What's the point of existence? Alex O'Connor

[@PremierUnbelievable]

We are delighted to collaborate on this live debate show - shot in front of live audience at The Royal Institution in London - with Dr.Jack Symes, host of The Panpsycast Philosophy Podcast. Jack moderated this electrifying debate which was introduced by Premier Unbelievable's Ruth Jackson. More on Jack here at jacksymes.co.uk. Always a pleasure to welcome back Alex O'Connor @cosmicskeptic - host of @withinreasonpod, Elizabeth Oldfield, host of @sacred_podcast, Prof. Philip Goff @Philip_Goff on X and 104th Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, Welsh Anglican bishop, theologian and poet. Enjoy the show and share!

[@Andy_Alex_foof]

The host is just amazing, he's ability to make fast lovely jokes are very entertaining and doesn't effect the conversion negatively!

[@zootsoot2006]

He's awful. Totally subsumed in the narrative of the arguments without any depth of understanding.

[@Andy_Alex_foof]

@@zootsoot2006 It is he's job to do that.

[@DeadlyPig3on]

I like poetry, don’t get me wrong, but this lady really made emotional poet her entire personality… The problem is she comes across disingenuous, has an entirely orchestrated speech, mostly comprised of other people’s poetry, all but ignoring the moderators initial question, then for the duration of the interview constantly snivels and feigns wiping tears from her eyes I can’t stand grandstanding

[@zhengfuukusheng9238]

Yeah, it's the "holier than thou" complex. Makes arseholes of otherwise normal people

[@aramshukir8600]

This is hilarious and I completely agree

[@authenticallysuperficial9874]

She was rather unbearable

[@IfYouSeekCaveman]

She constantly seems like she's about to cry.

[@schmactor]

You summed up my reactions perfectly.

[@NikiWonoto26]

I'm from Indonesia (42/M). Found this video from a youtube search, triggered by my (long) existential crisis/depression. Thank you very much for this very recent video discussion. It's deep, profound, existential, philosophical, & most importantly asking & discussing the so-called "Life's Biggest Questions". It means a lot for me personally, especially at my current mental condition right now.

[@bryanutility9609]

How old are you & why in Indonesia?

[@lucsonelysee5988]

No matter how hard I try, I cannot comprehend why an omnipotent, omniscient being would feel the need to create us just to receive praise and worship from us, it just doesn't make any sense.

[@HeyYOUopiaTim]

God is creative for the sake of creativity; why do people, paint, draw, sculp, write poetry, prose, etcetera...

[@BadisBadis-jt1xk]

maybe she exist but we just misunderstood her maybe she loves us by the fact that she exist and we exist within her and she allows us to choose to suffer or not because we wouldn't be free and loved unconditionnaly if we were forced to be happy or to do anything, she doesn't create a bunch of machine and automatons. maybe she doesn't care what we do. maybe we are part of her, we are her.

[@adamstewart9052]

Have you ever heard of Braxton Hunter from Trinity Radio? Go check out his videos that he's relatively recently made within the last month towards an atheist KZbinr called 'Rationality Rules'.

[@ZTAudio]

It might help you to conceive of this differently: God does not “need” anything (including our acknowledgment or worship) for his own sake. However God does think it “good” to create beings somewhat like himself, who can engage in relationship with him … more for their sake than his.

[@SuatUstel]

You hit the nail on the head, he's grandiose individual with a fragmented sense with a superior complex plus he's vain capricious vindictive malevolent malicious and megalomaniac etc...

[@joe3205]

The point is to grow a majestic mustache.

[@jeffryblair6816]

😂

[@adamborowicz7209]

this SO misagonyst! ;)

[@ChrisOrtiz-u6z]

Everything this lady says is incredibly heartfelt, but debates are an intellectual endeavor, it's about the pursuit of reason. Shes thinking primarily with her emotions, which isn't thinking, that's feeling, and often what we feel, is not in alignment with reality.

[@Drewdrewdrewdr]

lol yes

[@joshuapizarro3231]

Ehh respectfully the best argument or at least the one with the most pause for thought for Christians is the problem of evil. Which is an emotional appeal.

[@chrishand9324]

Emotions can cause and come from testimony

[@zizouboy2]

Yes, she's not really thinking. She comes across well educated and its great that shes so passionate about the topics, but not very rational or logical. She acts like you can pick what to believe, when clearly we all just believe what we do based on evidence we have been exposed to.

[@IfYouSeekCaveman]

@@joshuapizarro3231 It's not an emotional appeal if you're arguing against the idea that god is All knowing, All powerful, and all loving.

[@sanojh08]

Video summary: Answer to title question: We dont know if its the right question to ask. And if its the right question to ask then the answer is: We dont know.

[@authenticallysuperficial9874]

Nice

[@Penndreic]

Literally all theists just want to believe in whatever religion they believe it. I don’t expect to find evidence or proof on any videos about religion anymore.

[@CMA418]

Personally, I’d rather live a life filled with questions I can’t answer than a life filled with answers I can’t question.

[@adnanmir2873]

​@@CMA418 You do know Flat earlier could use the same argument amd they probably do to justify their unscientific claim.

[@Joshua-dc4un]

​@@CMA418 well said

[@authenticallysuperficial9874]

Elizabeth Oldfield uttered consistent nonsense. She says to stop thinking or using your brain, believe that contradictions are true, and make all decisions based on "muh feels".

[@martifingers]

She seemed to me to be arguing a variant of "God moves in mysterious ways"...

[@NN-wc7dl]

She was an embarrassment and didn't have a clue about it. I honestly feel disgusted by people like her and her way of "reasoning". The "love" she/they are making such fuzz about couldn't be harder to reach.

[@paulgemme6056]

@@martifingers Unbelief (lack of faith) is the only thing that keeps one from knowing the Lord/Truth.

[@kylewollman2239]

As always Alex shines as the most reasonable person in the conversation.

[@jankopandza1072]

same Alex that claims that we humans invented laws of mathematics ? i wish i was so poor minded as you bro :) the world would be more fun ..

[@davethebrahman9870]

@@jankopandza1072Why do you think that he is wrong? Did mathematics exist before mammalian brains?

[@nosaosawe3158]

@@davethebrahman9870mathematics is as old as existence. We made up(or “invented”) numerical systems to understand it.

[@davethebrahman9870]

@ That is obviously wrong. Our mathematical systems are languages used to describe reality and manipulate concepts.

[@jankopandza1072]

@@davethebrahman9870 yes. same way air existed , earth existed any many other things that we NAMED after. you did not know that ? o wow..

[@amertlich]

1:25:30 Alex’s critique is that religion alleviates humanity’s fear of death while artificially creating a sense of purpose by tying it to the promise of earning salvation. Elizabeth and Rowan’s response, while valid, was overly emotional. They seemed to suggest that what we truly desire is relational belonging-essentially, love. They implied that once someone experiences God’s love, it becomes the only meaning that truly matters. Unlike the purpose Alex criticized, this isn’t something unattainable or deferred to the next life but something accessible here and now. I would have liked to hear Alex’s response to their perspective but emotionally reacting appears to have shut the conversation down.

[@TeamDiezinelli]

I think your comment is absolutely spot on. What I really don’t get though is why ‚alleviation of the fear of death‘ and ‚having a sense of purpose‘ and ‚hope for salvation‘ or ‚feeling the Love (agape) of God’ aren’t in of itself completely valid reasons for religion? What’s more important then these issues? At least on my list these are on the top.

[@forall1796]

What does experiencing God's love really mean? Is it just about going through tough times like everyone else, then telling yourself it's God's love?

[@alena-qu9vj]

@@forall1796 How would you describe your experiencing love to/from your loved one, your child ... Love is an emotional experience, and not transferable - at least by words. Love is ment to be felt, not described. Experiencing love (emotions in general) depends on the high of your EQ - - i.e. on you emotional intelligence, which can differ individually as well as with IQ. Saying "I do not experience (God's) love" is just saying "I do not have the ability (yet) to experience it". Of course it can be understood as "going through tough times", but mostly it means a direct emotional experience.

[@davethebrahman9870]

@@TeamDiezinelli The answer to that is that once one departs from the path of reason the destination is uncertain. It frequently leads to horrific tragedy.

[@PauliHeisenberg]

@@TeamDiezinelli I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with it, nor would I say Alex would take that point of view. I think he is merely making the point that there isn't a concrete meaning for our existence, rather that believers define it themselves through religious practices. From listening to Alex's videos/podcasts, I think he would argue that it makes sense for people to yearn for these things, which would by proxy "validate religion", but that doesn't mean that the teachings of said religion are ontologically true. I'm not sure if this makes sense or not. Sorry if it doesn't :P

[@huguettebourgeois6366]

Thank you , all of you for such a great conversation!!!!!

