Why I Am/Am Not a Christian,

[@mchlnhs]

Filming this in heaven was a nice touch

[@3magikarpinamansuit281]

I know its been a year, but this is funny.

[@zissanm3919]

😂😂

[@maolsheachlannoceallaigh4772]

@@3magikarpinamansuit281 after a year and two weeks, it's still funny. Let's come back periodically and see when it stops being funny, if ever.

[@Pretty_Fly_White_Guy]

That’s almost believable 😂 then you see cosmic sceptic is there

[@ReligioCritic]

​@@Pretty_Fly_White_GuyStrongest evidence against Christianity.

[@ethanbotterill2743]

I appreciate the way the chairs match their shoes. Whoever made that happen, I see you.

[@ANONM60D]

Hey nice eye!

[@tennicksalvarez9079]

Best comment ever

[@punpai4003]

Civilized comment.

[@MizzouRah78]

Or...it's coincidence.

[@ingenuity168]

Good observation. 😁

[@kevinlee4449]

I’ve been watching cosmic skeptic for a long time and this conversation has really changed my perspective: I too now see Alex as a tall person.

[@zootsoot2006]

You're not talking intellectually speaking I take it.

[@jonathacirilo5745]

@@zootsoot2006 it was a joke i think, but why not exactly?

[@valuerie]

Right?? Damn

[@elainewagnon6690]

I thought it was funny.

[@tsvetanstoychev655]

Is 6.1ft (what the hell is wrong with you people still using this atrocious system) considered tall? It's... it seems kind of average to me. Edit: 6.1ft = 186cm... I am 184 and I'm not considered tall nor am I considered short...

[@ryanrogers3610]

My wife's water broke while listening to this. Just thought you all should know.

[@tomyossarian7681]

You fornicator you..

[@mateusztgorak]

Congratulations!

[@Skurian_krotesk]

Damn hopefully you'll be able to fix her water again...

[@joostvanrens]

I broke while listening to this

[@BigPapiLoc]

If you drink it you get superpowers

[@jaredlowry3547]

So refreshing that there needn’t be a moderator in this debate. No strawmanning, dodging questions, rabbit trailing, or ad hominems. Just two serious thinkers really listening to each other and talking through what they believe. I’m a Protestant Christian but I greatly respect both of these guys.

[@electrical_cord]

Even as a Catholic, Alex O'Conner is very respectful. Lots of atheists can learn from him in how to have a discussion. And yes, Trent is great. He's always super nice in debates/dialogues.

[@pixboi]

Yes, this is the climate we need instead of the inflammatory fundamendalist vs. Hitchens age

[@thedubwhisperer2157]

jaredlowry, what convinced you to select your particular religion out of the many which are available?

[@gorb_oron]

@@thedubwhisperer2157are you a seeker?

[@thedubwhisperer2157]

@@gorb_oron A what?

[@ContriteCatholic]

00:00 Discussion on philosophy of religion and why Trent Horn is a Christian 05:52 The existence of intrinsic human dignity and morality points towards a divine direction. 16:12 The problem of divine hiddenness and non-resistant non-belief raises questions about the existence of a loving God. 20:43 Religion and politics cannot be simply labeled as good or bad. 35:27 A world that journeys to perfection has more goods in it 44:48 Critiquing the problem of evil in Christianity 49:25 The morality of inflicting suffering for a greater good 58:44 Promoting welfare of mentally handicapped humans over non-human animals 1:03:37 Moral debates involve emotive states and differing moral claims. 1:12:53 The Bible's account of God's revelation is progressive in nature. 1:17:57 People will be judged based on their culpability, not just intellectual inquiry. 1:28:26 The problem of evil and falsifiability of Christianity 1:33:01 The problem of suffering is important and should be taken seriously. 1:42:32 Compensation for suffering may justify allowing evil. 1:47:14 Arguments can increase probability of Christianity being true 1:56:02 The existence of suffering and evil is not a reason to be an atheist.

[@Blastoise9000]

Thank you so much for these time stamps!

[@jgmrichter]

Can we get this comment pinned please?

[@wolfegaming36]

I feel like there needs to be a time stamp to 10:22 but I'm not good at writing a quick little title for it. That's when Alex begins to explain why he is an atheist, starting with the problem of needless suffering.

[@lariat_]

@ContriteCatholic MVP of the comment section 😎

[@lariat_]

​@@wolfegaming36yes i think you're right, maybe something like "Religion is a response to human suffering"

[@TheOpenCouchPodcast]

Alex has become my favorite and respectful atheist. He’s sincere and genuine and respectful. He’s definitely an example of someone who disagrees and yet he’s not mocking or insulting the other! Definitely an example for Christian’s as well to follow.

[@gideondavid30]

He carries himself well. But I can't take him that seriously as a thinker. He is too young for one. Articulate yes, but still young.

[@mattheartfollower4123]

@@gideondavid30 It's not age that makes one wise.

[@TickleMeElmo55]

@@mattheartfollower4123 It often does aided with life experience and self-reflection. How many 18-22 yr olds have you met that are wise? Very small percent.

[@TickleMeElmo55]

@@gideondavid30 This. I think people give him too much credit where there shouldn't be any credit.

[@patman142]

@@gideondavid30 one of the most silly comments I have seen in a while

[@Gill1923]

It’s lovely that we’re starting to see Alex so much in all places. I’ve been here for a while and absolutely delighted by the recognition he has received.

[@joannware6228]

The smartest atheists don't remain atheists, but for Alex it's a career.

[@Gill1923]

@@joannware6228 by that logic Dawkins, Hitchens, Sam Harris and so on arent smart atheists? Lol ok

[@joannware6228]

@@Gill1923 You forgot Hawking. He was one of the smartest. The other three are smart but maybe not the smartest like C. S. Lewis and Edith Stein.

[@Gill1923]

@@joannware6228 What about Hawking? He was an atheist. Also a scientist. And not even close to being as smart on the subject of religion and atheism as the people I had mentioned.

[@joannware6228]

@@Gill1923 Okay I'll cross him off. Thanks.

[@BibleLosophR]

This is definitely one the best Christian and Atheist discussions I've ever watched after 30 years of listening/watching/reading hundreds of discussions and debates.

[@streetwisepioneers4470]

Have you seen his debate with William L Craig...if yes what did you make of it?

[@BibleLosophR]

@@streetwisepioneers4470 You mean where Alex interviewed WLC? It wasn't a debate. It was cordial discussion and interview. Alex even admitted that a number of his criticisms a few years back when he was younger were bad objections. That he now recognizes it being older, wiser and more informed when it comes to philosophy and argumentation.

[@basedzealot3680]

It’s because Trent is Catholic. Protestants have no idea what they’re talking about

[@KZSoze]

I think the calm and respectful tone is quite nice; but on substance I don’t really see this as being anything other than par for the course, bad arguments for Christianity.

[@justin10292000]

​@KZSoze Truth is only "bad arguments" to the Spiritually blind.

[@RobotProctor]

Another atheist here. I am also a nonresistant nonbeliever. In fact I used to believe and realized my prior evidences and personal experiences for my beliefs had more natural reasons. I wish you all the best, Internet comrades. Lots of love.

[@Calx9]

Well said! That matches me perfectly man.

[@JesseDriftwood]

Samesies.

[@SeekingVirtueA]

Yup. Never thought I’d be in those shoes but here we are. Would have liked to hear Alex’s reply about evil in the Bible. That to me is probably my biggest hurdle to belief that Christianity is true. The follow up question was telling of what possibly could be in the Bible that would convince you a loving God didn’t write it.

[@joshs2986]

Hey mate. Just want to challenge you on nonresistant nonbeliever. I'm not saying your not. In my experience though, lots of people say this and then on reflection realise they were resistant. They had just fooled themselves. Again, not saying you are. Just saying sometimes understanding our own motivations are hard

[@alwayslearningtech]

@@joshs2986 Hey mate, I'm replying though you didn't comment to me. Leaving Christianity was a struggle that took me around a decade. I was trying to share the good news and prove the truth of Christianity but I kept coming up against evidence against my claims and reasons to doubt. As someone who desperately wished for Christianity to be true, even after no longer believing it, I can tell you that there's many of us out here who truly desired to believe or continue believing, but became convinced otherwise. Sometimes the truth hurts because it's not what you truly desired with all your heart.

