent the suffering of all animals. Therefore Jeff would ask Alex for which Moral Standard to critique God.

[@tfkeaan1246]

@@damiantgg Thanks for the comment! Would love to hear your response to these; I’ll take your points one by one: Are you saying that animals suffer due to their capacity to do ‘good’? There’s a reason why we don’t prosecute lions for hunting zebra, but we’ll pursue justice for a a man who murders another. Animals have suffered long before humans ever existed, and it’s my understanding that the Christian worldview is that man made this world imperfect, so it stands to reason that the brutal idea of natural selection, or the survival only of the most fit, is not in line with an omnibenevolent and perfectly just God. But if you said that animal suffering is not directly linked to free will or the Fall, then why does it exist? Especially considering that the suffering of non-human animals happened long before the Fall or man’s ability to act freely. Whether I have an objective moral standard is irrelevant-you have to account for why your supposedly benevolent God allows this, unless you categorize God differently. Secondly, you must understand that this is presuppositionalist apologetics, or post-hoc rationalization. If we’re to say that God’s morals are written on our heart, and we see something that seems to be unjust, then where does this feeling come from? And if God is not a moral agent, then what does it mean to say that God is 'good'? Christians argue that God is perfectly good and that morality is rooted in His nature. But if He isn’t bound by moral concerns, then saying 'God is good' is meaningless. And someone who isn’t a moral agent being the foundation of morality seems contradictory to me. Lastly, Alex’s personal moral philosophy is irrelevant here. He is not making an external moral critique of Christianity, he’s evaluating it on its own terms. It seems to me that Christians love to pin God as the foundation of morality, but when challenged on moral problems such as the suffering of non-human animals, there’s a retreat to saying ‘God doesn’t have to prevent suffering’. So which is it? Is God perfectly good and loving, or does He just do whatever he wants and morality doesn’t apply to him? If someone claims that 2+2=5, I don’t need an alternative math system to show that their claim is incorrect. I only need to demonstrate the inconsistency. Similarly, if the claim is that God is the foundation of morality and is perfectly loving and just, but we observe unnecessary suffering, that is a contradiction that Christians need to resolve.

[@mcgruff7355]

​@tfkeaan1246 Animals kill to survive except a handfull of species that kill for what seems no reason. The fall of man is directly linked to all of the worlds sufferings. The fact that life and death is part of the law of nature which God is over since everything under a law so their is some uniformity to a fallen world. The physical pain that all life can suffer is not immoral under the laws of life and dieing any suffering done here on earth is a blink in grandscheme of the spirits existence. What's immoral too you is based on your comfort and your physical SELF preservasion which is but a blip in your spirits total existence. The flesh has to die so the spirit can fully live.

[@tfkeaan1246]

@ You claim that “the fall of man is directly linked to all of the world’s sufferings.” However, this doesn’t address the core issue: animals suffered long before humans even existed. If suffering is linked to the Fall, how do you explain the suffering of animals that predates human history? Either animals suffered before the Fall, which contradicts your argument, or the Fall is not the true cause, which leaves God's role in creating a world with inherent suffering. Next, you say “life and death is part of the law of nature which God is over.” If God created this system, He is responsible for the suffering inherent in nature. Lions eating gazelles, parasites eating their hosts alive-this brutal system was designed by God, so how is this consistent with a perfectly loving God? Was this the best system He could create? You then argue that suffering is temporary, but the duration of suffering doesn't justify its existence. Whether short or long, unnecessary suffering is still morally problematic, especially if we accept the Christian view of an omnibenevolent God. Furthermore, your claim that “what’s immoral to you is based on your comfort” misses the point. The issue is not personal discomfort but that Christian theology holds God as the source of morality. If God is the foundation of moral goodness, then His allowance of unnecessary suffering is a contradiction. Either God is bound by moral principles, in which case He must prevent suffering, or He is not, in which case the claim that He is "good" is meaningless. Finally, you argue that “the flesh must die so the spirit can fully live”. But this creates a problem: why create a system where suffering is necessary? If suffering is necessary, then God is not omnipotent; if it isn’t necessary, then God chose to create a world where suffering exists. In sum, your argument fails to address the key contradiction in Christian theology: God’s supposed omnibenevolence is incompatible with the existence of unnecessary suffering. The solution either requires abandoning the idea of a perfectly loving God or acknowledging the theological inconsistency.