[@OS-yg9fr]

lol @ the dramatic, spoken word poet expecting applause after every theatrical display 🤣and the guy on the right inventing his own religion in real time

[@TheOdysable]

Im not suggesting she is insincere, but there is an iron law where, of you are overly emotional about everything, it loses its potency.

[@wesley6442]

aren't we an entertaining and comical species? imagining up super powerful creator gods and beings, inventing religions and debating whether or not their is a purpose to an otherwise indifferent world, it truly is hilarious

[@vids595]

This should be the top comment.

[@nathanketsdever3150]

Great point from Rowan Williams about modern Christianity being disembodied and needing to "give more weight to practice." Presumably, he means spiritual practices, perhaps in the Richard Foster, Dallas Williard, and early church father's traditions. His nod toward Buddhism is a bit understandable but also confusing.

[@adamstewart9052]

Alex O'Connor will actually be one atheist on the Jubilee channel facing off against 25 Christians which notably includes those of Christian apologetic' channels called 'Doxastic Mastery' and 'Exploring Reality'.

[@ExerciseForLifePls]

Confirmed?

[@Theophan.pilgrim]

Jay dyer pls

[@resinsminia]

@@ExerciseForLifePls You can find this info on Exploring Reality's community tab.

[@adamstewart9052]

@@ExerciseForLifePls Than Christopoulous from the channel 'Exploring Reality' has posted photos on community posts with Alex in a confirmed Jubilee setting.

[@emjayy1233]

Jay dyer would demolish Alex

[@derekprestwich7036]

I love the statement about the passage in Isaiah, that was shared and how one might not understand suffering, but have faith in a God who bears it with us.

[@in-sterquiliniis]

Isaiah 41:8-9, Isaiah 44:1, Isaiah 44:21, Isaiah 45:4, Isaiah 48:20, Isaiah 49:3. Yes I get that it is nice and squishy to imagine Jesus as God entering into our suffering. Thing is the "suffering servant" was written in reference to Isreal. Christianity took those and appropriated them to Jesus. That was never the Jewish view, and that is one of many reasons they rejected him as messiah. I've heard it mused that God allowed Mormons so Christians would know how Jews felt. Christianity has done immeasurable damage to the religion it usurped for its' origin. Really sad just to now get to say how nice that Christians can imagine this religion more right, how special they must be that they understood the Jewish messiah that they missed. Short story; Christianity is just another cult. Of course, so is Judism... We gotta keep digging.

[@davethebrahman9870]

@@derekprestwich7036 What good is that? Why doesn’t he prevent it? He sounds like a bit of a Woody Allen type, a ‘nebbish’.

[@jettmango1]

@@davethebrahman9870 Here are some reasons Christians have for the problem of suffering: 1. We live in a faulty, cursed world due to our sin. 2. God distances himself to an extent to allow us to exercise free will (can choose to do evil). 3. In a purely materialistic world, there isn’t such thing as good or evil or value. 4. Suffering can result in good things like character development; many people would not be the strong and loving people they are today if they had not gone through some sort of suffering. 5. I don’t know about you, but I’ve unfortunately caused suffering for myself and others, if God were to eliminate evil, I would be gone. 6. There are instances God eliminates/judges evil (like the Old Testament), but people complain when he does that too. Those are the reasons I can think of off the top of my head. I’m not here to argue, but those points are up to the individual if they are satisfactory or not, but trusting in a God that knows more than us and loves us makes it easier for Christians to accept the problem of suffering.

[@jettmango1]

@@davethebrahman9870 Not here to argue, just some points: 1. We live in a cursed and faulty world (not inline with God's will) due to our sin. 2. God has distanced himself from us to an extent to allow us to exercise free will (choose evil). 3. Suffering can result in good things. Many people would not be the strong and loving people they are today if they never went through some sort of suffering. 4. I have unfortunately caused suffering for myself and others at times, if God were to eliminate all evil, I would be gone. 5. There are times when God does do something about evil, like judging and eliminating people in the old testament, but people complain when he does that too. 6. If there is no God, and the world is purely materialistic, there would be no such thing as good, evil, and value. These are reasons I can think of off the top of my head. It's up to the individual if reasons like these are satisfactory or not. From a Christian perspective, it is easier to find these reasons satisfactory when you can trust in an omniscient being who loves you / knows better than you.

[@forall1796]

If God exists and is omniscient/knows or feel pains, beings capable of feeling pain would not have been created

[@HeyYOUopiaTim]

How beautiful what he just said; about practice, silience, contemplation...

[@forall1796]

If a self-sufficient, omniscient, and benevolent being exists, it would not create beings capable of suffering.

[@wesley6442]

In all his power and all encompassing knowledge, knowing that humans would fail and sin would enter the world, therefore suffering... why create anything at all? why no spare the poor creatures the trouble and never create them in the first place?

[@Voxis_23456]

​@@wesley6442Removing the question of why God created us to which there seems to be no good answer, he could have at least intervened in the conversation with the snake and eve and provided his own argument for why she shouldn't eat the fruit.

[@barry.anderberg]

And you know this how?

[@robertolimpio9164]

This is quickly becoming one of my favorite channels.

[@davidstankiewicz2049]

That was an excellent discussion from all four involved - I'm impressed how the 'athiests' knew their theology and used it appropriately! If athiests are athiests because they're dissatisfied with what Religion institutions are stating, I can respect that. As Rowan shows so often, God can not truly be adequately comprehended or expressed - as goes for much of life. Belief isn’t of much value unless there's continuous examination and questioning of the claims made, in search of always going deeper towards further clarity and awareness of Reality.

[@SharedPhilosophy]

43:19 Then why are you here? Why are you on this panel if all your arguments are going to come from emotion and not actual philosophical investigation. 3 of the people on this panel are here to investigate their beliefs using logic and reasoning. It's like if I walked into a room of people discussing the events which led to WW2 and tell them that discussing the events doesn't matter and what it really comes down to is how everyone was feeling before the war. 3 people are here to investigate theism logically while the 1 person is insisting on throwing out rationality. That 1 person will be left out of discussion.

[@davethebrahman9870]

Theists no longer have any arguments.

[@Andy_Alex_foof]

With all due respect to her, It's extremely difficult to watch and listen to her.

[@markjdixon]

I found her comments to be refreshing and have gotten tired of the left brained logic based arguments. I think she was trying to add to the conversation a more practical approach that involves the right side of the brain. She quotes McGilchrist earlier and is clearly looking for a way out of the overly dominant left brained conversations.

[@Andy_Alex_foof]

@@markjdixon I agree, but the way she did it, its feel very disingenuous

[@wesley6442]

It's like for me, what was the reason or point of a person unfortunate enough to had been unlucky enough to leave their house at just the right moment to had experienced a traffic accident, let's say for example they had troubles finding their phone or forgot something and had to head back inside to grab it, if they had known where their phone was OR if they had not forgotten their item and needing to retrieve had left a minute sooner, would of avoided the traffic accident leaving them paralyzed for life. It's random, bad luck things like that that rule our lives, we are the mercy of random happenstance, to statistics, probabilities etc.. ascribing meaning or purpose to such horrible things helps us to cope, it's a survival mechanism to avoid going crazy

[@marjozar2435]

This was really, really good. Do more please. Great panel.

[@bobgarbett3229]

I’m about fifty minutes in and I appreciate the fact that this discussion is done respectfully and with some humour and humour is needed as it can’t be easy having this sort of discussion where the views, of two of the panel members, are almost diametrically opposed to those of the other, “to be or not to be” theist or atheist! is of course the elephant in the room. I’m not Christian ( although I once was) nor for that matter am I atheist but lean more to that of an agnostic! yet I find these discussions so interesting! The Church needs the critique of those on the outside and academic atheism needs the critique of those on the inside ( as the Church has always been far to insular historically) and done by well respected well credentialed persons such as Alex O’ Connor, Prof Philip Gof and Prof Dr Rowan Williams and the contribution of Elizabeth Oldfield is very welcomed I would think! not the likes of fundamentalist apologists such as D’ Souza or William Lane Craig!

[@LydiaTheBusinessWoman]

Come back to Jesus, He's waiting for you

[@bobgarbett3229]

@ That’s somewhat presumptive! Come back to….The westernised version? Believing lots of outdated absolutes? Going back to Church? Reading the Bible? or something far greater something much more comprehensive? My argument is very different to Alex or Philip it’s this idea that Christ consciousness ( Christians still think Jesus was his first name and Christ his surname! Herein are so many problematic issues) is the exclusive property of Christianity it’s a bit like saying that the ocean can only ever be entered from one “ authorised” entry point! This is simple untrue! So maybe your question might be “have I experienced Christ consciousness?” And yes! You are absolutely correct! It’s not so much waiting but more that is absolutely available to each and every person!