[@KeithKazamaFlick]

Been watching Alex for years, he always been a smart well spoken lad. big ups

[@roeliethegoat]

Walked for 2 hours while listening to this, and I was thoroughly engaged the whole time. Thanks for this.

[@rosiegirl2485]

I am cooking and have done the same. ⚘

[@zacharyshort384]

@@rosiegirl2485 You walk while you cook? :p

[@Solbashio]

same, but i got hit by car while crossing the street

[@tamago8042]

Doing relatively mundane tasks while listening to a video/podcast is always a nice experience!

[@ChuckLorris]

@@Solbashio F

[@kailerpetersen6404]

I am an atheist but find this explanation and defense of theology quite well developed and honest (even though I disagree)

[@AquinasBased]

do you think that with this defense and explanation presented to you, it might be a better idea to adopt a theological worldview for the sake of happiness and personal fulfillment?

[@kailerpetersen6404]

@@AquinasBased no I’m quite happy and it would be a futile effort as you can’t choose to believe. Sure I can act like I believe but that won’t have the same effect and would result in me knowing I’m living in a way that I disagree with which probably wouldn’t make me happy

[@Reverendshot777]

​@@AquinasBased A better explanation than others have presented is not automatically convincing. You can recognise something is well presented and argued but still be more convinced by the other side of the argument.

[@DubioserAltschauerberger1510]

Religious people are soaking so called fulfillment out of 2000 year old fairy tales for adults. Just that fact alone makes you religious losers hella ridiculous.

[@exeterman2]

It's well developed compared to other Christian arguments, but still laughably flawed.

[@625098evan]

Alex seems to be a sincere truth seeker, and I love that!

[@OrangeRaft]

He does, but pride will always block the truth even if you are sincere. Truth seekers don’t always find God because there are other things required like repentance and dying to self

[@Nissenov]

@@OrangeRaft Which God do you believe in?

[@OrangeRaft]

@@Nissenov well that’s not a good question unless you are involved in these debates comparing Americanized atheism to Americanized Christianity. But I’m not interested in such comparisons because there are other options like a Heiser type view on the ancient world. The question is of allegiances not “belief”

[@Nissenov]

@@OrangeRaft Fine. Which God do you swear allegiance to?

[@Arbitrary_Moniker]

@@OrangeRaft Yeah, allegiances. So this little game of yours does devolve into tribalism. How dull, and predictably human. Let's not have an informed view of the world, no, let's pick a team, and build a worldview of excuses that always comes back to that team, even though we live in a world that allows us to be more than that.

[@loganwillett2835]

Such an awesome conversation! Could listen to these two talk all day

[@Mountainside101]

what a deep and meaningful discussion between two opposing teams.... props to both.

[@jimisoulman6021]

Wow! My respect for Cosmic Sceptic has skyrocketed (pardon the pun!). I am really impressed by his integrity and honest enquiry. I wish him well. Thank you CC for hosting and posting this event.

[@japexican007]

Mine went down, he keeps using the same excuse as to why he rejects God and it’s gotten so played out it’s not even worth responding anymore

[@jimisoulman6021]

@C L I think we may yet still be surprised by his journey! I certainly can related to his way of thinking before coming to Christ.

[@LosChongo]

@@japexican007 it’s god’s turn to respond.

[@jessehollenbeck4607]

My respect for him has skyrocketed as well.

[@joannware6228]

The atheist both thinks too highly of himself but also too lowly. He thinks too highly because his pride won't let him admit that he has faults and that he is wrong. He thinks too lowly because this causes him to accept a dismal existence.

[@Eliza-cn5ii]

Love this! Nothing better than respectful, reasoned discussions.

[@the-outsider8458]

Sure there is. I'd take being intellectually honest and rigorous combined with logically consistent over "respectful" any day. But that might just be me, I suppose.

[@valkopuhelin2581]

Good points on both sides. Thanks for stirring some thoughts. 🙂

[@agitatedaligator5340]

Cosmic skeptic has been a huge influence in my life. Love him :-)

[@marishasveganworld2240]

He is brilliant ✨

[@katrinayakizz]

Same

[@Macluny]

me too... mf made me go vegan xD

[@marishasveganworld2240]

@@Macluny Now he is no longer vegan. So sad and disappointing, isn’t it? 😭

[@Macluny]

@@marishasveganworld2240 yes. I'd love to hear the detailed reason.

[@paulfriedman]

I expected a good conversation, but this exceeded expecations. There was certainly some repeats from earlier conersations but they injected some new content into this conversation and I was engaged throughout. Keep up the great work.

[@EvilEyEbRoWzz]

Wow... I genuinely didn't think that either guest could bring me anymore "new" arguments to the table that I haven't come across before...boy was I wrong!

[@archangelarielle262]

you must be new to this.

[@Theomatikalli]

Hi @Aadam, what new gems did you discover :) ?

[@Solbashio]

@@archangelarielle262 this comment is gold

[@JaySeamus]

Man, thank you CC Team for hosting cool stuff like these.

[@joannware6228]

The smartest atheists don't remain atheists, but for Alex it's a career.

[@JazzyArtKL]

@@joannware6228 Very wrong there, Jo Ann. Atheist see the truth. We can do without an imaginary skydaddy.

[@luisbarbosa8136]

@@JazzyArtKL you can not even stablish morality values ahaha

[@JazzyArtKL]

@@luisbarbosa8136 Of course we can. Check out Prof Sapolsky's talk on this where he clearly explains that morality is engrained in human nature.

[@TheKorbi]

This was a very good discussion. They work together to create a shared improved understanding, as opposed to fight against each other.

[@tjaysteno]

Why's it so bright, was this shot in heaven?! That's one way to win an argument, well played...

[@jimothynimajneb622]

I’m an atheist but I do enjoy Trent Horn. I think he’s a very intelligent individual, speaks very eloquently, and can bring up points and responses that make you think. I will say, and I may be a weird case as an atheist, but I generally don’t like the problem of evil. As intuitively it may be for me to think that there’s no way a loving god could allow for all this seemingly gratuitous evil, it very well may be the case that if he were to exist then it would be justified in some sense.

[@tomyossarian7681]

I agree entirely, but the example of someone beating a kid on the side road made Trent fidget a bit - if you accept god has his reasons, you cant back away because "you understand parent - child dynamic". Either you can act on your own and counter god's decision to have a child ripped apart, or you have to accept any murder, rape, robbery and whatnot as part of gods plan - after all "if he were to exist then it would be justified in some sense". As with other arguments, Christians want to have it both ways, and that's just 🤮

[@jimothynimajneb622]

@@tomyossarian7681 I agree for sure.

[@davethebrahman9870]

Merely positing that an explanation may exist is not to provide an argument; it is merely to assert that one thinks such an explanation is possible. Until that fact is established the ‘argument from evil’ stands.

[@MrBanksLP]

I was also interested in what arguments he would bring forth. Sadly the first argument was the argument citing Anthony flee ... Hm.

[@pg1448]

Agreed. Because I can't help but intuitively feel that these second order goods like compassion, forgiveness or bravery enrich the human experience in a way that even a loving, perhaps especially a loving God, would allow them. The idea that a loving God necessarily needs to provide us some luxurious paradise just doesn't sit right with me

[@Battousai-hd6is]

This is one of my most favorite Christian/Atheist dialogues of all time. Keep up the awesome work Cameron!

[@johannaquinones7473]

I agree! I was so moved by the level of respect, engagement, knowledge that each of these men displayed. Their sincere interest in capturing the other person’s meaning and line of thought, just admirable. As a christian, I have to say I admire Alex’ approach, he is incredibly humble to always leave the door open ((however slim)) to the possibility of him abandoning atheism, I hold on to the hope God will reveal himself to him in a way he finds irrefutable. I say that out of love and respect for the beautiful soul he is.

[@chrissonofpear1384]

@@johannaquinones7473 What would you say was irrefutable? John 14:12, would be one way. 2 Samuel 24 would be another - but boy, it would be messy. Or Numbers 13:13? It all depends what is being revealed, I guess, if God is so mutable, or changes His ways, or at least - changes what faces and traits, are shown. And Satan never got hidden from - even post high treason, his dubious suggestions about Job got given extraordinary weight and audience.

[@Joe_mammma]

@@chrissonofpear1384 "Because the Bible says so" ought never be enough evidence, reason or argument to convince anyone of the truth of the bible. Of course its going to have "trust me bro this book is true and people who say it isn't are idiots" ("only the fool says in his heart...") sort of verses. All religions and cults have these self preservation/protection devices built in.