[@tfkeaan1246]

@@mcgruff7355 You claim that “the fall of man is directly linked to all of the world’s sufferings.” However, this doesn’t address the core issue: animals suffered long before humans even existed. If suffering is linked to the Fall, how do you explain the suffering of animals that predates human history? Either animals suffered before the Fall, which contradicts your argument, or the Fall is not the true cause, which leaves God's role in creating a world with inherent suffering. Next, you say “life and death is part of the law of nature which God is over.” If God created this system, He is responsible for the suffering inherent in nature. Lions eating gazelles, parasites eating their hosts alive-this brutal system was designed by God, so how is this consistent with a perfectly loving God? Was this the best system He could create? You then argue that suffering is temporary, but the duration of suffering doesn't justify its existence. Whether short or long, unnecessary suffering is still morally problematic, especially if we accept the Christian view of an omnibenevolent God. Furthermore, your claim that “what’s immoral to you is based on your comfort” misses the point. The issue is not personal discomfort but that Christian theology holds God as the source of morality. If God is the foundation of moral goodness, then His allowance of unnecessary suffering is a contradiction. Either God is bound by moral principles, in which case He must prevent suffering, or He is not, in which case the claim that He is "good" is meaningless. Finally, you argue that “the flesh must die so the spirit can fully live”. But this creates a problem: why create a system where suffering is necessary? If suffering is necessary, then God is not omnipotent; if it isn’t necessary, then God chose to create a world where suffering exists. In sum, your argument fails to address the key contradiction in Christian theology: God’s supposed omnibenevolence is incompatible with the existence of unnecessary suffering. The solution either requires abandoning the idea of a perfectly loving God or acknowledging the theological inconsistency.

[@Metroid-rg9pn]

You said that mormons can't give any logical defense where the law of exaltation came from, but neither can you. Where did God come from? He's uncreated and always existed? We can claim that the law of exaltation is uncreated and always existed too. If we need a better defense than that, then so do you.

[@jueyjuice7265]

There was actually 2 Mormons on it so jokes on yall😂

[@kjcdb8er]

Yes, Hayden must have made a good impression on Dr. White when they visited his chapel since Dr. White finally acknowledged an LDS is a Christian 🤪

[@johnp8432]

Hey American folks, just a heads up that when you have a "British" accent yourself (as I do), what Alex is saying doesn't sound delicious at all. He almost always sounds smug, arrogant, irritating, and unimpressive at best. I'm constantly amazed that he gets so much attention.

[@banemaler]

I have only recently come aware of him and have not been impressed. The same old arguments dredged up again and again with little push back. These guys never seek out a formidable opponent for their half-baked presentations.

[@astroterf.]

Hello fellow Brit! I agree 100% with everything you've written, I see people saying how polite he sounds and as an English woman I'm like 'he really doesn't', condescending, maybe! Saw him for the first time on a jubilee 'debate' a couple of days ago and the atheists in the comments were gushing about how amazing he is, and 'he's the best we have!', when his first argument was basically 'animals suffer, so no God' 🤦🏻‍♀️ I didn't even find him logical let alone persuasive

[@Fassnight]

So true. Too many people miss the jabs he makes throughout his dialogue

[@johnp8432]

@@astroterf. 💯

[@eja35oz]

@@astroterf.that's how polite your accent sounds that even someone who's being smug still sounds so nice too us Americans lol

[@Aaronjames2023]

i wish you would have reacted to the part where Alex concedes to the Mormon.

[@angusmacangus3181]

Dr. Larry Hurtado's seminal scholarly work, "Lord, Jesus Christ, Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity," destroys the view that the divinity of Jesus was an incremental and late belief.

[@seansimpson1133]

Love Jeff but I really wish he’d stop saying Alex’s voice sounds delicious.

[@alexyounkin1476]

😂

[@alexyounkin1476]

@@ChristineVress, you just took it way too far.

[@Jaxon5209]

I had a homosexual encounter with Jeff in the Phoenix area about 5 years ago in a hotel. He said I was delicious. Please pray for us both.

[@vincentpena5574]

Pastor Jeff engage with Jacob again! I think the Church would be blessed to hear you break down an argument in an actual cross examination

[@Uhhlehssa]

According to one of my church staff members, their brother works for a church in Austin and Joe Rogan has been attending that church every Sunday since Wes’s episode.

[@7heHopeMan]

I’m Christian but you’re missing the point about Alex’ argument concerning suffering. It is an internal critique. Not an argument that “suffering is bad therefore God is bad or not real”.

[@fbgleutkirch]

Agreed. I’d like to hear the apologia response to the internal argument for suffering that Alex is making. Alex has used this argument several times, and I have yet to hear a good response to it. Seems like Christians are afraid to stand on the plain, literal statements of Adam’s curse in Genesis 3. Not sure why it is being avoided.