[@wtfboom4585]

​@LydiaTheBusinessWoman ditto to you finding any other religion whose God may be waiting for you

[@bobgarbett3229]

@ Thank you! And the same is true for you!

[@SeanathanCreek]

Elizabeth seems like while others are boring over the fine details of their model train sets, she is too busy just enjoying it and having a wonderful time. Both experiences are completely valid. As a guitar player I enjoy the technical depth of learning the instrument and playing it , yet others get hung up on" what type of wood is used , what are the best strings, how should I angle my pick for the best tone? " Ultimately the experiences are both valid and different types of people will engage differently. That doesn't mean one outlook should be abolished and another placed on a pedestal. I can know and experience God on an intellectual level, or an emotional level, or both. There is enough evidence to do either.

[@trenchmadedat]

well yeah u can just enjoy it but if we get into a debate about the intricacies of model train engines dont start speaking about how much fun u have with them

[@SeanathanCreek]

@trenchmadedat the debate topic doesn't imply one experience over another

[@trenchmadedat]

@@SeanathanCreek shes not bringing any insights into the debate tho shes kinda just saying how she feels, at least she could spark something up off of it but no theres barely anything to respond to or debate about

[@SeanathanCreek]

@trenchmadedat She's trying to get past what we often get stuck on when it comes to God. Ultimately it's about knowing Him and the experiencing him in life. Someone needs to bring this to the table.

[@vanelders]

​@@SeanathanCreek completely agree! It seems like many people nowadays immediately scoff at this important perspective, because it seems not to fit into the classical philosophical frame. Very unreasonable to leave this out imo

[@tekken278]

We still can't come to a conclusion so I'm off for a beer 😊

[@nathanbell6962]

Amen

[@wesley6442]

we're just a bunch of silly goofy apes trying to figure it all out on a spinning rock flying through space.. it's all rather comical if you look at the bigger picture, so.. enjoy your beer lol!

[@PiRobot314]

That was an amazing interview! I loved hearing all the different well thought out positions

[@stucarter4578]

We don't know where the universe came from or how many attempts at starting it had. Maybe universes are constantly trying to get going and each beginning creates slightly different results most die instantly as matter and antimatter destroy each other or dark energy pulls everything apart but if the singularity at the start of a universe expands just right you get what we have. Although its kind of hard to think of the 'before' that the universe was created in as time was probably created with the universe. Maybe that's something we will never get are heads around as beings of time.

[@nikolaostsilsavidis9719]

First I would like to thank you for this conversation second I want to state that from the orthodox christian point of view the reason of existence is theosis thus the problem of evil and suffering and thirdly when we speak of love we have to identify first what is the word we use what is really love and not what we mean by telling the word love. Thank you

[@Inharmonics]

How had Prof. Philip Goff *not* ever heard of the Gnostic ideas Alex mentioned? I'm not nearly as qualified as him - I'm not very bright, a simple Christian - and yet I'd read about Gnosticism in my early teens. I'm regularly amazed at people with doctorates with so little curiosity that they've not even bumped into certain major areas of thought or history. It's like listening to scholars respond to pertinent questions of faith; they'll say something like "well, as my specialty is Second Temple Judaism, I can't comment on this with much authority, but..." It's like, sure, your studies centred in a certain area, but as a believer aren't you curious about this big troubling issue?

[@wtfboom4585]

Well he seemed to have first heard of the fine tuning argument about a week ago so I wouldn't be surprised

[@Inharmonics]

@@wtfboom4585 Yeah, that's true. A read a cross a couple of blogs and that book 'A Fortunate Planet' seems to get you further than he got to. But that's my point - aren't these "public intellectuals"? How can someone get a PhD and be a full time philosopher and be so clueless?

[@Linvael]

He seems to have become a believer somewhat recently, and not in a christian god that many christians would even recognise - "as a believer aren't you curious about this big troubling issue" pertains to him much less than to most people. And in general, it's fairly easy to be surprised at people not knowing things we do, in the same way it's easy to remember about the embarassing thing we did years ago - we experience ourselves 24/7, but other people only very rarely. We don't have access to what the other person knows, we just have access to all we know vs what we understood about what they communicated.

[@rodrigorivers2469]

Because Gnosticism is not as important as many people think it is? It came about long after the formation of Christianity and was pretty much a thing of ridicule among both Christians and Platonists

[@conandeckard5541]

Awesome to see skeptics/aetheists tuning into unbelievable!! Keep the conversation alive! Keep digging!!

[@zhengfuukusheng9238]

Well we already know Jeesus is a man made character. So we can strike this one of our list of possible gods

[@jedsithor]

@@zhengfuukusheng9238 Technically, all humans are man-made lol

[@authenticallysuperficial9874]

Liz says "I know that Christianity is untrue, but I feel like believing it anyway, so it's nice there there are these arguments which, while incorrect, can at least put up an intellectual facade and make me feel less stupid for believing this falsehood."

[@authenticallysuperficial9874]

Which, hey, thumbs up for self awareness lol

[@grayhalf1854]

Whither doxastic voluntarism...!

[@stu4umybru777]

All I hear is your bias in the way of what she actually said

[@theaviationist.5719]

@@stu4umybru777Elizabeth continually said so. She said she does not care about any philosophical arguments or Philosophical Christianity. All she cares about is the emotional experience she had about Jesus and his mystical story of crucifixion, suffering and Love etc.. She is just a typical emotional normie religious person that is overwhelmed by their own personal experiences, feelings and emotions towards their particular god..

[@johnwheeler3071]

Alex said "I do think that Phillip is right to say that there are mysteries on both sides that can't be explained, for example the existence of suffering but lets not brush over that (and then turning to Phillip he continued) you talk about it as if it is some kind of intellectual exercise." Alex is speaking from an atheist perspective, but I would add an intellectual exercise is patronising to orthodox Christians. Jesus didn't suffer a nailing to a cross because he was namby pamby or so we could satisfy our intellectual needs. The former archbishop said "God forbid that Christianity should adjust simply to become more culturally acceptable."

[@andrewhodkinson1]

God in creation like Bach in one of his compositions was a beautiful way of explaining a God that is not in pantheism, nor transcendency, but reminded me of Paul saying - "In Him we live and move and have our being".

[@real_pattern]

panentheism

[@MarvinAlvarez-fe4fl]

@@real_patternthe Christian God is not pantheism

[@andrewhodkinson1]

@@real_pattern Thank you - just googled it :)

[@jenniferbate9682]

I think of god as being in everything…he is the creator….now suffering!…! I cannot get my mind around that.

[@andrewhodkinson1]

@@jenniferbate9682 Maybe an added level to understand Rom8:22, "For we know that the whole creation groans and travails in pain together until now."?

[@ThomasCouper-h3f]

I must admit seeing Alex and Phillip talk about “what Eastern Orthodoxy believe or what Gnostics” believed while you have an expert in both of those fields sitting a few meters away was quite excruciating.

[@lrvogt1257]

He had an opportunity to weigh in. What's the big deal.

[@whirlwhind666]

I was there! Yay!

[@SharedPhilosophy]

Im so jealous 😅

[@Andy_Alex_foof]

jealousy eating me now!

[@Darren-dm9lk]

i would give anything to be in the same room as the moustache.

[@whirlwhind666]

@ I think my cheer for alex clipped the audio

[@Steven_DunbarSL]

Yay you!

[@hartyewh1]

"The meaning of life is to give life meaning" - Arjen Lucassen

[@simonbailey2766]

The guy talking about a limited god just says to me "I know better how existence should be and this isn't it therefore god must be limited". I think it'd take an omnipotent omniscient and omnipresent being to know that. He assumes because the other guests are tying them self up in knots over suffering that there must be another explanation rather than they just dont know why as they are not omnipotent omniscient and omnipresent. I think free will to sin is necessary, you could imagine a society set up with a dictator who forces a near perfect society but it'd be only near perfect because individuals wouldn't have the free will to choose for it to be perfect. Even better would be people who live freely and all choose the right path but there cant be the choice to choose the right path without the choice to choose the wrong path. Some suffering seems to be certainly born from free will (which i feel necessary for the reasons I've explained) some seems to be perhaps just part of existence. I say perhaps because who knows how much of our suffering is born from sins of that past and present and how much is just existence. Also Who on here knows what suffering is required for there to be joy, who knows if no suffering would lead to no joy, who knows if that benality would be more suffering then current suffering. Any all knowing genius out there please let me know.