[@Joe_mammma]

@@johannaquinones7473 If you're a Christian, how do you deal with the fact that your God has either favoured you in giving you the sort of brain that accepts the evidence for theism and not the evidence for atheism, or the sort of personal evidence that would convince anyone first hand, thus resigning you to an endless fate of pleasure and happiness. But he has given non-resistant non-belivers the sort of brains that are not convinced by the evidence for theism and are convinced by the evidence for atheism, or he denies them the undeniable first hand evidence that he gives to theists, thus resigning atheists to an endless fate of suffering and torment? How do you deal with that on a "all loving god" world view?

[@johannaquinones7473]

@@Joe_mammma Where is a person’s free will in all of this? I don’t see it like you do. Yes, everybody faces different circumstances, have different mental abilities, etc. and it is true God has very different ways of in which He makes Himself known to people, but I think it is up to each individual to ultimately make the choice for his/herself what to believe. For me it has been a journey, the more I learn about Christianity, the more I am convinced, and if I find myself doubting I put my questions to Him. I trust that He can help me either find answers or dissipate the feeling I need the answer to believe. I am not by any means saying to have faith without reason, but there is a point when you just decide that the evidence you have is good enough.

[@NeutralMjolkHotel]

As an atheist, I very much enjoyed this discussion, including Trent’s points. Well-spoken and intelligent, though I do disagree and think his response to the racism and MLK question was a total dodge. Subbed for more chats like this.

[@joannware6228]

The atheist both thinks too highly of himself but also too lowly. He thinks too highly because his pride won't let him admit that he has faults and that he is wrong. He thinks too lowly because this causes him to accept a dismal existence.

[@sterlinghawkins5182]

@@joannware6228 oh dear god…

[@pushanka]

@@joannware6228 rofl what a terrible take, this is exactly why most Theists are laughed out of the room. Trent approaches this with empathy and you spew ridiculousness.

[@NeutralMjolkHotel]

@@joannware6228 haha hot take there, Jo Ann Ware. Good thing nobody agrees.

[@zacharyshort384]

@@joannware6228 You've only pasted this comment a handful of times. MOAR.

[@frankiemiller5364]

Alex is so suave, calm and collected, a very impressive showing good sir. Keep up demonstrating what atheists can really be 👍🏽

[@Staremperor]

"What atheists can really be" - well, anything that theists can be. We are all just people from obnoxious a**holes to champions of humanity. Whether person believes in God, gods or none doesn't affect it.

[@williamdowling7718]

@@Staremperor in my experience, believing you're one of God's chosen people definitely lends itself towards obnoxious assholes. There are indeed a handful of very outspoken atheists... But the other side of the coin is Christian missionaries, of which there are exponentially more. And their main job is to travel the world and tell people they're filthy sinners who deserve hell except that some guy sacrificed himself so that if only you worship him, you can avoid eternal he'll fire.

[@gideondavid30]

@@williamdowling7718 Are you objecting to the message or the messengers? If I had to deliver you disturbing news, and you wouldn't like it, should I just not tell you anything? Maybe a hurricane is about to hit the beach, and I tell you go inland, would that make me an obnoxious person?

[@ck58npj72]

@@gideondavid30 From "The good news bible" then yes!

[@DatHombre]

^Im an atheist, but I certainly think loud obnoxious atheists are far more common (hence the original comment and it's number of likes, since people agree that he's setting a better example than we have seen countless times). Sure, missionaries are spreading that message, but genuine ones are doing it out of the goodness of their hearts (well not exactly, but the point is that they aren't doing it due to ego). Atheists are constantly are just doing an ego battle of who's smarter/who was so dumb that they got brainwashed, and while theists arent immune from the ego battle of "you're so dumb god is right in front of you idiot you think we all came from nothing??? Hahaha idiot", they are still, at least seemingly, far less likely to engage in the battle of egos, assuming they're genuinely trying to live up to what their book has taught them. Since to them, it's very serious, literally about heaven and hell, and to us its just an argument to get into for the sake of arguing.

[@JesseDriftwood]

I’ve listened to this a few times since it came out, and I genuinely appreciate the conversation. I think Alex does a fantastic job presenting his own positions as well as strong counters to Trent’s. I also appreciate how honest Trent seems when trying to understand Alex properly before offering rebuttals. I think these two are some of the best representatives of healthy conversation in this space. Now that it’s been a year I’d love to know Trent’s thoughts on a few things. (If anyone else knows feel free to weigh in!) 1. Did you ever get off the fence? Did you land on ethical veganism or an advocate of factory farming (I imagine neither, because nuance). 2. Around 1:22:00 when using Michael Shermer as an example he says: I think really smart people can come to unintuitive conclusions. This strikes me as the opposite point he wants to make. The world is full of unintuitive truths. Quantum mechanics isn’t intuitive. A globe earth isn’t intuitive. There are countless logic puzzles that demonstrate just how readily our intuitions can fail us. It seems to me that a smart the smarter a person is, the more willing they should be to accept unintuitive answers when related to life’s most complex questions. 3. I forget the rest. But just want to reiterate, I like Trent a lot. I think he’s be a very fun person to get a beer with and chat philosophy. Much love.

[@HereTakeAFlower]

Number 2 I want to give my two cents about, since it's something I've had my own issues with. Intellect is mostly pattern recognition, the universe is very complex and apparently chaotic. It happens that smart people may notice new hidden patterns and expose them to the world, and (maybe irrationally to a degree) they must fight so that they are not relegated back to the chaotic background at least for as long as it takes to properly assess their worth. A very smart person could theoretically create a defense so good for their theory that others who undertake the duty of trying to prove it false, fail. Eventually someone, or the smart man himself, may prove it wrong, but the time between him finding a theory and someone proving it wrong (we are assuming it's wrong) is a lapse of time in which great intelligence made up and sustained a lie. Sorry English is not my first language and I may have messed up somewhere.

[@the-outsider8458]

We apparently have two different understandings for what the word "honest" entails.

[@hannavanderberg1673]

Alex is a very charming atheist in my eyes. He has real empathy for deep depression and suffering.

[@amizan8653]

Empathy for deep depression and suffering is completely independent of religious belief. There are wonderful atheists and terrible atheists. They're wonderful Christians and terrible Christians. There's wonderful Jews and terrible Jews. Etc. Religious belief has nothing to do with it

[@510tuber]

The difference between atheists and Christians is being an atheist tells you nothing about that person other than they don't believe in a god. They don't have doctrines. Christianity on the other hand has a book full of terrible things that even the "good" ones subscribe to.

[@HarrDarr]

@@amizan8653 if religion doesn't make you a better person what is the utility for it

[@amizan8653]

@@HarrDarr I think the utility existed in the past. If humans work together as a group, it makes them more powerful altogether compared to individuals. I think religion in the early days was used to get people to form groups where members of the group were even willing to die for the objective of the religious group leader(s). Such a group would have more power and out-compete other groups of humans. Also, humans are extremely afraid of death in terms of what death truly is: the unescapable, permanent end of one's existence, where they return to the state they were in before they were born. Religions all promise some form of afterlife, which is a coping mechanism to not accept with death really is. Anyways, these are simply guesses of mine as to the utility of religion. I can't prove that these are true or not. They're simply what I think.

[@pnut3844able]

As everyone should

[@Wishlake]

That argument at 56:00 just floored me.

[@ChristenDOM010]

I'm very excited for this one, probably gonna watch it this weekend. Greetings from the Netherlands! We're a dutch apologetics squad. Groetjes uit Nederland :)

[@CJ-sw8lc]

I love the Netherlands! (I'll hou Nederland...?)

[@ChristenDOM010]

@@CJ-sw8lc Amazing! You're getting there, it's: Ik hou van Nederland.

[@aidanya1336]

Groetjes van een nederlandse atheist. Nog nooit een vervelend gesprek gehad met een gelovige hier. (greetings from a dutch atheist. Never had an annoying/bad conversation with a believer here)

[@CJ-sw8lc]

@@ChristenDOM010 Ahh! I need to practice more 🧐

[@ChristenDOM010]

@@aidanya1336 Groetjes terug :)Hoelang ben je al overtuigd van het atheïsme?

[@mac3441]

This was fantastic. Love Alex’s heart so much.