[@Dominus564]

@@fbgleutkirch It is very simple why animals suffer in the Christian worldview and Alex's critique of this misunderstands how evil works within it. God is the total sum of essence and existence, created existence was actualized by Him so He and mankind can exist forever in eternal love. Sin/evil is the absence of that purpose. When Lucifer sinned against God, he corrupted his own nature, begetting evil within created existence. So too did Adam and Eve, when they defied God, beget evil unto the world. In this context, evil is a corruption of what naturally existed, i.e. the created existence that God brought forth. So it is logical that animals and all things corrupted by evil suffer from the consequences. Why would only man suffer and not the animals if the world itself was corrupted? Men were made to be stewards of the earth, the animals abiding by our dictation, yet when the shepherd is incompetent and refuses to tend to his herd, how can the sheep stay safe from the wolves? Alex's internal critique raises the point that God allowing animals to suffer is an unnecessary punishment given it was man who sinned against Him. Yet, evil is not merely an action within created existence, but a corruption of created existence, as evil has no substance and does not exist in itself. Evil can only exist accidentally, i.e. in light of a preexisting substance which is God. God is not evil nor He can author any evil in any capacity, as He exists wholly functionally in His essence and existence, with no corruption within His being. So evil can only exist in created existence, with beings who have free will, as evil is the privation/corruption of that which was begotten from God, and that which is begotten from God can only be made good and whole, i.e. without corruption. God is wholly good, perfect, and functional, so that which He creates cannot have any corruption unless that thing was a will of its own and rejects Him, as Adam and Eve did, and so did Lucifer. Only created things can be corrupted, and since evil is a corruption of created existence, it stands to reason that animals too must suffer, as we were their stewards and corrupted the whole world. Thankfully, this corruption was answered brilliantly by Jesus Christ, who shall redeem all of created existence with the second coming.

[@Stevenclayhilton]

YOOOO JAMES WHITE

[@CapnMal]

Bwahaha Massive COPE @ 1:29:27 How far the ninja has fallen. 🐤

[@EarlSimmons-f2n]

Ninja was already getting grounded and pounded for about a decade.

[@Settingforthband]

To answer jeffs question: "whats all the crying about", I think it's because the burden of proof falls on you jeff to answer his questions since you would be making the claim that God is just therefore Alex has the right to ask and "complain"

[@douglasmcnay644]

Alex first has to establish why suffering is wrong/evil without stealing from the Christian worldview, so his complaint doesn't even get off the ground.

[@Settingforthband]

@douglasmcnay644 no, because the question isn’t “why is suffering evil” the question is “IF God exists, then why the suffering” so first the claim “God exists” would have to be established first, hence, the burden of proof. Otherwise Alex wouldn’t feel the need to ask to begin with

[@user-sq9ec1fz7o]

@@Settingforthbandno it would not, if God exists is a conditional statement. You don’t need to prove God in order to discuss if he exists then why does X occur. That’s the entire point. IF being the conditional can just be stated in order to get to the actual discussion. Otherwise Alex’s criticism falls flat since he can’t prove god in order to then say why suffering.

[@user-sq9ec1fz7o]

@@Settingforthbandso if we accept your explanation then Alex could not even critique anything because he can not prove the conditional.

[@Settingforthband]

@@user-sq9ec1fz7o If I say “God exists and is just and is the reason we all exist” then I have the right to ask “okay, IF that is so, then explain suffering in the context of a world governed and created by a God who sees all and knows all” its not a matter of proving God’s existence on alex’s part, but rather on Jeff’s part because Jeff has the burden of proof (google “burden of proof”) Here’s an example of what I mean: If Bob makes the claim: “gravity doesn’t exist” Bob now has the burden of proof; he has to prove gravity doesn’t exist. One way to challenge bobs claim is by asking questions such as: “if gravity doesn’t exist, then why dont we float away into space?” Its a fair question. Your logic would be this: Bob: “gravity doesn’t exist” Jerry: “then why don’t we float away?” Bob: “you have no right to ask that so therefore im right”

[@AA-zx6nw]

Any recommendations to study the topic further (e.g., masoretic text vs Dead Sea scrolls, Septuagint, etc)? Please advise.

[@kjcdb8er]

The smallest pushback, and Jeff can't handle it 1:29:55. Durbin was the one who threw Heiser under the bus, not Jacob, in that exchange.

[@djbzwaxx421]

Where can I watch that exchange?

[@kjcdb8er]

@@djbzwaxx421 Jacob's Thoughtful Faith channel has a playlist called Jeff Durbin Debunked. If the link in the next comment is missing, it got filtered. But you can always just search for Jacob's channel.