[@davethebrahman9870]

@@simonbailey2766 How does free will explain the fact that there was suffering, disease and predation for hundreds of millions of years before homo sapiens? Why would a good God inflict enormous natural suffering on innocent children, regardless of ‘sin’? Why do you believe in such a being in the first place, and why do you think ad hoc explanations assist in understanding it? If you are going to believe in suppositions like free will, what ground is there for accepting a ‘first cause’?

[@jimbakes2782]

I can accept that free will may lead to suffering (for the individual or for others) and even sympathise with the "you've got to have some sour to make the sweet" part, but it seems that there would always be enough human generated suffering in existence without throwing in earthquakes, childhood cancers and dementia.

[@simonbailey2766]

​​@@jimbakes2782 yeah you might be right 🤷‍♂️ I'd love to say yes thats too much suffering. It almost makes me look more caring about the awful things that go on if i say yes what kind of God would allow that but if im honest I don't know. Maybe we could have and can prevent these things and its on us and our sin not just personally but collectively

[@wesley6442]

in my mind, I jokingly think of it as this god fellow KNEW full well he could not create a perfect world and placed these two people in a nice secluded special spot on earth that was peaceful and free of problems and then said oh you done messed up, look now there's suffering, when it was actually there all along he just lifted the curtain so to speak lol

[@jackwillson9797]

@@jimbakes2782 "but it seems that there would always be enough human generated suffering in existence without throwing in earthquakes, childhood cancers and dementia." For what it's worth, I see this entire world as but a test of God. Moral sufferings are for us to not do (don't do evil, don't suffer, stealing, murder, etc) and then natural evils are either for us to overcome (curing diseases) or to put faith in the Lord and not ourselves (unsolvable detrimental events, such as earthquakes, which are 'incurable' as of now). Does this make God seem mad? Perhaps. But it is merely seemingly so, and not a logical contradiction. And let's not pretend we have better knowledge or wisdom than an omniscient being, that's just intellectually dishonest.

[@dbell92]

Elizabeth Oldfield had the most genuine religious perspective on these issues that I've heard in a long time, because: "religion and poetry are identical in essence, and differ merely in the way in which they are attached to practical affairs. Poetry is called religion when it intervenes in life, and religion, when it merely supervenes upon life, is seen to be nothing but poetry" - George Santayana. The poetic response to atheism is the truest defense of theism, because religion is always poetry--even when it deludes itself into believing that it is science.

[@RealEyesRealizeRealLies374]

Brutal. Alex is on a different level than these folks.

[@FahimusAlimus]

He always is. Start getting used to it.

[@donrayjay]

Rowan Williams such a decent man compared with what came after ❤

[@dj098]

No matter how hard I try, sometimes I really can not take Philip Goff's ideas seriously.

[@fishoutofmind4943]

Goff's idea is amateurish.

[@rememberrohit]

Good to see Martin Freeman representing philosophical matters of concern!

[@nerdyneighbor]

Would love to see a conversation just between Alex and Phillip.

[@bendecidospr]

28 minutes in. Alex keeps saying the Fine Tuning of the universe seems like a problem that science simply has not resolved, yet. But, thats not what it is. Its an implication of fine tuning that points to God. So, for example, if you find a person’s fingerprints at a crime scene, that isn’t a problem to be solved (why are those fingerprints there?). Rather, the presence of the fingerprints point to the presence of whoever those fingerprints belong to. The data points to a conclusion. The fine tuning points to design. Thats the argument. The argument isn’t that we have no explanation for the fine tuning, and therefore God did it.

[@MajesticMan-iz2wz]

I hope you question you reasoning a lot more, like why would we conclude that it is probable that a fingerprint is made by a human

[@bendecidospr]

@ Yes, we would have to offer other reasons such as the shape of the fingerprint, etc. Then we would have to find evidence to suggest the fingerprint belongs to a certain person, amongst other things. Thats not the point I was making. The point is that there is a difference between pointing to data and saying what the data entails or implies, vs. saying “look at this data. You have no explanation for it, so it must be X.” The fine tuning argument does the former, not the latter. Alex is responding to the latter, not the former.

[@MajesticMan-iz2wz]

@@bendecidospr Alex talks about exactly what you are saying, except the data is not sufficient. The existence of a fingerprint does not automatically points to a design or a human, much like a "fine-tuned" universe points to a design. There is no implication, if without other data. You however, thinks that even without other datas, any fine tuning or complex thing points to god or implies design. By what reasoning are you concluding that?

[@MajesticMan-iz2wz]

@@bendecidospr that's why he's saying science has not resolved it yet. He's saying there no sufficient data to conclude that the fine tuning of the universe points or implies design. We, however, have mountains of data that can demonstrate that a fingerprint is highly likely human's

[@MajesticMan-iz2wz]

@@bendecidospr your reasoning is flawed. You implied that the existence of a fingerprint points to a human or implies a human. How is that possible without knowing the existence of a human or what a human is?

[@jasonsomers8224]

1:16:10 you say, all those little sufferings you don't even think about add up-fatigue going up stairs, a slight twinge in your back as you age, the many monotonous moments of more boredom than is wanted, etc... What about all the things we take for granted though? The breath in my lungs, every sunrise and sunset, the crispness of cold air, the very fact that we can speak or see or even think. Such a calculation-suffering vs thanksgiving-is impossible. It depends on your frame of mind, that is, it depends on faith.

[@wesley6442]

perspective, essentially. I agree after having had my fair share of pain and suffering I have a deeper appreciation for what I DO have, for what I CAN do I am fortunate in that regard but humans do have a negativity bias, or at least I do so it's hard to not focus on the bad, especially when life keeps throwing such things at you

[@QuintEssential-sz2wn]

Ugh. Patrick started off by saying that the theistic and atheistic worldview struggle in their own way with different problems. He said theism struggles, for instance, to explain the existence of evil and suffering, well atheism struggles to explain things like fine-tuning of the universe. This is a very misleading comparison. What is implicit in this comparison is that atheism struggles to explain fine-tuning but theism does not. But this is absurd, because it leaves off the table of the nature of good explanations. Take “ Joe theist” who goes around questioning scientists about the ongoing questions left to answer and various fields. The physicist explains they are grappling with mysteries such as what is dark matter, what is dark energy, why is there more matter than antimatter etc. Joe simply replies “ that’s easy… those are all things that God does! He’s all powerful he can do anything!” He ask the Earth scientist about the existing questions in that domain and is told they are still trying to work out specifics about what drives the earths magnetic field, what causes super volcano eruptions, what caused the great oxidation event? Joe says “ that’s easy: God does it, God does it, and God did it! He continues “ solving” one scientific question after another with “ God did it” and then declares “ see how I have demonstrated the strength of theism to explain things that materialistic science cannot explain! This is the strength of adopting the theistic explanatory model!” But of course anybody should be able to immediately notice there is something wrong there. It seems a tad easy for Joe theist, who has no expertise in any of those fields, to just plunge in and claim to solve all the mysteries experts troubles themselves over. If the explanations were that simple and easy, why aren’t scientists using those explanations all the time? The answer is that some forms of explanation are far better than others. There are very good reasons why we developed the scientific method and the body of knowledge carefully derived from that method. Among the strengths is that most scientific explanations propose a mechanism of one sort or another, which has the benefit of not only predicting what one will observe but also restricting what one could observe! Which also allows for falsifiability. An “ explanation” that is consistent with any observation explains no particular observation, and therefore lacks any fruitful explanatory power! So our friend Joe has got things exactly the wrong way around. The “ struggles” of the scientific method is a good thing! it shows they are not settling for capricious and shallow forms of explanation, the bear no fruit. The “ strength” of his “ I can explain anything at all with God” is actually its weakness as an explanatory mechanism, which is why science abandoned such weak forms of explanations! So when it comes to explaining the nature of the tuning of the universe, the “ struggle to explain it” on an atheistic scientific materialistic basis is a GOOD SIGN. They aren’t going to settle for some facile “explanation.” The claim didn’t Omni God created the fine tune universe it’s just as facile as the rest of Joe Theist’s “ explanations.” If God could create literally anything logically possible, then it’s a terrible mechanism for explaining any SPECIFIC observation, we make about the universe. Why did God created specifically this way instead of countless other types of ways he could’ve created it? No matter what of physical laws or constants we may have observed, all of them would be compatible with “ God did it!” So the implied balance - as if An atheistic account struggles with this, but a theistic account is not, is utterly specious. The theistic account is ultimately of the facile type science rightly ejected long ago. OK, what about Phillips proposition about the creator God with limited power? Does that help us anymore? Is it to be favoured over an atheistic approach? I don’t see how. It seems to leave all the same type of questions open. What exactly are the mechanisms and powers of this being in terms of what he can or can’t create and why? None is given at all. So it doesn’t tell us why we see this or that particular observation. Take the speed of light. Is it what it is because God couldn’t make it faster? If not, why not? what’s the explanation limiting? What insight to his powers does Philip have? How do we know this isn’t simply a decision God made for unknown reason rather than some limitation? You can keep asking these questions about just about everything we observe. As an explanatory mechanism, “ A limited God did it” doesn’t seem much more helpful. Rather, the atheistic perspective is one where we wait until we have better more fruitful explanations, and don’t feel that gap until we have it (and if we never get it, well that’s too bad… it doesn’t justify making up stories as explanations).