[@minor00]

Love the patience of both speakers. That's probably why I was able to watch it until the end. They sounded like friends. Personally, I think a pragmatic justification for being a Christian is the hope for a renewed physical life without suffering and evil. If there is no everlasting and relatable hope after death, then one day everything will die and nothing will matter about my life. It may have mattered to me or others when we were alive, but in the end it will be the same. On the other hand, a new kind of relational and physical life in a world that has continuity from this life, yet suffering, evil, and death are not present....that's a uniquely hopeful possibility. This isn't to say there isn't any need for a epistemic justification of Christianity, but only that there is a pragmatic encroachment on the epistemic, as mentioned in the latest Reasonable Faith podcast. I find this to be a missing component of most explanations of why many of us become Christians. Another component can be found in what is often called reformed epistemology. I've already wrote enough though, but these would be three reasons why I am a Christian.

[@Her_Viscera]

Unfortunately the cost of living as a Christian isnt nothing! So we have to use some reason to determine if it's a good bet :)

[@iSkulk]

If one day everything will be gone, and nothing matters inherently, then you get to decide for yourself what matters to you. I don't believe I have an afterlife waiting for me, so I have to make sure I live and love to the fullest while I can! I appreciate your well thought out comment, my friend. All the best.

[@davethebrahman9870]

Let him believe this who can! I’d like to believe that every woman is attracted to me, but the evidence is against it.

[@minor00]

@@iSkulk Thanks for reading my long comment(s) and replying! I agree that if atheism is true, everything will one day be gone and nothing matters inherently so you might as well live your life in whatever way seems best to you. I'm glad to hear your way includes loving to the fullest! Sometimes love is hard and even costly, and I'm guessing we'd both agree that the most loving thing a person can do for another would be to unexpectedly voluntarily choose to take the painful death that someone should've had so that they could live. For example, when Yondu unexpectedly dies for Quill. In Christianity, it's Jesus who unexpectedly dies for even the ones who rejected and killed him, in order that they would live. Even if you think it's a fictional story, I hope you get a chance, if you already haven't, to read a couple of the four gospel accounts of Jesus. Or if you don't want to read them, try watching "The Chosen", which is a top notch TV series on the story (with some creative license). Obviously as a Christian, I believe the gospel accounts are more than fiction, but even if we never agree on that, I hope you'll be inspired by the amazing love modeled in Jesus. Also, thanks for calling me friend. I hope for you all the best as well!

[@minor00]

@@Her_Viscera For sure. There is definitely a cost. Epistemic justification is critical as well!

[@Gabreyes093]

I subscribed to Trent because of the way he argued for his belief. Although I am an agnostic atheist, I like to challenge my existing beliefs. I only recently discovered Alex and his channel. In this discussion Alex was clear with his explanations and Trent did not seem to answer directly. In short, I will be consuming a lot of Alex's content this week. Great stuff!

[@gehrig7593]

Christians never answer directly, because they can't, there's no argument for them to make. Expecially his orrible answer about slavery really tells you everything you have to know about the intrinsic evilness of religion.

[@Stuugie.]

Yeah I noticed that too. Trent when his ideas are backed into a corner seems to divert from the subject. Alex brought that up several times in this discussion and Trent never adequately engaged with Alex's point. Trent did this in his debate with Destiny on abortion too. He is very civil and his points are very well crafted and informed though, they both did pretty well I think

[@SimplyStrength043]

@@Stuugie.did Trent subvert from the subject in the abortion discussion with destiny?

[@lyterman]

I'm thankful for thoughtful and charitable interlocutors like Alex who can help us understand our beliefs and God better through these types of discussions. Perhaps that's one moral good that could come from some non-resistive unbelief 😉

[@davidlovesyeshua]

As Alex would say, lucky you to benefit from Alex's non-consensually being withheld sufficient evidence/experience/whatever to believe.

[@peterhudson5748]

What is Alex’s “threshold” and how is it objectively wrong?

[@jessep9671]

I was obsessed with apologetics and taught it to high schoolers in church for years. I now fall into the non-resistent non-believer category. I eventually couldn't help but realize that my determination was to support Christianity, instead of starting with 0 assumptions and aiming for the truth. I've had no spiritual experiences, even despite praying for an hour long drive every day for years. I was one of the "overcommitted" Christians, and now I just look back and cringe.

[@tomyossarian7681]

I'm not going for sucking on each other's members, but I guess you have nothing to cringe about - it is common case that people have neither time nor strength of will to start from 0 and look at the claims impartially, especially when they have been indoctrinated as kids and live in tight communities that are bound by religion, church etc. I wasn't in that position, but I guess I would go through the same process. At some point I would need to know what the hell are facts about Jesus, resurrection, Genesis etc. I don't see how someone with average intellectual ability can swallow all the half baked answers, once they start asking the questions. In any case, good luck!

[@tonywallens217]

Well that sucks lol

[@JosiahG24]

What evidence made you leave a relationship with Jesus?

[@tristanrenteria515]

@@JosiahG24 I think it’s more of the lack of evidence of the god in the Bible.

[@JosiahG24]

@@tristanrenteria515 The question of honest seekers looking for proof of Christianity is bogus. God’s raising His Son from the dead is the only proof, and that proof is infinitely capable of settling the mind of anyone who is concerned and who is sincere. So the question is not what proof is there of Christianity, because we are not dealing with Christianity. We are dealing with Christ. We are dealing with a man who became flesh, walked among men, gave His life for man and, to complete it, rose on the third day from the dead. The question is not what you think of Christianity but what you think of Christ and what you are going to do about Him.

[@YuGiOhDuelChannel]

Trent has such an amazing way of fully fleshing out what someone is asking or trying to say, that is definitely what makes him special at this debate stuff.

[@cheftr1]

Interesting take. I find him quite different. Often, when he is fleshing something out, he he just changes what is being said. Example when the talk about the Problem of Evil. Trent changes it into "Why God let's bad stuff happen". If that were the problem of Evil, it wouldn't be considered a problem. The switch from discussing "How can Perfectly Good create an absence of itself and it still be Perfectly Good" into "Why does Perfectly Good allow bad things to happen" are fundamentally different questions. Trent's changed question assumes there is no Problem of Evil (creation of evil) and asks why God allows (already created) Evil to continue existing.

[@cheftr1]

@FPT Bot They are fundamentally different in that one asks about actualization and the other asks about sustainment. Trent knows this but does it anyway.

[@noahwinslow3252]

Trent has a great way of confidently not understanding the question

[@King-uj1lh]

@@cheftr1 both questions are part of the problem of evil, though.

[@cheftr1]

@@King-uj1lh If asked one question and you decide to answer the other, it doesn't really matter that they both are found as chapters in the problem of evil book. They are entirely different arguements dealing with the Problem of Evil, with different premises and different conclusions.

[@anthonyharrell4547]

I sincerely enjoyed this conversation

[@davidthornton2788]

Great conversation. Im an Athiest and I liked Trents approach and deminer.

[@johnwick2018]

Demeaner

[@johnwick2018]

Damn it!!! Its demeanour

[@FahimusAlimus]

I’m looking forward to Trent’s journey towards veganism.

[@theunrepentantatheist24]

I think he is more likely to give up Jesus

[@FahimusAlimus]

@@theunrepentantatheist24 I doubt it.

[@amizan8653]

I wish

[@tennicksalvarez9079]

Lol

[@zavaughnkirkland5892]

​​@@theunrepentantatheist24 He would have to give up scriptural orthodoxy to be vegan. In Romans we read that "He who is weak in faith eats vegetables only". God instructs Peter to "Raise, kill, and eat". Jesus informes us personally that "all foods are clean for you to eat" so it's obvious to me that moral veganism is just a subjective individual elevating beasts up to the level of humanity. I don't have enough faith to look at farm animals as enslaved.😂

[@lesmen4]

I am highly sympathetic towards Alex O'Connor concern over why there is suffering and pain with us. .

[@NoInjusticeLastsForever]

The immense pointless suffering of trillions of trillions of trillions of innocent animals on this planet alone should be enough to shake any believer's faith to its core.

[@lesmen4]

@@NoInjusticeLastsForever what i begin to believe is that the pain, suffering and death in any form is part of our life on earth no matter how painful it is.. what matters the most is quality of our soul that matters the afterlife that i believe in. Jesus set a precedent for this process.