[@kjcdb8er]

Jacob's content on y.t. has a playlist on this subject. kzbin.info/www/bejne/kJfOn3WKbayNn8ksi=ZLHhGonOoEILjPUV

[@Maddog_Mark]

Thank you guys for making this video

[@Alexander-Dubois]

At least two Mormons btw - one of the first guys was also a Mormon

[@truthisbeautiful7492]

And Mormons will agree with secularists on many points against Christians- for example their materialism, their rejection of scriptural inerrrancy, etc

[@van-michaelgraves1456]

​@@truthisbeautiful7492 because they aren't Christians

[@davidgee2424]

Love to see you talk to him Pastor Jeff

[@ashtongardnermusic]

If I sat down at a piano and play rachmaninoff's most complex piece to perfection, would you refuse to accept that I am a pianist if at the end of it I did not also stand up an announce to you that 'I am a pianist'? Does Jesus also have to clarify that he is God after having walked across a Lake raised people from the dead and perform dozens of other miracles including being raised himself from the dead? That is what is ridiculous about Alex's complaint that Jesus did not call himself God. Besides which Jesus is renowned for speaking in analogy and parable and not being obvious about it.

[@sandrapihlskott3262]

Thank's for this. According to one video there were more than one Mormon in the one atheist against 25 Christians session.

[@dallinoilar8567]

It’s exhausting assuming your knowledge of LDS beliefs when you open your mouth and prove you know so little, besides surface straw man arguments. I would think with your maturity/mastery of the Christian gospel that you would have some semblance of sense as it pertains to the LDS faith but… You almost have nothing to give. Sad.

[@TyXDaJedi]

Prove when the Bible became corrupt.

[@CapnMal]

This is the real reason they don't want to talk to Mormons on their show. Apoligia Studio's lies are paper thin.

[@Chuculainn9]

Where did Durbin and White get those necklace Crosses?

[@Jhuggs34]

James is in elite form here. 💪💪

[@EarlSimmons-f2n]

I think he’s better when accosting unprepared civilians. Debating a video he can pause is close though.

[@Jhuggs34]

@EarlSimmons-f2n I said James not Jeff.

[@EarlSimmons-f2n]

@ same diff. A coward with goofy style that turns off youtube comments from his trailer rants.

[@Jhuggs34]

@@EarlSimmons-f2n gotcha you don't like them. It's not that deep. Be blessed though

[@EarlSimmons-f2n]

@@Jhuggs34 I pray you will see the light, inshallah.

[@jkjames4026]

As soon as the LDS guy came in that’s when you raise the flag. Don’t wait for him to talk. Just raise the flag. Letting him group himself with Christians is a bad idea. This guy is probably wondering why there are so many different “Christians”

[@chubbuck35]

@jkjames4026 that’s not very Christlike of you.

[@jkjames4026]

@ Galatians 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. The LDS gentleman is deceived and he is deceiving others. I believe it’s very Christlike to say don’t preach another gospel. I understand the format wasn’t a Christian one, but combining him with those who preach the True Christ will only confuse this man and others watching. LDS theology is vastly different from the Bible.

[@todd3502]

Waiting for Jeff to debate Robert Boylan

[@correctingculture]

A calvinist wouldn't stand a chance against alex

[@TheCrimsonWorm]

58:25 I'm sorry what website was that? I can't find the book by searching for the title.

[@bradmiller4424]

Hey guys, I just wanna make a point, if you could pass along the message to Jeff in case he debates O’Connor. I do not think he is accurately representing what Alex O’Connor would say in a debate over animal suffering (at the 1 hr 14 minute mark). From what I’ve seen, while Alex does have a moral problem with something like animal suffering, that’s not the point he would debate. What he would say is that the presence of animal suffering is much more likely in a materialistic evolutionarily based worldview than it is in a theological worldview where God is supposed to be just and omnipotent. He would argue that while he’s heard conceivable arguments for why human suffering exists with God, there’s no reason that lower ordered creatures might, for example, kill each other out in the wild while no one can see it. Take the example of a lion suffocating a gazelle to death while the gazelle is in severe pain. Alex would probably argue that you could have the exact same theological environment without needing the unwitnessed suffering of animals. Would be interesting to hear you guys talk about this point in a podcast .

[@MrTypingsound]

Has James expounded on the historicity of John elsewhere? Would love to hear more about that!

[@montylane2488]

Calling a Christian that believes in the septuagintal readings over masoretic as Marcionite solely based on that fact is a wild take

[@Christian-P.O.V]

God bless Alex O’Connor and those like him. Without their sharp insights regarding our faith we would lack proper challenge to our faith. Without that challenge our faith might become weak and stale

[@Alien1375]

The point of Alex is that christian values are broken by the God that is supposed to upheld them. Not that "atheist values" (whatever that means) are broken.