[@forall1796]

Apt.

[@amertlich]

The desire for a propositional answer to fill the gaps in our understanding misses 'the point of existence'. Why do we seek this kind of answer? Are we demanding intellectual certainty as a prerequisite for action? Perhaps God’s intention is for you to become something that cannot be reached through reason or proof alone. Consider that reality might be deliberately designed to withhold empirical certainty of God’s existence, creating space for doubt and choice. If you are a free-willed being destined for eternal existence, and if God desires your good and a relationship with you while respecting your agency, does this reality offer the kind of environment where true transformation can occur? You don’t need to be acquainted with the creedal definitions of God for this transformation to take place. However, building a relationship with God gives access to a power that can assist you in the here and now. And if God indeed has a covenant people and a priesthood authority, it seems a natural responsibility to align yourself with that kingdom on earth. This is likely the most challenging aspect for an atheist - Phillip’s approach seeks to balance the need for an embodied practice and a community of believers with the difficulty of remaining fully committed to the pursuit of truth.

[@forall1796]

@ Why do you assume you understand the point of existence and that a propositional answer cannot fill the gaps in our understanding? If you truly believe a propositional answer cannot fill the gap, why provide a propositional explanation? Exercising skepticism and demanding clarity doesn't equal demanding intellectual certainty. God's intentions for humanity's future don't answer the question: Why did God create humanity? Would God be incomplete if we failed to exist? Then why do we exist at all? Doubt and choice are distinct concepts; one doesn't necessarily entail the other. Skepticism and rational inquiry don't equal a pursuit of certainty. I'm uncertain what a reality with sufficient evidence for God would look like. However, considering our environment influences religious beliefs and the existence of unbelievers who disbelieve due to lack of evidence, I'm inclined to say this isn't the environment I'd expect from a God who desires our well-being and relationship. How can I undergo transformation without a clear definition of the being you're referencing? It seems you're asking us to abandon our doubts and skepticism, embracing your faith instead.

[@amertlich]

@@forall1796 You make fair points. I didn't mean to imply I knew the answer, but to provoke thought. I agree that knowledge and reason can certainly lead people to belief. The intelligibility and relational nature of the universe serves, at the very least, as an invitation to consider belief in God. What I’m suggesting is that God could have made His existence undeniably clear through empirical evidence, but it seems that wasn’t the chosen method. If God exists, this carries inherent implications. Your question about why God created humanity is fair. One way of looking at it might be understanding why couples choose to have children? Do they have children because they are incomplete without them? Many choose to bring new life into the world as an act of love, wanting to share their lives and form relationships with their children, even knowing that these relationships will involve free will, uncertainty, and at time pain and suffering. Regarding doubt and skepticism, I don’t mean to conflate them with choice. However, a world where doubt (uncertainty) exists allows for choice and a surrender of one's will. When empirical proof is withheld, it creates space for us to actively seek and respond, rather than being compelled by evidence. It's an opportunity to express trust and love. I'm not saying to abandon skepticism, but not cling to it at the expense of faith. "the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil"

[@davethebrahman9870]

@@QuintEssential-sz2wn Great post. I wouldn’t expect a Theist response, because there isn’t one, only rhetoric that avoids the facts.

[@grabyourlantern]

To Elizabeth mostly, who probably will never see this. 1. Free Will Becomes a Justification for Evil: In this framework, free will is only validated when it results in the possibility of harm. This suggests that free will is treated more as a justification for the existence of evil than as a universally applied principle. 2. A System That Fails the Vulnerable: The very people who most need their free will protected-victims-are those most often denied it in a harmful system. This raises serious ethical concerns about the fairness and justice of such a system. 3. Safety as a Moral Imperative: If safety is not prioritized, then the system effectively sanctions the strong and aggressive overpowering the weak and vulnerable. This not only undermines the concept of justice but also creates a world where harm is inevitable, regardless of the moral choices of potential victims.

[@calebsmith7179]

As an atheist I don't see how I have to grapple with the "fine-tuning" of the universe. There are plenty of physicists who would say that the universe couldn't have happened any other way. We only have the sample size of one universe. To speak of improbabilities is to speak of unfalsifiable hypotheticals/what ifs. Well what if those "what ifs" aren't possible?

[@timstanley8201]

I would say that the argument goes like this - atheism says that we exist by the power/causality of nature. So the argument from fine tuning is that there are parameters which demand power/causality greater than what we see forces of nature being able to contribute. We are here, and if it was up to the power of nature only, then we wouldn't be. And consequently, when someone argues that nature indeed has the causality, they end up attributing so much power to it that it becomes God like -eternal, omniscient, omnipotent ... Also, there is a very common answer as mentioned in the video that - since we exist then this is what we should expect. This is just circular reasoning that takes existence for granted. If I walked into my home and there was a Lamborghini in my living room it would be the most illogical response to just shrug my shoulders and say "this is just the reality in which this improbable thing happened" and move on. Add to that, the fact that a multiverse of realities is a hypothetical untestable idea which only punts the same problems down field.... My conclusion - the fine tuning argument is a part of a scientific based objection to materialism that is rather robust.

[@calebsmith7179]

@timstanley8201 I don't see how this addresses what I said. First of all, comparing a car to the entire universe is a false equivalence. Second, we have no idea how probable or improbable our universe existing is. For all we know, it couldn't have happened any other way. That's the way I see it. And third, I don't accept the multiverse hypothesis.

[@wesley6442]

my answer is "it's weird and it happened" I don't think we will get a conclusive, or satisfactory answer we would like, I really think shit just happened and well, now were here

[@calebsmith7179]

@@wesley6442 I can appreciate the intellectual honesty.

[@emjayy1233]

My friend who is a physicist says god is real. BOOM get owned by an appeal to authority

[@mowm88]

An hour plus into this-really interesting. Hadn't heard of 2 of these people before-her, the Small god guy. Well spoken all of them. And congenial which I preferred.

[@willhissettmusic]

Common O’Connor W

[@samuelwoods6648]

Doesn't matter if you're loved. One who is loving is the recipient of love.

[@HeyYOUopiaTim]

"Behold God, beholding you, and smiling..."

[@zhengfuukusheng9238]

Certainly not the Chrischun god, whom we know is a Roman fabrication

[@michaelnewsham1412]

You forgot the "beholding you suffering, and smiling."

[@HeyYOUopiaTim]

@michaelnewsham1412 ❤️Ecce Angus Dei❤️

[@wesley6442]

basically three sides: religion, atheism and finally spirituality

[@BenCarnage]

The thing is that things are either literally true or they aren't. Metaphor is great. A good story is great. Motivation is great. But there is a line in the sand where we're talking about what is actually true, and we can't muddle this line too much or we'll end up with a bunch of mutually exclusive beliefs and superflous beliefs that don't contribute anything. I appreciate that a lot of people just want some sort of existential center they can draw from when they need it, that they don't question the grounding of very much, without needing to build one on their own and knowing the grounding in part will be a bit flimsy because that's how things are. But when actually relevant to reality, and not your emotional or motivational states, we need to seperate knowledge from spiritual comforts or we will continue getting insane sects that exploit that vulnerability to cause misery for countless innocent lives. As long as your faith is personal, I don't mind and I don't want to deprive you of it. As soon as you step outside of the personal we need to deal with reality together, as we best can understand it using reason and evidence to proceed. If you're not on board with that, your religious beliefs are a danger to yourself and others.

[@oliveblake8154]

45:44 “I don’t want philosophical Christianity. I want rigorous, thoughtful, intelligent, engaged, questioning Christianity.” Soooo… philosophical Christianity.

[@davethebrahman9870]

@@oliveblake8154 No. Philosophy is just word games. Unfortunately for Theists it’s all they have to give their beliefs an intellectual fig-leaf.

[@luxeayt6694]

​@@davethebrahman9870saying philosophy is just word games is like saying theology is just fairytales. It's a conversation stopper and wholely unproductive.