[@Arbitrary_Moniker]

@@lesmen4 In English, please.

[@royalrejects]

@@lesmen4 do you have any actual reason to hold that belief, or is it just what you’d like to be true?

[@japexican007]

@@NoInjusticeLastsForever indeed I agree pointless suffering created by man who rejected God and now God has to clean up our mess except atheists still reject God while making him the excuse as to why pain and suffering exists lol trololol

[@robg5654]

both sides made brilliant points i think its these discussions that will eventually lead us to the truth that is if we ever have enough time to develop the concepts before extinction

[@Mentesestoicas_]

Alex is so precise on his arguments that the dude was like: Yeah thats god's work here.

[@war0nheaven]

😂😂

[@justforrfunnn]

Thanks Trent and Alex. I’m writing this only 45 minutes in, so my apologies if I’m writing prematurely - regarding the objective good God and an existence of evil. Alex wanted a Christian answer. Well Trent could have said we live in a broken world. From his Catholic belief… we did live in a perfect world. That’s was before the original sin.

[@sylvilaguscunicularius3155]

You’ll find that when the debate goes tough for the Christians, they often drop the name Jesus or the name Bible from the conversation and solely rely on the broad religious position instead of specifics like the biblical stories. It’s harder to argue against a vague definition of god or several religions/denominations rather than just one.

[@Imheretohelpnhavefun]

Fantastic dialog. Super respectful and in depth.

[@Elton.G.Joao-filmmaker]

@CosmicSkeptic thank you for your work in these debates

[@alleydi8120]

So much respect for Alex. Well done Trent, always impressed with your answers.

[@viancavarma3455]

how articulate alex is never fails to blow my mind

[@fleshedexperience]

It's scary.

[@ATOK_]

He has watched all of Hitchens videos and read his books

[@bryn3652]

He's made himself sound smarter by changing the way he speaks

[@Spasaymoostard]

Or he's actually that smart and has only gotten smarter...@@bryn3652

[@justin10292000]

@viancavarma3455 But Alex is still wrong. Charm, sophistication and intelligence don't equate to wisdom and spiritual insight.

[@blackbeauty5817]

57:09, but the thing is, God is not simply smacking bottoms. He's giving 10 year olds leukaemia or doing other heinous things. Even parents with moral responsibility have certain boundaries

[@Ninkumpop]

as an agnostic I would like to play devil's advocate. God isn't necessarily giving kids leukaemia but rather he's allowing it. it's the same as seeing someone get hit by a car and not stopping it rather than pushing them.

[@erectilereptile7383]

⁠​⁠@@Ninkumpop I am also an agnostic, but I must object - if God set the world into motion (that includes the entire universe) then this child dying of leukemia, this person being hit by the car was certainly part of God’s plan if he did not stop it.

[@redmusic26]

@@erectilereptile7383 I'm admittedly not an agnostic lol, but I must respond. The fact that something happened is not evidence that God willed it.

[@CSB458]

I enjoyed this diplomatic discourse between these two gentlemen very much.

[@CSB458]

Marking 1:13:31 for my own reference

[@jacks.6872]

Wow, I oftentimes find myself disagreeing with whichever Christian Alex debates with, but I'm finding that Trent is doing a great job with taking him on.

[@badboyb123-n9k]

Lmao until you find out he worships the largest pedo-ring on the planet labeled as a "church"

[@defeatingdefeaters]

This is very good. Thanks for sharing 👏🏽

[@Edgarbopp]

Divine hiddenness is one of my main issues as well. I’m going to need some serious evidence to believe in something extraordinary like the existence of god. However, if this god exists they are presumably perfectly situated to provide me with this evidence. Yet they either exist and will not convince me, or more plausibility, lack existence.

[@Edgarbopp]

@timmy Smith I’m sorry but you don’t get it. The things you mentioned are not evidence, they are circumstances with very plausible natural explanations. You think I should disregard these in favor of supernatural ones? Why would I? I’d need some extraordinary evidence to do so. And we’ve come back to where we started.

[@Edgarbopp]

@timmy Smith if your god exists it presumably knows the evidence that will convince me, is more than capable of providing it, and does not. In that case your un evidenced opinion is by comparison certainly “not good enough”. I hope you also have a good day.

[@samuelunderwood5286]

Your mere existence, your conscious awareness, ability to choose, and your internal moral sense should serve as plenty of extraordinary evidence to start, and that's before you even start talking about the cosmological arguments. I used to be basically agnostic until I studied Aquinas and Augustine. I know you can be convinced too bro. Ardently seek the truth! God bless

[@godfreydebouillon8807]

Like some samples of God-scat or something? Or flashes across the sky? But wait, any "evidence" we could attribute to some natural explanation. I'd seriously go lookup "the logical rules of inference". Evidence simply is not needed to believe in all sorts of things. I can believe the disjunction "all of space, matter and time exists eternally, or it has a cause" (with an axiom being it cannot come from absolutely nothing) and zero evidence is required for that disjunction to be true.

[@Edgarbopp]

@@godfreydebouillon8807 it’s easy for me to believe, for example, that my friends and family exist. I see them, I interact with them, I touch them etc. Things like that would be a good place to start. Then I’d like proofs of the existence of the supernatural and such. All this would be exceedingly easy for a god to achieve.

[@Bosse_C]

Really great talk. Thanks to you both and special thanks to invloved effort to make ALL this happen, technicians and such

[@Unsure_salmon]

I was an atheist for a while. I also had quite severe depression for a number of years. I remember one day I was lying on my bathroom floor crying about the state of myself and the world. I had really no options left. I swallowed my foolish rationality and pride and I asked something, anything for help, for relief, or a sign that would help me through my suffering. God or Allah or the spirit oh Buddha, I just wanted to understand honestly. I pleaded. And what happened? Nothing happened. And that is a real thing that happened in our universe. And you can’t tell me that it didn’t happen. I’ve made sense of this experience. And I know intuitively that if religious believers accuse nonbelievers of “not trying hard enough to have faith” they will drive their own religion to extinction.

[@everykneeshallbowzao]

An existence of a god and the reality of our suffering doesn’t mean god is just going to come down and stop your suffering for you. He’s not a vending machine. No one on earth escapes suffering. You pleaded and cried out to nothing because allah Buddha and the god of the bible are all different things.

[@georgogiannakis6123]

@@everykneeshallbowzaoHe cried out to all of them individually. And sure, a supposed god doesn’t HAVE to help anybody… but an all loving one might have done a little more.

[@STAR0SS]

People praise Trent for his intellectual honesty but he dodged (politely I'll give you that) almost all of Alex hard questions. What's his answer to the deer under a tree problem ? I have no idea.

[@lawrence1318]

Without suffering faith is void, and without faith it is impossible to please God. So there's your answer.

[@MB-nx9tq]

@@lawrence1318those are non séquitors.

[@evad687]

@@lawrence1318 kzbin.info/www/bejne/bKnUdJ6ua7yEeKcsi=mAF52CNHkNgnz0yU&t=18m24s

[@sageoverheaven]

​@@MB-nx9tqAtheist here (or, nonresistant nonbeliever)-I wouldn't call that a non-sequitur. To have faith, you need that faith tested. Suffering is presented by the individual you're replying to as the test for faith, meaning without a reference point (the spectrum of suffering-happiness), you have no touchstone for faith. It's the same way having no power and being peaceful does not make you good, just harmless. One way to visualise a good man is to visualise a powerful man who exercises reason of his own volition to inhibit his use of his power.

[@lawrence_of_osaka]

Complete dodger

[@alekm6057]

Alex is the man!

[@Allothersweretakenn]

1:30:53 this is a difficult question since forever considering the fact that anytime we do get a new discovery the church is the first one to get their grimy hands on it and nobody knows what they do to it in order so they don’t lose the plot so to speak if it hasn’t already happened already

[@stevegovea1]

After I suffered from some traumas in life , I thought about how our ancestors, the hunter-gatherers , who encountered the Neanderthals, might have dealt with suffering loss of loved ones. I truly believe what arose was a belief in an afterlife and god(s)... to help provide hope and reduce the chance of suicidal ideations.

[@pnut3844able]

Bingo

[@paulhayes5684]

I think it's the opposite and much bigger than we realize

[@shamicentertainment1262]

@@paulhayes5684care to elaborate ?