[@astroterf.]

Point me to where in the Bible it says God is supposed to be bound by the Commandments for humans? If that is Alex's point it starts from a place of confusion at best, duplicity at worst

[@Alien1375]

@astroterf. So the children are not allowed by dad to torture the dog, because it's bad morals. But daddy can? Just because he's more powerful and makes up the rules? What kinda morality is that?

[@Fassnight]

​@@Alien1375Your assumptions Are not consistent with any Biblical teaching concerning God. God does not torture animals. That is a claim that you would be hard-pressed to find sufficient support for.

[@Alien1375]

@@Fassnight He at least demands animal sacrifice in the old testament. And he willingly does not prevent suffering on animals who never broke the deal in paradise. It seems you can not assume anything by the behaviour of this flip flopping god.

[@Fassnight]

@@Alien1375 Animal sacrifice isn't uniquely different than killing animals for food, though. So, I apologize if I don't see that as a valid point. And I think you would have to further support that God does not prevent suffering on animals. How do we make such a claim? Isn't is entirely possible that God does prevent suffering, just not all suffering? Unless you are saying that God must prevent ALL forms of suffering. Then I think you might have to define what all that means as well. Like, are all forms of pain and discomfort considered suffering?

[@BenjaminBurnhamMusic]

There will probably be very very few viewers who can relate to this but… James White featured on Apologia is like when Rich Evans is featured on Half in the Bag.

[@andrewneufeld8276]

I have one complaint, I just wish this episode was longer

[@bogkazealijamislim5998]

This is my favorite John Malkovich movie so far

[@heisrisen1113]

I chuckled

[@MusculusPulveri]

Alex speaks of things he finds as “improbable.” But probability assumes certain epistemological norms - the uniformity of nature. Where does he get that?

[@Jimmy-iy9pl]

The uniformity of nature is more of a scientific norm that's grounded ontologically in the natures and powers of substances than an epistemic norm. I think it's inductive inferences are more in the epistemic realm.

[@MusculusPulveri]

@ they’re interrelated. I see your point, but ontological norms about the nature of the universe must be discussed within an epistemological framework. Moreover the problem of induction and the uniformity of nature are really just differentiated by whatever you’re talking about: the metaphysical reality or the epistemological result. You really can’t talk about one without the other.

[@ithurtsbecauseitstrue]

Alex says improbable to do the one thing he MUST DO AT ALL TIMES - avoid the burden of proof like the plague. Saying this puts him outside having to prove anything, and makes it a mere observation that he can safely assert from his bubble wrapped rubber room.

[@Jimmy-iy9pl]

@MusculusPulveri They are interrelated, but they are logically separable. I don't need to give you a worked out metaphysical account of causal powers and substances to be justified that inductive inferences are usually a reliable mode of inference. More to the point though, I think an atheist could grant that certain beliefs are evidence for theism, such as causal regularity, while not backing down from animal suffering as evidence against God. Most atheist philosophers already grant that there's some evidence for theism anyway. There can be conflicting evidence.

[@MusculusPulveri]

@ No you don’t necessarily need to get to all the details, but your inferences are based on said metaphysical account. Metaphysics and epistemology are distinct, but not as much as you may think. Again I see your point, but “probability” is based on inductive inference, which is reliant on the uniformity of nature, hence my original comment

[@douglasboylan3477]

To any atheists watching this wondering if Jeff would step up when handling Alex, he didnt. The short version, he only tackles the easy questions from the video, they completely avoid the topics of slavery and genocide. And as per usual he hand waves the problem of evil by saying we cant have a problem with suffering unless we agree with his religion.

[@sebastianjoachim3456]

ur an atheist im assuming lol

[@Alaskanulu15]

CS Lewis had a good point on animal “suffering”- how do we know they suffer? Suffering is a mental state by conscious beings. They experience pain but it doesn’t mean they cognitively are “suffering”. The nervous system response is to get out of the painful stimulus bc not good for their body.

[@robertj6523]

very sorry to say this but there are far to many adverts coming up guys, will all due respect I know u might need them but its hinders the message a lot as its taking me out of the moment pls consider lowering them pls

[@changedman6035]

"Alex seems to think bacteria bumping into each other is wrong" "What is suffering anyway? Brain fizz?" 😂 Those are good brothers, sadly though that is what the Atheist/Agnostic is left to.

[@CKD3332]

Alex has now over a million subscribers on KZbin, he is milking his atheist-agnostic position. Also, God is the one who is the embodiment of something like the law of non-contradiction, God is everything that logical.