[@vids595]

Why would Alex not simply point to the arthroscopic principle to defeat the fine tuning argument?

[@rolssky1]

If the point of existence is love, why evil prevails like; million died in tsunami, pandemic, babies with cancer, these things show that loves failed to be the object, if there is a creator.

[@wakkablockablaw6025]

That's a false dichotomy. People lovingly allow their loved ones to suffer all the time like a parent taking their child to a dentist.

[@rolssky1]

@wakkablockablaw6025 Going to dentist is different from having leukemia of babies. After having gone to dentist the tooth ache is gone. For leukemia the baby died.

[@wakkablockablaw6025]

@@rolssky1 And goes to heaven. For your argument to work, you have to accept the Christian framing for the sake of the conversation.

[@luxeayt6694]

​@@wakkablockablaw6025the suffering of animals in nature is a better argument. How can you explain that? What greater good comes from all the animals dying in nature every second?

[@johnbanach3875]

This conversation was missing the Buddhist and the Vedantist.

[@gregdezoysa6578]

Elizabeth Oldfield has deep wisdom. Alex is the most engaging thinker I have stumbled across.

[@davethebrahman9870]

@@gregdezoysa6578 Why do you think she is wise? It seems to me that she is a preacher, not a thinker, with no more reason to accept her preferred imaginary system than the silliest New Ager.

[@berritanner3250]

This was really interesting. At the end, though, it looked like it was going to get a lot more interesting if the program had been longer.

[@robinhood20253]

There is no point, just enjoy the ride❤️

[@michaelgrover5791]

People don’t enjoy a ride without meaning.

[@bisous101]

@@michaelgrover5791 Well maybe you should because clearly the only other alternative is filling your mind with delusions just to stop yourself from going insane.

[@holdontoyourwig]

@@michaelgrover5791 The ride is the meaning.

[@Whatsisface4]

@@michaelgrover5791 There's no ultimate meaning, but there are things that give our lives purpose and meaning nevertheless.

[@jorgeamy5876]

I find Alex to be excellent because of his command of logic and, therefore, very solid critical reasoning he is able to challenge the other panelists. Of course, it is my humble opinion that Alex is somehow still searching but has not yet found the truth.

[@thegrunbeld6876]

I'm just gonna keep saying this: I wish God would reveal a fresh new religion that is logically consisten and scientifically informed for the modern humans, since the night of the living dead and flying donkey miracles just aren't enough to convince us anymore.

[@adamborowicz7209]

why exactly do you wish that? do we really need to worship something? if some God or god exists he/she/whatever does not need us and our acts of "worship"

[@thegrunbeld6876]

@@adamborowicz7209 Just want to make sure. Because apparently more than half of humanity still believe of his existence.

[@mountbrocken]

Alex O’Conner suggested that the problem of evil cannot be resolved according to Christian theology given the fact of animal suffering. He is saying that suffering poured out on those which did not ‘choose’ the suffering suggests an inherently evil God. And yet, I did not hear anyone from the panel offer an answer to this challenge or at least a satisfactory one. The answer of ‘God works in mysterious ways’ is not a satisfactory answer given the lack of mystery we see in evil. However, I think what would answer this for Alex is something hinted at by theologians such as Origen and much later in Bulgakov. The latter suggested that creation occurred in a supramundane realm where we existed but have fallen to a mundane realm. This mundane realm is restricted to a set of limitations. These limitations result in suffering and privation since a supramundane being restricted to a mundane existence results in everything we see in suffering; death (movement from the mundane back to the supramundane), devouring of bodies (to maintain existence in the mundane one must continually take from existing mundane material to cover the supramundane being), the body coverings of mundane material over supramundane beings presents a problem in that mundane material inappropriately clothing the supramundane beings impose privations on the beings which is what we call pain, and so forth. Now as to animal suffering, this begs the question, are animals innocent? On the face of the question it seems obvious that they are. However, if animals suffer AND God is fair, we have to assume that animals are supramundane beings whose cognitive abilities are hampered by being in the mundane. Perhaps the level in which a being is submerged in the mundane determines the level of cognitive awareness said being experiences. Now, if the supramundane being in its respective environment (the supramundane realm) made a choice to fall (eating its own ‘fruit of the knowledge of good and evil’) then the problem of animal suffering is solved since the animal is a supramundane being whose choice to fall affected their cognitive ability in the mundane to where the being appears inherently to be less developed than other beings that in the mundane we call humans.

[@Voxis_23456]

Can you point to any specific verses in the Bible that supports this argument?

[@mountbrocken]

@ First, Isaiah 66:1as well as several other passages suggest that the earth is Gods footstool. This suggests that portions of creation are meant to be walked on in contrast to walked through , like Heaven. Secondly in Revelation we are told the lion will lie down with the lamb and that Christ will renew all things. This further suggests that animals are not meant to eat one another. Now assuming God is all good it only logically follows that any suffering is due to that being which suffers and not from God. Therefore it seems this model makes more sense of suffering and evil in a creation made by an all good God.

[@Misha0013]

Alex: im curious about the truth Everyone else: i wanna feel important

[@jankopandza1072]

i see mirroring :) a guy grown a mustage to look more serious after being called of for saying the dumbest thing that even kids know about. Alex claimed that humans invented mathematics :) and the laws of mathematics :) it is like saying we invented gravity. He is a cool philospher but that is all he is. He should not talk about any other science field. Mathematics is one of them.. He got called out for it all over the net and since then the only thing that has changed are his new mustage

[@evelynsheldon5662]

…But we did invent gravity. Gravity is a model we created to describe testable observable phenomena, just like literally all concepts from the scientific to the mundane, and as our understanding of the universe increases, our models of things like gravity will inevitably shift. Would you say Newtonian gravity “exists”?

[@zhengfuukusheng9238]

Mathematics a la Wikipedia: _Mathematics is a field of study that discovers and organizes methods, theories and theorems that are developed and proved for the needs of empirical sciences and mathematics itself_ Hmmm....a field of study would be something that's invented by humans, I'd have thought

[@sparksdog8111]

​@@jankopandza1072 I feel bad for your family and anyone else that cares about you, because, well you already know, it's hard to be proud of someone so clearly subhuman in their intelligence.

[@jankopandza1072]

@@zhengfuukusheng9238 Mathematics is an intricate fusion of inventions and discoveries. Concepts are generally invented, and even though all the correct relations among them existed before their discovery, humans still chose which ones to study. wikipedia ... i do use wikipedia since any human on earth can change any article he or she desires.. i prefer genuine tangible books over Wikipedia ..The main idea of Newton's Principia Mathematica was to provide a mathematical framework for understanding the physical world based on the laws of motion and gravity. The book laid out the foundations of classical mechanics and universal gravitation, which are used in modern physics. See how easy it is.. all it takes is most famous science book in the world to present reality for what it is

[@magnusjonsson7303]

To know and to question things is very much about control and to have a safe place/position. "God" is more "I am" and not "I know" which includes vulnerability.

[@Joshua-dc4un]

I don't see how atheists are struggling to explain fine running

[@MaddSpazz2000]

They aren't, it's a bad argument that's easily shredded anyone who knows anything about this

[@jackwillson9797]

@@MaddSpazz2000 "They aren't, it's a bad argument that's easily shredded anyone who knows anything about this" You seem very confident, care to write a small introductory on why it is easily shredded? It should be easy, according to yourself.

[@zenon3021]

@@jackwillson9797 on a cosmic scale, the universe is not finely-tuned for life. It's more finely-tuned for death. Everything in the universe is trying to kill us, from exploding stars to meteors to colliding galaxies, and the hostile void of space. If astronomy pointed to a god, many more astronomers/scientists would be religious (which we don't see). If it was impossible for life to exist, we simply wouldn't exist. But somehow we evolved from goo over billions of years and that's pretty cool. But I don't see "intelligent design" because humans still suffer from lots of genetic diseases & killer viruses (poor design or no design). For example my friend died at the age of 40 because his heart valve stopped working. Another girl at my school got tongue cancer and died at 38. (Poor design or no design). Look at the extinction rate (around 95%) - no design or poor design. (I'm not trying to "shred" anything, just describing the way I see the world)

[@vladimirimp]

'Fine tuning' is a strange one to anchor our discussion. Firstly it comes from the work of cosmologists and physicists who largely are less religious than those who are not scientists. That's like finding those who discovered the damage that smoking does are more likely to smoke. Surely those who comprehend the complexity and extreme unlikelihood of existence would be most likely to infer a god? That same point extents to how the same work (or workers) that revealed fine tuning also revealed things that Christians might reject; such as evolution, descriptions of early unborn life and geocentrism (I loved Alex's comment on this!). I am close to an argument from authority here and I don't mean to imply that because science is right about one thing it's right about everything. But it's strange when Christians grab hold on very select scientific discovery as evidence of God or Biblical truth when they so vehemently reject other findings. But I also find it doesn't get us very far. It's very fine tuned but why? Was the god incapable of devising rules that were more flexible? Is this god also subject to these laws? If he invented them then why do they need to be so precise? Looking at biology it doesn't appear to be his designer hallmark; the levels of imprecision and looseness are deep. It would be like admiring Apple's design elegance with the iMac then finding that everything else they made was ugly and covered in a million buttons. So not only does fine tuning not imply a designer, but then we get the classic 'so who designed God?'. Surely he's fine tuned? Or is he not? Why not? And even if we get past all this, if there was necessarily a designer why do we think it's the one described in the Bible? Why would we jump to 'because there's a designer, therefore there was Noah's ark?'. So gettng stuck on fine tuning seems bonkers to me. It doesn't give our lives meaning, doesn't help us to understand which religion to follow and doesn't tell us anything about morality, salvation or the afterlife.