[@philosophicaljay3449]

As a polytheist, I find it fascinating to watch these types of discussions between atheists and monotheists, as I can often find myself agreeing with either side or neither side on some issues. I find the intellectually honest, civil discussions happening between atheists and monotheists recently to be a very big step of from the type of discourse we typically found on KZbin a decade ago. I hope that things continue in this more civil direction in the future.

[@jkid2467]

❤

[@glebkamnev7006]

Out of curiosity, whats your Religion? And what points do you disagree with on both sides? :)

[@philosophicaljay3449]

@@glebkamnev7006 Hellenismos, Greek Polytheism. I tend towards reconstructionism, but typically use the term "Revivalist". As for things I agree with on each side, Things I agree with Alex on: 1) I agree with Alex on the Problem of Divine Hiddenness, at least when it comes to religions like Christianity and Islam within which God demands worship. Within many religions, including my own, the Gods do not demand worship, nor do they necessarily desire it. Worship isn't for the sake of the Gods, it doesn't get us a better place in an afterlife, etc. Religions like this have no issue with Divine Hiddenness. I also would take things a step further than Alex and say that Divine Hiddenness is even WORSE for Christians, Muslims, etc. because of the fact that non-resistant non-believers can end up believers of many different religions (take me, for instance, that went from non-resistant non-belief to Polytheism). According to most standard theological ideas on the afterlife within Christianity and Islam, I am hell-bound merely because my non-resistant non-belief led me to the wrong religion, and that is problematic. 2) I do tend to side with Alex on the Problem of Evil in THIS discussion, but that is because they are both coming at it with the conception that a world without evil is a possible world and thus the existence of evil needs an explanation. I think that a world without evil would be a perfect world, but perfection only exists for the Gods and the Forms. Anything beyond that will have imperfections (take a sphere, for example, we can mathematically understand what a perfect sphere is but we also understand, due to our knowledge of physics, that such a thing cannot actually exist in the world). If you start with the idea that the world inevitably will have SOME evils, that is where I think various theodicies, like some used by Trent, work, but as it seems Trent maintains that a world without evil is possible, I tend to agree moreso with Alex's criticisms here. Things I agree with Trent on: 1) While it is moreso an agreement with Pruss and Koons, that infinite causal chains as an explanation cause more problems than they solve. I do think that the Grim Reaper Paradox, and variations of it, helps to suggest that our causal history must be finite. 2) I do agree with him that, in regards to historical miracles, that Jesus resurrection has better evidence going for it than many non-Christian ones. I think that is, however, in large part due to Christian dominance in the world almost dictating what texts got preserved, and I also do not think that that actually means that Christianity is true rather than Polytheism (Jesus' Resurrection is consistent with Polytheism, so non-Christian miracles not having as good of evidence as the Resurrection isn't an issue if the evidence is still substantial enough). I could go on, but that would require rewatching the video to see what they covered here.

[@Detson404]

Polytheism is a much more coherent idea.

[@introvertedchristian5219]

That was a great discussion.

[@jessegonsalves5412]

Cameron, PLEASE keep making videos! I hope your channel continues forever

[@williammcenaney1331]

Trent said he would need to be a vegan or defend factory farming. But that's a false dichotomy because a non-vegan can buy food and other products from local farms and farmers' markets. If I need to buy some products from a supermarket, I can buy only products that factory farms don't produce. When you have to buy groceries from a store selling factory-farmed foods, you have to see whether you cooperate directly or remotely with the factory farmers. Say I'll die if I don't buy a factory farm makes. Should I die because I'm against factory farming?

[@kenhilker2507]

Trent at 5:10 "Infinity is just a really bad thing to bring in the world" Trent at 8:25 "God is infinite"

[@trygvenyhaug6668]

Well, his view would be that God is outside of the world So in that sense, those statements are not inconsistent.

[@kenhilker2507]

@@trygvenyhaug6668 ok, but what makes an infinite bad inside the world, yet totally acceptable outside of the world?

[@trygvenyhaug6668]

@@kenhilker2507 It seems like he was talking about an infinite series of events, which wouldn't make a lot of sense, because if there was an infinite number of events in the past, you would never get to today. I don't think he's talking about God in this infinite series of events sense. Also, our understanding of infinities is based on the rules and laws we observe in this world, but if you think of God as outside of our world, he wouldn't be limited by those laws.

[@ChrisSena]

@@trygvenyhaug6668 ​ "If there was an infinite number of events in the past, you would never get to today" That is mathematically false. In the same way that one can prove there are an infinite number of rational (and irrational) numbers between 0 and 1, there are an infinite number of moments in time between a hypothetical origin moment of the universe and now. In fact there are an infinite number of moments in any day (or indeed any period of time).

[@trygvenyhaug6668]

@@ChrisSena That's a different infinity. The argument is that time had a beginning. If time did not have a beginning(the kind of infinite he is talking about) you would never get to today. It is absurd to say that there is an infinite number of days in the past. You can't count to infinity, but theres still an infinite number of "moments" between two points in time. That would be the case if time had a beginning too.

[@Carlos-fl6ch]

From the get go it seems that TH is actually saying that the universe owes us an explanation and if science at any point cannot help us get the explanations than all bets are of and anything that gives us an explanation is justified. This off course is epistemic bankruptcy. The most scientific position one can take in such cases is I don't know. Period! Else you're walking close to the line of I don't know therefore god.

[@joshuanewsted2560]

@1:20:27, Blessed are those that are not bothered by internal contradictions, lack of evidence, and biblical atrocities. And also blessed are those who are too lazy or unwilling to even learn that these even potentially exist. For these shall inherit the kingdom of heaven. -Gospel of Trent

[@samuelwaller4924]

I was blown away at that part lol. Don't worry, he's not anti-intellectual, he just believes thinking is a waste of time and that common sense is probably better anyways (if you don't think about it too hard, of course)

[@joshuanewsted2560]

It’s also a bit disturbing that he uses morality as a similar comparison. Meaning if you contemplate and study morality, but end up with a contradictory view to his, you’re wrong. This works for morality because no amount of study and contemplation could justify murder for example, but is quite different for religion because an atheist isn’t harming anyone.

[@samuelwaller4924]

@@joshuanewsted2560 counterpoint: plenty of people justify murder (and worse) all of the time. Lol

[@joshuanewsted2560]

@@samuelwaller4924 I don’t disagree but that doesn’t make it right. My point is that it’s odd to think of a disbelief in god and murder being anyway equivalent. This is what Trent seems to be doing by muddling morality with belief.

[@zacdredge3859]

1:43:33 No, it depends on *if* something is evil. I wouldn't accept payment from someone for them to do something I considered evil as it would make me complicit in the commission of that evil. In the case of arson there's a question of whether it's any different from demolition in this context especially when the payment is promised beforehand and the person's already thinking about the house they can build in its place.

[@BornOnThursday]

00:57:00 | Not sure if Trent was comparing the parent of a child to God and us, but I sure hope not, because Trent has basically said God can do what he wants to his creation...

[@colinross3755]

I reckon that is what Trent was saying and that it was just because god would have good reason to punish us in hell even though we can figure out what that good reason would be - that is just more assertion to justify god sending people to hell - it doesn’t demonstrate god or reasonably justify that his can do whatever he wants. Trent also seemed to suggest that while spanking Alex’s arse wouldn’t be good that is permissible for a parent to do to their child - he’s implying ownership of the child to justify doing what you want within some reason in the way the god is justified in doing anything. It not convincing at all.

[@dominicluke7]

I’m Catholic and love these debates. Alex is incredibly respectful and knowledge. God bless💪🙏

[@shuvamsingh702]

Science Bless ❤

[@Wolfenkuni]

I enjoyed this. Personally I felt it was an intellectually honest debate, where each one tried to understand and answer each others point (same for the Q&A). To often we see debates where the other side is ignored or misrepresented .

[@VitxlBoii]

I JUST STARTED HAVING AN EXISTENTIAL CRISIS 14 MINUTES INTO THE VIDEO AND IM TYPING THIS TO BREAK THE TRANCE THANK YOU

[@tennicksalvarez9079]

Hey bro Hope ur doing well

[@peterp-a-n4743]

Almost all former Christians eventually enjoy the freedom from religious delusions and appreciate reality.