[@nharris1977]

Alex I think might wipe the floor with you. Would enjoy that discussion.

[@EarlSimmons-f2n]

Think? It’s a certainty. Jeff prefers to confront unprepared civilians.

[@MarkMikulski]

Hey! Do you all know that you can edit your videos on KZbin so you can edit it down to the beginning of your video?

[@MichaelJohnson-composer]

Refuting? More like being destroyed by Alex O’Connor.

[@Jakeztube23]

My simple answer to Alex question of non-human suffering would be that suffering brings forth life.

[@samgott8689]

Oh Jeff, you sweet, summer-child. When are you going to learn that the you saying “without god, all bets are off” isn’t a condemnation of atheists (who can quite readily - even intuitively - understand the concept of “empathy”), but is a condemnation of yourself? It’s really quite simple: I am a conscious, sentient being, capable of experiencing both suffering and enjoyment. I am surrounded by other people in a similar situation. Inasmuch as I would like to not suffer, and have the ability to make others either suffer or enjoy life more, I have the ability and the inclination to not cause other people suffering simply for their own sake. No ultimate meaning to that, you say? Wrong. It’s meaningful to them, the person experiencing it, and that’s reason enough. The fact that you need god to serve as an ultimate foundation for not harming other people only outs yourself as either having no empathy or conscience or being so desperate to defend the indefensible in the absence of any evidence that you’d say the wildest shit. Amazing, really.

[@buchrisss]

Could you imagine being Alex O’Connor, realizing God is real & then looking back at how you spent your entire life purposefully leading ppl away from Christ? Cringeworthy!

[@pixdav]

There’s so much open interpretation in the Bible that atheists and Christian’s are going to have to agree to disagree. If you’re Christian, you can patch up holes with outside pieces and atheists will find problems with those holes using outside pieces because you’re adding to the Bible.

[@correctingculture]

You're just ignoring the argument. God can't do that because he doesn't want to. That's your argument. That's weak

[@BreakingBreadwithBurke]

Doesn't the Septuagint (developed a long time before the MT, right?) indicate a difference between the two lords in Psalm 110:1? Plus, don't we have access to other ancient Jewish writings (also written before the MT) revealing interpreters thought the second lord could be Abraham? How could they think that if originally the language indicated it had to be Yahweh speaking to Yahweh? Jesus, quite simply actually, cannot be Yahweh because Yahweh is Jesus's current God & Father (John 20:17; Revelation 3:12). This means Jesus is ontologically the Son of God, not God. That Jesus is the Son of God was the purpose of John writing his gospel (Jn 20:31), no? Jesus can be Yahweh agentivally or representationally (that is if we want to use Hebraic worldview categories rather than Gnostic-philosophical ones to interpret the biblical authors), but he cannot be numerically identical to Yahweh if Yahweh is his current God & Father. Doesn't Jesus's God & Father count as 1 God? If Jesus does indeed have a God as Revelation 3:12 and John 20:17 reveal, then the following argument should not be controversial: 1. Jesus has a God (Rev 3:12). 2. Jesus's God is our God (Jn 20:17). 3. Jesus's God is not the Trinity. 4. Therefore, our God cannot be the Trinity. Even Trinitarian scholar Ben Witherington III agrees Jesus wasn't and isn't Yahweh, correct?

[@correctingculture]

Monotheism? Dude. Elohim is plural. Different divine beings are referred to as elohim. There was more than 1 being in heaven in the old testament. Yall ignore everything

[@jezzsales8918]

It's not so much a question as to why these lower forms of animals suffer but more of a why do they even exist in the first place? For what purpose?

[@canadianmoose6920]

I have been waiting for Alex to fun ally meet a presuppositionionalist!

[@RLBays]

Why don’t you guys just invite Alex to your show?

[@pixdav]

Thanks for misrepresenting Alex and hiding outside of “moral absolutes” to try and disregard Alex’s main points. He’d destroy every single one of you at one.

[@tylertucker2608]

44:38 so “wizard of oz-ish” to explain how nothing you are about to hear, has any bearing on the overall message. Now, let’s listen to the insignificant variations of the two texts.

[@dylanmilks]

James had touched on the creed/song in Paul's letter to the Philippians. Can someone clarify the importance of these verses? Thank you!