[@oggolbat7932]

The initial theory of the Big Bang by Lamaitre was disliked by nom-religious scientists because it gave way to the possibility of God existing, including Einstein. Knowledge about the universe doesn't make you necessarily irreligious, you just fit the knowledge into your belief system. If it doesn't fit, and tou value the truth over your own beliefs, you modify or create a new belief system that fits that knowledge.

[@vladimirimp]

@ I’m unsure if what you say is true (doesn’t sound like scientists to me, but what do I know?) however I’m more concerned with trying to understand why you mention it. Maybe you’re reinforcing the point I made about religious folk getting into bed with scientists when it suits?

[@HugaHoodie95]

Elizabeth Oldfield's take is actually much more interesting than I at first expected based on her opening speech. I think her comments on Descartes are especially illuminating

[@timeisforfindingGod]

Suffering exists so that we reach the end of our capabilities and hand it over to God. We must forgive those who hurt us so God can forgive us. It is a spiritual battle. Then with faith, repentance and being born again we are able to live in Heaven here on earth in love, peace and joy and share the truth with those God puts in front of us.

[@davethebrahman9870]

@@timeisforfindingGod So God tortures his poor creatures until they submit to him? Tortures children who haven’t even heard of him? Tortures people who already desperately hope and believe in him? Your God is a monster, thank heavens it doesn’t exist!

[@lucsonelysee5988]

The lady souns really nervous, her voice is cracked, like she is holding tears.

[@bathwaterSommelier]

I've heard her talk in multiple presentations and that just seems to be her way of talking. It does make me feel anxious because it really seems like she's about to burst out sobbing any minute.

[@majose7787]

I think she's nervous too

[@ranguy1379]

The point is to stay alive and thrive. The reason we are asking this question now is because we are not monkeys in the jungle anymore, scared of everything else besides us in the environment. Having dealt with all our primal enemies, we are suffering from success. But maybe we can go further.

[@wesley6442]

And that is not a bad problem to have! haha I much prefer that over harsh winters starving for food

[@ranguy1379]

@@wesley6442 maybe, but sometimes I'd rather die fighting a lion then live up to 74 feeling like crap. At most times I am glad to be born in this century

[@derekharley7343]

The scientists asks how. The philosopher asks why. The religious ask who.

[@ExerciseForLifePls]

Religion and Philosophy answer both how and who (if anyone, as Buddhism is non-theistic).

[@davethebrahman9870]

Yes. Only the scientist’s question is sensible. We have no reason to think that the others are reasonable questions.

[@oxybenzol9254]

@@ExerciseForLifePls If religion would know the "how" the Bible would contain all the knowledge needed to build a warp drive.

[@Tagraff]

The Lawyer asks what. The Historian asks when. The Navigator asks where. The Chef ask which. The Human asks all questions.

[@zenon3021]

religion *assumes who

[@Orchid-kr2xw]

Alex is the most intelligent of everyone here

[@Ψυχήμίασμα]

archbishop Gandalf wasn't bad either. Poetry lady lost me in about the second time she spoke....and I'm a guy who likes poetry...

[@Drewdrewdrewdr]

Who invited this lady??????

[@grayhalf1854]

Quotas innit 😁

[@Drewdrewdrewdr]

She’s not making terrible points but she is not playing the same game that the others were invited to play

[@Drewdrewdrewdr]

@@grayhalf1854diversity here would be welcome but perhaps in a segregated setting

[@theaviationist.5719]

@@DrewdrewdrewdrShe kept making terrible arguments. She would have been more useful preaching to her own Christian choir in a church but not on a stage with people that are trying to think more deeper and outside this personal feelings, emotions Christianity bubble that she is stooped in. She did not make any convincing logical or philosophical argument, all she kept doing was to go on about her experiential emotions about Jesus blah blah.. That’s not going to move most intellectual minds an inch.

[@mildlyinteresting1000]

The problem of evil, huh? It's like staring at the ocean and being mad it has waves-naive, a bit prideful, but oh-so-relatable. “Why worship a god who created suffering?” they ask, as if we’re owed a cosmos without chaos. But let’s peel this onion, layer by layer. First, let’s agree on something: the classic “why does an omnipotent God need worship?” critique? Spot on-*if* we’re thinking of God as some insecure monarch craving applause. But why cling to that concept of God? There are others-far richer, far less anthropocentric. It’s not about God needing praise; it’s about *us* needing perspective. Take Philipp’s point (even if it stumbled a bit): the question isn’t just “Why submit?” It’s “What am I even submitting *to*?” The Unity? The Ground of Being? The cosmic reality where all is one? This isn’t the Hallmark-card God of pure human-style love. This is God as *is-ness itself*-not love, not evil, just *is*. Love grows from it like vines over stone: a harmonizer born from unity. Here’s the rub: rejecting worship often stems from misunderstanding and misplaced pride. You, me, all of us-we’re specks of dust. Flukes in the infinite. Yet we demand a God that’s palatable to our tiny selves? It’s laughable, but deeply human. God isn’t here to be lovable by human standards. God-the real deal-is nature in its bloodbath, the universe breathing itself into existence. It’s not personal. It’s not evil. It’s *beyond*. The insight, then, isn’t that God is love. The insight is that God is unity, and love is how we align ourselves to it. And here’s the kicker: life’s suffering doesn’t negate God’s goodness; it’s part of the dance. Survival is messy. Creation requires destruction. The universe isn’t a neat and tidy play; it’s a roaring improvisation. So, should we worship? If “worship” means fawning over a cosmic dictator, no thanks. But if it means aligning with the reality of unity, humbling ourselves before the grand is-ness of it all-then yes. Not because God *needs* it. But because *we* do. Good conversation, though. Always a riot watching humans wrestle with infinity.

[@IlyaBleyman]

The existence of suffering / evil doesn't disprove God's existence. It's similar to saying my parents never made me because I have cancer. It doesn't make sense nor is it relevant. God made everything perfect from the beginning but allowed sin to corrupt His creation by giving us free will. Lucifer knew God and chose to turn against Him. Same for humans, we chose sin over God. The beauty of everything is that amongst all chaos and suffering God allows us to return back to Him via faith in Christ. If you choose not too, He respects your will. He didn't create robots. The question IS do you want to serve God amongst all this chaos & suffering or not. NOT whether or not HE exists because of chaos & suffering

[@stauicism]

The problem of evil is not a general argument against the existence of a God it is an argument against the existence of a God that claims to be omni-benevolent.

[@davethebrahman9870]

That makes no sense. Why wouldn’t a good God be able to achieve all good things without suffering? Why did he build it into the very fabric of the world?

[@davethebrahman9870]

@@stauicismI think it is stronger than that. The nature of the world suggests that an omniscient God would have to be indifferent to the well-being of his creation, or even actively malign.

[@mr.c2485]

Somebody say bullsh*t!

[@h.m.7218]

Learning. Progressing.

[@HeyYOUopiaTim]

@h.m.7218 failing forward perhaps...

[@wakkablockablaw6025]

Why?

[@h.m.7218]

@@wakkablockablaw6025 Cause that's my take on it. That's the point of MY existence.

[@devilsadvocate7389]

The guy obsessed with fine tuning obviously never heard of survivorship bias. Maybe we just live in “perfect” universe because millions of imperfect ones didn’t work out.

[@sarshanden8033]

Lol, you can have a bias and still have it correct. When you come into deep things as such the most reasonable thing is the one that gives the best explanation of the effect we see in the universe. You guys can pile up all the fallacies you know and it still doesn't make it wrong lol

[@devilsadvocate7389]

@ he is not correct that’s the point.