[@Real-HumanBeing]

@@peterp-a-n4743 Listen to Sunset Limited

[@hummingbird1375]

I KEEP HAVING EXISTENTIAL CRISES WHEN WATCHING DEEP DEBATE VIDEOS AND ALWAYS TELL MYSELF I NEED TO STOP BUT I AM SO DRAWN TO THEM THAT I CAN'T STOP WATCHING THEM. IT'S A CURSE.

[@peterp-a-n4743]

@@hummingbird1375 no it's your brain trying to resolve an important issue. Existential crises only thrive in a backdrop of delusion. A disappointment with reality is just the mourning of a falsehood (disappointment in German is "Enttäuschung" which is literally "disabusement")

[@bigfootapologetics]

Trent's face when he questioned whether or not a fetus is a human being perfectly captures how I feel when reading the majority of pro-choice objections.

[@tomyossarian7681]

It's not about whether fetus is human, or if it's in there "curing cancer and writing poetry".

[@elawchess]

So what's the best pro-choice objection you've heard about?

[@interloc1290]

@@elawchessParaphrasing but something along the lines of: Human or NOT ppl do not have a right to other peoples organs. Under any OTHER circumstance would a child have a right to use their parents organs without their consent for 9 months, cause them immense amounts of pain and possibly death? I actually don't think it counts as a human but I don't STRONGLY disagree and I can understand the perspective of those that do. But I don't think you actually need that to matter for this particular argument to be compelling and valid. As a thought experiment picture your mother makes a very simple miscalculation (I dunno like mixes up your prescription or something), and the results of that miscalculation causes you mortal health complications (like failing kidneys or something). Medical science has advanced enough that doctors can keep you alive long enough to recover IF you borrow one of her organs (say you surgically receive a KIDNEY). My mother loves me enough to probably do that and yours probably does too. But DOES the state HAVE a right to harvest her organs by FORCE to prolong your life? OR do you think SHE gets to decide that for herself? Now what if you are the mother and its your child? What if it is essentially a stranger that you have no bond with (how some woman feel with a child they did not plan for)? What if your a father in this scenario? What if a stranger poisoned you and not your mothers fault? (I was trying to come up with an analogous scenario for rape). I find that almost every concept of morality I have encountered relies on Bodily Autonomy. I think therefore I am is pretty basic. If people do NOT have autonomy over their own bodies then most other alleged rights do not make much sense. Did my best to summarize, and I have certainly heard at least 3 or 4 other GOOD compelling arguments. But I find that one the strongest because it requires the least assumptions and personal value judgements to be valid.

[@tomyossarian7681]

@@elawchess Bodily autonomy - look up "violinist analogy" if you want.

[@bigfootapologetics]

@@elawchess That's a really good question, actually, to the point where it's hard to come up with an answer. I'd have to answer broadly. I think the best pro-choice argument is one that hinges on a worldview that either 1.) presupposes that human rights are not inherent or objective, but legal constructs to serve the normative majority population, even to the (possibly lethal) detriment of some classes of human beings or 2.) it's okay to kill human beings that have not yet developed the capacity for pain. Basically, 1.) is the "personhood" spectrum of ideas - that a majority block of voters or a ruling class can legally strip human beings of their humanity by denying them the concept of "personhood" in order to kill them (basically, "might makes right"). 2.) is more of an appeal to the idea that human beings don't have value and that everything should be construed with respect to pleasure and pain.

[@brando3342]

Hey Cameron. Someone mentioned having more Eastern Orthodox people on. Would you consider reaching out to Jonathan Pageau to come on? We could all learn some fascinating stuff from him!

[@CristianaCatólica]

THE TRUE CHURCH IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

[@brando3342]

@@CristianaCatólica The true church is the universal church. That's catholic, with a little "c".

[@Thedisciplemike]

@@brando3342 or "orthodox" with a little "o"

[@brando3342]

@@Thedisciplemike Touche 🤣🤣

[@davidjanbaz7728]

@@brando3342 Universal as in Church of the First-born Hebrews 12:23 so it's not limited to c or o traditions.

[@DanielCasasamperaGonzález]

Oju Ramon Llull representant la terra! Quina grata sorpresa xdd

[@jerrythecanary96]

21:53 “I think just the basic idea, that there is a perfect being, who does actually care about you, and will make up for all your suffering. I think this is something that any rational person should desire.” Hard disagree.

[@DodInTheSky]

Elaborate

[@colinrobertson7580]

Why? I'm an antitheist but this doesn't seem objectionable to me. If I had a mean boss working somewhere that I hated, but I didn't have the ability to get another job, and when I finished working there if I was given 10 times what I made while I was ther. In that circumstance I would be happy that I was given that gift to make up for my pain and suffering even if ideally I was simply just treated well from the beginning. Would you truly be more content to suffer for no reason than to be compensated for it?

[@jerrythecanary96]

@@DodInTheSky I’m not one to think suffering can be compensated. Like people say, “nothing can ever make up for X” be it the murder of a loved one, a traumatic experience, etc… But speaking for myself, i don’t desire a heaven. I’m fine with non-existence after death, I don’t need compensation for random tragedies.

[@jerrythecanary96]

@@colinrobertson7580 I’d liken it more to an author making his characters suffer and then giving them a happy ending. I’m not one to think suffering can be compensated. Like people say, “nothing can ever make up for X” be it the murder of a loved one, a traumatic experience, etc… But speaking for myself, i don’t desire a heaven. I’m fine with non-existence after death.

[@colinrobertson7580]

@@jerrythecanary96 ok, so for example if I hit you with my care would you not want me to pay for your medical bills?

[@missinterpretation4984]

I can’t reconcile severe suffering with a loving God. I also can’t reconcile the existence of the world and people without design. Plus I know that I process everything through my own limitations and biases so I don’t even know if the things that make sense to me are actually true. So I’m just out here doing my best. 🤷‍♀️❤

[@nathanmckenzie904]

Nature is the designer.

[@missinterpretation4984]

@@nathanmckenzie904 Nature is creation not the creator though. I can’t process that everything designed itself which is what that would mean.

[@nathanmckenzie904]

@missinterpretation4984 take a biology class or there are TONs of videos on KZbin that explain it at a layman level

[@ElectricLimeade]

There are plenty of possibilities for there to be a creator that is not capital G God. The most relevant, of course, are those of indifference and limited influence. A creator may not care how we feel, or may even be explicitly avoiding interfering with the world for the sake of some other goal. I would imagine such a case to be somewhat like an ant farm or an experiment, where the purpose is to observe. A creator may also not be able to influence creation after the process has begun, or is otherwise limited in time, power, or both. I would liken such a scenario to a truly gigantic game of Sims - you may care about all of these creatures, but the scale is so enormous that you can't possibly give all of them individual attention even some of the time, much less most or all. And consider, perhaps, that we are not the only planet with beings on it. Even a creator that thinks thousands or millions of times faster than us would still eventually be unable to keep up as populations grew.

[@kevinlindblad5138]

That ”its funny that” with a subtle little smirk, on 56:37 was a check mate that went over the opponents head

[@zavaughnkirkland5892]

1:23:42 Why exactly would it not be fair to end up in hell if you are willfully rejecting God when hell can be interpreted as punishment if one happens to be reasonable, but is properly defined in context as separation from God?

[@BornOnThursday]

In regard to the people that "don't care", I wonder if they'd care if they were in the path of bad ethics, or would they suddenly ask/beg for "morals" and "humanity", or if someone they care for/wanted to protect were in the path of bad ethics, etc.

[@jamesiiimcnabb6358]

Alex said that you can't decide of yourself what to believe. Wrong. Once you've decided what's true u still need to believe it. It takes the strength of mind of faith to keep the faith.

[@tjwhite6052]

I don't have to keep faith that 1+1=2. I don't have to keep faith that the sky is blue, I don't have to keep faith that the earth is billions of years old. I don't have to keep faith about any fact of the universe that can be demonstrated as true. Only faith needs to keep faith because it's flimsy and misguided at best

[@daviddeida]

Very well put.Those who believe in Darwin,even though Darwin also doubted his findings needs faith to hold that belief.Those who think reality is confined to 3D only also needs faith to keep that model.Those who think an ape can know reality needs faith.Its hilarious that anyone thinks they have a model thats right.

[@SydneyCarton2085]

​@@tjwhite6052 You either believe your life is a miracle granted by God or that you are an organic robot. You are only as bad as society allows you to be and any morals you may claim to have come from a highly evolved sense of altruism, you must then see them as having personal utility like opposable thumbs. You only feel anything for your family and friends because of their utility, no? You may try and assign value but you will get it from somewhere if not from God. Go and sin, your heart is set on it and you know you are wrong.