[@harrisonwemple8371]

That passage, Philippians 2:5-11, shows that Jesus was in the form of God (v6) and could have regarded Himself as equal, but chose not to (v6 as well). He then took on the likeness of men (v7 and 8), so He was not man beforehand. Then, His name is above every name (v9)--can that be said of any created thing? Furthermore, v10 quotes Isaiah 45:23 and equates Jesus with Yahweh--Yahweh said that every one will bow the knee to Him in Isaiah, but then Paul says that to the name of Jesus every knee will bow. Moreover, Philippians was written in the late 50s or early 60s, but this passage was not original to Paul in this letter; instead, he was quoting either a creed or a song fragment (regardless, it was well known), which puts this back even farther into history (and, thus, closer to the crucifixion). And, on top of this, this is known far away in Philippi, which pushes the date back even farther. The 30-year interval of the time between the crucifixion and the writing of the letter to the Philippians is too short for such a legend to arise (Jesus to be the Messiah of He was only a man), but then you have probably only half that time (I think James said in the video that it probably dates back to A.D. 40). This is the significance of that passage. I hope this makes sense.

[@dylanmilks]

@harrisonwemple8371 ok, thank you. The part that I wanted clarification on was the "creed" part.

[@samstokes6872]

Jeff don’t ever use the word “delicious” like that again. Thanks.

[@Fassnight]

Dr White is cooking here

[@justin10292000]

If I Am can create everything Ex Nihilo, He can preserve His Book.

[@fuzzycounsellor9147]

IMHO the first mistake is 25 Christians agreeing to debate this Alex the atheist. Why would they play this game of musical chairs like our God is begging the world to believe He exists, when we know not all are elect and given faith. One Christian, one on one is different. Making an atheist the arbiter of what is true is not wise. Reprobates should not be indulged like this. Casting pearl before swine is not advisable. These Christians made him look like a genius & superior. He is an organ grinding trickster and the 25 who played his game, well... not good. Please mister atheist dude, let us try and convince you, when only the Spirit of Truth can regenerate a human heart. Faith is a gift and fools reject God. I hate God's people being made to look foolish chasing after a reprobate.

[@MizzElle-kp6nl]

Anyone know the name of the guy with dark hair who brought up the Epstein theme(why he did that when he actually did well enough to make Alex nervous is beyond me though) thanks

[@NickAlbano253]

Alex appears to be influenced by Bart D. Ehrman in his understanding of the New Testament texts. While Ehrman has produced excellent scholarship alongside Bruce Metzger and has contributed valuable insights into the patristic writers, his style shifts significantly when addressing a popular audience. It seems that Alex may primarily be engaging with his more accessible material rather than diving into Ehrman's scholarly works, where he often takes a more nuanced and cautious approach to the evidence.

[@buddyrobinson2453]

There were two LDS members there that represented very well!

[@garryholcomb993]

Part of the stream was cut off. It says " for policy reasons" it happened at the very end.

[@godwinrebeiro7852]

Waiting to see Dr. James white with Alex o connor... I am sure Alex will be challenged by that more than in any other instances.

[@OneWayStreetProduction]

Love your podcast, but your intro is likely the worst thing in all of KZbin. Please update that cringeworthy mess.

[@Stefgreeneyes]

This guy doesn’t believe the Bible. He doesn’t believe God‘s word foolish.

[@ChadDad1488]

Why don't you debate Alex instead? This comes off weak. Don't claim he is ducking you either, you duck plenty of people Jeff.

[@jordansmith7895]

I’d like to see you guys cover Andrew Wilson. He’s an Eastern Orthodox who constantly rails against Christianity on the whatever podcast.

[@Christ-or-Chaos]

Where does Jesus claim to be God? Matthew 12:8 The Son of Man is the LORD of the sabbath. Kúrios here and in Exodus 20:10. British accent can’t get him around that one!!

[@GustAdlph]

Thanks guys and we should pray for Alex's salvation.

[@zacharycochran9323]

Jesus saying that he is Lord of the sabbath is a claim of deity. God instituted the sabbath and therefore regulates it.

[@JohnVandivier]

~1:10:00 on Alex’s justification to have conversations around truth; he would say it’s an internal critique. The point remains: how does his worldview justify performing an internal critique? It doesn’t. He’s simply adopting social and academic conventions which are ironically nested inside of a Christian worldview. This does, however, resolve the question about rocks tumbling.

[@cackinthebox]

How about the words of Jesus in Matthew 7:22-23 for Christ saying He is God apart from the book of John?: "On that day many will say to ME (Jesus is speaking here), 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness." Jesus says clearly that He is the one who all will come before at their moment of death and call "Lord". Who but God controls entry into Heaven?