[@luxeayt6694]

​@sarshanden8033 your conclusion wouldnt be wrong, but your reasoning for arriving at it would be. If your conclusion isn't predicated on the arguments and they're just adhoc justifications then you're not being rational.

[@lrvogt1257]

There is no point other than what we choose to make of it.

[@RLBays]

There is no point. We exist because of physics.

[@michaelgrover5791]

Isn’t that like saying we exist because of North?

[@RLBays]

@@michaelgrover5791 Not unless North is a synonym for physics :)

[@Isaiah53-FL]

We live in a contingent universe. That necessitates a cause that pre-existed physics

[@RLBays]

Hmm, then what was the cause that pre-existed the cause that pre-existed physics?

[@Isaiah53-FL]

@@RLBays You have an extra "cause" in your question. Physics is the science of matter and energy. They came from a singularity (see: theory of general relativity). Before that was nothing. Something coming from nothing is contigent on an action. Theologians have an answer to what the "cause" was. Atheists are left with "it came from nothing"

[@olicorrivo3289]

If you guys didn't know, Goff is popular for defending a panpsychism account of the mind, whereas particles and photons might be conscious at a very fundamental level, like a basic form of intentionality. Just putting it out there cause, the God he defends seems pretty aligned with panpsychism and a form of pantheism.

[@willhemmings]

Great to see Alex keeping this subject firmly on the straight and narrow

[@lanishx8935]

Great panel and host.

[@dj_lantn]

God exists to help us become like Him

[@robertthiesen2687]

I wish Sir Roger Scruton were alive and able to participate in these discussions.

[@Butterflyleia85]

I think agnostic thought is helpful from a multicultural & multiracial perspective. When you take back your love from one mythical God and take back the meaning of love and give it with billions of people and animals and nature behind it... your heart is more loving than a narrow view of just Christians. I think self realizing our potential is good. And the connection with other people is beneficial. We need the instinctive cautions as well to navigate this world properly.

[@giovannymendez9587]

Alex need to bring Philip on his podcast he wanted to answer all Alex reason

[@davethebrahman9870]

Mr O’Connor: ‘I don’t know science, but here’s a powerful argument for rejecting Theism. I’ll just weaken it by talking about middle class modern people in chairs instead of child deformities’. The Other Guests: ‘Feels’.

[@More13Feen]

What makes me akt (to use Alex's point about meaning), is the desire to feel a sens of loveing connectiin with my sozroubdings. I thunk thats evilutiinary reasonable. And since I grew up religuius and socialy awquard I found this feeling of joyous beauty and love in spirituality cuz it gave me a narrative. I since have deconstructed and I'd say I am an atheist now. BUT that devine feeling is something I still have acsess to when I come to face with the beauty of life. When I was 12 I started to daubt my faith and look for logic and proof. One night I came up with that sort of definition: everywhere in life you can finde beauty. Be it in a dandilion growing through asphalt or a tear of someone who loves enough to cry for some one, or in the way a snails shell spirals the same way a galaxie does. And if that beauty lets you feel a joyous sens of aw and love of life, you found god. I found that, even as Atheist, taking that aproach to life works well for me. It makes me prone to hedonisem. But I think thats ok. I am a much more plesent kulturaly christian, hedonistic atheist than spiritual pile of fear and depression. SNS for my bad english ❤

[@cptrikester2671]

17:56 love that term for intellectuals doing their thing.

[@marcosousa4029]

To be fascinated by its beauty!

[@davefordham14]

It ended too soon. These sorts of discussions, especially when you have four participants, take much longer to flesh out all the arguments. Anyway, my own personal take on fine-tuning is that I don't consider it a problem in the way it is presented. This particular universe has a set of very unique constants and physical laws, most of which is beyond the average person. But it doesn't mean that another universe with a different set of constants, that wasn't based on quantum theory or gravity or electromagnetic waves but some other set of concepts couldn't be created. If you consider it like that, you could conceivably have any universe that might produce some sort of life or consciousness. It is mot that inconceivable. What is more impressive is that there is in fact one such universe, ours, that does exhibit these very fine-tuned qualities and in which there is something even more mysterious and wonderful which we call consciousness and it is very difficult to reduce down to a set of atoms arranged in a particular way. So now we come to the problem of suffering. Again, to me, it is not a problem at all. It is perfectly possible and intentional that suffering isn't "allowed" but is part of life. It's one of the rules. We already know an enormous amount of random chance and happenstance exists everywhere we look. We encounter it all the time. So, consider a football stadium. It's beautiful. The architecture, the pitch, the seating, the atmosphere with thousands of people singing in anticipation of glory. Now imagine the players voluntarily walking out expecting and desiring to play well, to score a goal, to make a spectacular save or to defend masterfully. Even though there is risk of injury, assured pain, humiliation, loss and disappointment, nevertheless they walk onto that pitch in search of glory despite all of the risks and guaranteed pain. Do we then blame the architect of that stadium for the suffering on the pitch? This life is a game into which we come voluntarily knowing the risks, knowing the certainty of suffering and the random nature of how circumstances might treat us and the unpredictable situation into which we might be born. If you believe in an all knowing, all powerful, benevolent God, and there was great desire from some of His subjects that He should create the universe (the stadium of life) and allow for this game to be played, he would not be a benevolent God at all if he refused it on the grounds that He couldn't stomach the suffering and the blame. I imagine in the vastness of possibility and eternity, there are lots of stadia and lots of different games being played by lots of different conscious entities. Life is a game and we came to it with open eyes, we just don't know it because it wouldn't be much of an adventure if everyone knew everything with absolute certainty. The aim is to play the best game you possibly can - you already know the rules and you can break them through free will. Play the best game you can. Suffering does not imply an evil God, it means a wish has been granted.

[@MsBob314]

Alex is the only presenting logic and data based arguments.

[@yaserthe1]

I see Dumbledore is moving in to other territories.

[@TedSalt]

Where is it written that there must be a point?

[@bnwug]

I’m not sure if this is just a conversation ender, but how does the problem of evil disprove the existence of God? It at most disproves the existence of a specific type of God that is presumed to be ‘all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful.’ But who is actually claiming that God possesses those qualities? Didn't the Old Testament describe God as a ‘jealous God?’ I mention this not to blaspheme, but to point out that God's jealousy as a character trait shouldn't fundamentally undermine any Christian's faith in Him. I suppose I'm straying off topic. My central point is that the problem of evil is somewhat oxymoronic, as it assumes the existence of a God who is simultaneously ‘all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful,’ while highlighting a contradiction. It’s also unreasonable for Christians to entertain this thought experiment because, without resorting to Gnosticism, it can be explained from within Christianity itself. God is a being with preferences; He displays character and temperament, so He isn't necessarily ‘all-loving.’ Just read the Old Testament if you need proof, right?

[@lrvogt1257]

The existence of evil challenges the idea of an "all-knowing, all-powerful and loving" god... and so does the flood story and the command for the Israelites to slaughter their neighbors and steal their land.

[@oliverjamito9902]

Is like...many have tried and tried to gain the whole world and loose thy shared soul in front of thy LORD?

[@studioROT]

Geocentrism perceived by observation from an earthly reference frame - as mentioned briefly by Alex -, will quickly get into trouble as a result of Mach’s Principle. And there is an argument for a forceful universe.

[@martinlag1]

The forces within a solar system are dominated by the largest object. Therefore the most useful reference point in the solar system is the sun. For earthly beings, the earth is sufficient. This depends on our level of resolution.

[@studioROT]

@@martinlag1 Indeed, I agree: our level of resolution sets a personal standard. I suppose, however, that geocentrism carries an inherent reference to what is external to our planet - reaching even beyond the solar system. According to Mach, local laws of physics are influenced greatly by the entire mass of the universe. Nevertheless, I believe that Kurt Gödel disagreed. In anyway, you are right, practically, for us, the earth would suffice.

[@carlpeterson8182]

I like the ending conversation that was cut off because it was the end. I think the lady is wrong. Christianity is tied up with the after life but she is right that it has a lot to do with today or our relationship to God now. It is both and not either or. There seems much more to be said but I cannot articulate it on a response post. I do not know if I am capable of understanding or summarizing it all up.

[@RexCorpuscle]

Elizabeth has it exactly. She had an experience, ascribes it to something outside herself and makes no further claims. The rest is wind. If ‘God is love’ is analogical, why isn’t ‘God exists’ analogical? Suffering is instantly explained by godlessness. Fine tuning is a form of Goldilocks. Nothing needs explaining unless for other reasons you need God to exist. Hence the labyrinthine arguments and the claims to ‘know’ things that you also find mysterious.