[@DylanIsSaved]

Respectfully, I don’t understand why Jeff won’t engage in proper debates with equally engaging and studied members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (who Jeff continually disrespectfully identifies as “Mormons” despite his knowing better). I won’t slander by saying he’s too scared or anything like that because it’s obviously not true as far as I can tell. But his big thing was debating everyday members on the street while he got an education in religion, specifically in Divinity if I remember just as my own mother did. I only know of a couple he’s done with members in a more official setting like with Jacob mentioned here and Kwaku which isn’t really much to go on. Kwaku, as seemingly intelligent as he is, I think doesn’t have enough stability in conversation to stay on task in general which translated into his debate and that was a mess we can all agree. Not to mention, he didn’t get a degree in religion specifically related to Christ’s true church (and going to a church school doesn’t count-ask anyone who attended Catholic school growing up 😂). Jacob is much more well versed, but I think Jeff and Jacob both are equally arrogant in their own respects, which may be a good reason for them to do a proper, sit-down, face-to-face debate in front of a live audience instead on a Skype call. Just food for thought, because I would love to see Jeff do a debate like that. If he has, send me the link! I just haven’t seen it.

[@firingallcylinders2949]

Doesn't Apologia have multiple discussions on this topic and had multiple people on?

[@kjcdb8er]

@@firingallcylinders2949 Apologia only wants to talk about Mormons, not with them. When they have dialogues with Mormons it's harder for them to misrepresent and oversimplify LDS beliefs.

[@James-ny2xl]

They're not actually the Church of Jesus Christ (the real Jesus), and they're not saints (not made holy because they don't receive the true Gospel and the true Jesus), so of course Jeff doesn't use that name. If I made a religion and said each adherent is "A Person Who Believe the Truth and Has the Right Religion", would you always refer to the adherents as such?

[@robertknight3354]

This kid is supposed to be the next great atheist hope?....I was better at it than he while I was still a rebel. You're looking at the end of an age. These atheists are fossils.

[@raysalmon6566]

11:30 and I'm enriched by reading someone who felt the way that I feel 100 years ago but there's a fatalistic way of looking at this stuff that just isn't where I want to live I make these videos and I write books about this stuff bc I actually have hope that they're going to make a difference on the one hand we're not battling against flesh and blood this is definitely a spiritual battle but it's a spiritual battle that's being waged in the realm of ideas and in the Mike Johnson serves Trump, not Jesusch *** I would implore that all christains read the entire bible this year

[@spicerc1244]

Too many ads, brother.

[@cortezberumen6527]

This shows Jeff would get destroyed by alex it’d be fun to see

[@scubaguy1989]

Alex’s worldview is logically bankrupt, he ain’t particularly good at this, put him on a stage with James, and Alex would disintegrate

[@EarlSimmons-f2n]

Jeff only performs well by confronting unprepared civilians on the street. What a coward.

[@cortezberumen6527]

@@scubaguy1989 u would also get destroyed by Alex

[@scubaguy1989]

@ How would you know, you know nothing about me, you’ve never heard me debate these issues. Believe what you like. Truth is that Alex’s reasoning is pretty weak. God his maker, the megamind of the universe, says of the atheist, of which Alex is one: “The fool says in his heart there is no God”. I’m with God on that.

[@EarlSimmons-f2n]

@ you sound pretty arrogant which would make for great content. Call in to the atheist experience for the lulz.

[@TecraTube]

audio out of sync for anyone else?

[@joepug11]

Are you ok with this 25 so called Christians fighting to speak to this godless atheist,it breaks my heart to see this,I'm at a loss to see humans let alone Christians resulted to fighting over the privilege to speak to this atheist,are we putting this man on a pedestal light an Idol,like some sort of star,

[@anitasmith203]

Finally l can comment to James White, been listening to you for years. Thanks for what you do. I love Rich, lol.

[@Katiestone-hf6od]

1:11:20 So much for "valuing human life" in the christian worldview 🙄

[@exgrzy]

I dont think Alex is terrible, im not passing judgment on him or his followers but man it irks my soul seeing so many followers of Alex saying he’s so intellectually honest and consistent but thats just not true. Nobody’s perfect, but man it is sad to see so many lost people thinking he is the end all be all for Atheists when he isn’t as consistent as he or his followers believe he is.

[@denaz5000]

I think I like him because he is not consistent, he is willing to change his views is there is a good argument for it. He also seems to want Christ and God to be real but just does not believe it.

[@Faust2Dr]

Alex has produced his own videos to say when he has got things wrong, and how his thinking has developed. Something seriously lacking in many of his opponents.

[@andje_izidor_music]

Why didn't they invite converted reformed apologists/theologians like Jeff Durbin? Jubilee should stay in their lane for real.

[@lancemarchetti8673]

Why is everyone wearing clothes in the show?