[@tjwhite6052]

@Diego Cervantes yes morality has utility. If I kill someone I open myself up to being killed in revenge. If I help someone out I open myself up to being helped in return. It's not rocket science. And yes even feelings of love are neurochemical "rewards" for behaviors with high survival utility. That doesn't cheapen love or feelings of love. If you want to call me a meat robot or whatever, fine. I can accept it if it's true. I'm always curious though when I hear christians claim I'm a sinner or that without God I'm a moral monster. Makes me wonder if that's not somehow a projection, that what you're really saying is that if you didn't have a God belief you'd be an immoral monster. If thats the case then please continue believing in God!

[@AD-nq2nz]

@@daviddeida Your argument is flawed because it assumes that Darwin 'owns' the theory of evolution and that its validity is a function only of Darwin's opinion i.e., if Darwin was somehow resurrected today and disclaimed the truth of evolution, evolution would therefore be false. This is incorrect because the theory of evolution is not the property of Darwin; he was the theory's progenitor, but it has since been built upon by thousands upon thousands of researchers. Since Darwin's time, we have found extensive fossil records which overwhelmingly support the truth of evolution. Darwin's theoretical resurrection and disclamation of evolution would be no defence to such evidence. To illustrate the flaw in your argument by way of analogy, imagine if Newton was resurrected today and he then disclaimed the truth of his second law of motion, that Force = Mass x Acceleration? Would all modern physicists cease to believe in its truth? Obviously not, because there is now overwhelming empirical evidence that on a non-quantum scale, F = ma is incontrovertibly true.

[@Smilliztho]

It feels a bit like Alex is getting tired of this debate, atheism vs. christianity. And I understand him. I really appreciate him moving on and discovering other discussions like he have done with veganism!

[@chrisvalenzuela7911]

Lol, he's the one accepting the invitations. He can easily say no to them if he's tired of it.

[@HarrDarr]

@@chrisvalenzuela7911 he's probably tired because he had to spend half the video explaining the christian position to the christian

[@pnut3844able]

I mean you can only prove their arguments wrong so many times. Theism never changes, so you just prove the same things wrong over and over.

[@seth8395]

The exchange at 55:58 is so insanely funny to me because of the way that Trent just dismantles his own point by comparing the hypothetical to slavery.

[@Fernando-ek8jp]

I'm always confused by the "What do you expect a universe with/without god to look like?" line of questioning. Idk, I only have the one universe to look at, and even then in an absurdly limited capacity I can't compare this universe to a universe with a known creator, or to another with a known lack of creator. I have absolutely no idea how either of those should play out.

[@anatolydyatlov963]

02:43 ah, that's the exact same reason why I'm a die-hard fan of The Lord of The Rings!

[@cloudoftime]

As I said, on the roundtable debate from several days ago, if we lived in a world without suffering (deprivation), we wouldn't have a utility for understanding values of experience. Suffering (experience of separation) is necessary for desire. One could not desire a _better_ state if they were not in a state where they lacked something (deprivation causing desire). You could try to make an argument for excessive suffering instead, but that comes with its own problems. I am not a theist.

[@alexanderrivas2762]

Why should we have a "utility for understanding values of experience?"

[@cloudoftime]

@@alexanderrivas2762 It's not a matter of "should."

[@Nick-Nasti]

I disagree. One could struggle without horrific “suffering”. Could a child learn the same lessons without dying of cancer?

[@cloudoftime]

@@Nick-Nasti Notice how the thing you put in quotes was the word "suffering"? That's because I used the word suffering. Now see how you put the word horrific in front of the quoted word suffering? I never used the word horrific. That's an addition you are making which has nothing to do with what I said. So, you're creating a straw man and then trying to argue against your straw man. That has nothing to do with my point. I also explained suffering, so you can refer to that which doesn't imply "horrific."

[@Nick-Nasti]

@@cloudoftime “suffering” includes all forms of suffering and not just some mild example of a dentist visit to represent all suffering. It is plainly not a strawman.

[@standard-user-name]

Good conversation. Trent Horn has a great KZbin Channel too.

[@ArcherMVMaster]

28:15 for some odd reason, I knew this one would come up. For christians, because they believe God is good, it seems rational to assume that God's intentions and actions are rooted in goodness, so assuming that God has (good) reasons to allow a certain type of bad is logically consistent. However, that same logic could be turned around this way. By admitting that we don't fully understand god and his reasons, it goes without saying that his intentions and actions could also be rooted in maliciousness. If I can't really understand God and his reasons for doing what he does, then why would I assume that his reasons are necessarily good? It's not consistent to say that we don't know god's reasons or god's minds and also assume that he's only good and has good reasons. That seems like a copout to maintain the belief. What if God is doing what he does intentionally to deceive? After all the Bible shows us instances where God has sent deceiving spirits to people. That would paint a less attractive version of God and not push people toward belief or worship. And in this case of divine hiddenness, God isn't just allowing a little bad thing we can reason our way out of like minor sins. God is against disbelief and worship of false Gods, so why leave those who aren't resisting into a state where they are doomed for the afterlife? Unless, God wants people to be deceived or doesn't care about people being deceived. If that's the case can we really logically maintain the belief that God is good and wants a relationship with us?

[@amandasomething538]

57 minutes in… did Trent just casually say that hitting children (aka “spanking”) is acceptable and synonymous with disciple? Ughhhh. 1hr 15minish: There are actually lots of people who would not agree that all or any inmate slavery is just…

[@maxwellsdemon10]

THANK YOU! I felt like this was super weird, how he just casually dropped "it's okay to have inmates as slaves" and "surely nobody could have anything against me hitting my child"

[@j.harperscott]

When Alex states that a world without evils that produce goods such as forgiveness and compassion is better, he is basically expressing a desire for heaven. A place where there is no suffering. This is a Christian concept. We have to accept the reality that we live in a fallen world, and one day, there will be a world without all evil. The Christian has that to look forward to.

[@bookerdewitt6346]

I'm glad God decided to subject us to all this evil b4 heaven

[@C-Farsene_5]

The idea of a utopian world can be found in many ideas, be it islamic, buddhist, even communist

[@marcwilliams9824]

Christians need to stop stealing ideas (ie. a world without suffering) and passing them off as if they came up with them.

[@the-outsider8458]

Forgiveness and compassion are useful only in our reality. If no one does anything wrong, ie heaven, no one needs forgiveness. If there's no pain of any kind, mental or physical, there's no need for compassion. Going through hardships to produce goods that are useless and irrelevant in heaven, to go to heaven, makes zero sense if you honestly consider the attributes of heaven.

[@S.D.323]

But then why create anything besides heaven

[@vipnetworker]

At 17:06 - “If there is a God, he is perfectly loving.”

[@fire15aidenspencer72]

Because that’s the definition of God. God is all actualization, so he must be all-loving. God is perfect so he must be all-loving. If a god isn’t all loving you must remove a bunch of other definitions of God like him being all-powerful, all-knowing, eternal, etc. Evil is the lack of good, so for something to be all-bad it must also be all-weak, unknowing, mortal, and furthermore, it must not even exist, as the worst thing an all-bad thing can do is to not even exist in the first place.

[@vipnetworker]

@@fire15aidenspencer72 1. Whose definition? 2. How do you define something nobody has ever seen and millions of people disagree about? 3. Are you even aware that millions of people would define God VERY differently from you, but millions of people aside, so does EVERY authoritative book that has a definition of God. No dictionary has God defined the way you do. That’s the problem with crazy people who don’t understand the difference between their beliefs and reality.

[@fire15aidenspencer72]

@@vipnetworker 1. The definition of all Christians, Jews, and Muslims. 2. Because that’s the only God that can exist. There are many arguments for God, here are some: -the Cosmological Argument for God: Everything has a cause. For every scenario there is a chain of cause and effects. But eventually there has to be an uncaused causer who caused all other events. We know the uncaused causer must be separate from the universe because we know the universe had a beginning, and thus, a cause. We know the uncaused causer has to be eternal and timeless because having a start and end implies being caused. What we are basically describing here is God. Everything in the universe has Act and Potency. Act is what the thing is, and Potency is what a thing could be if acted upon by another. There goes a chain of things turning each other’s Potency into Act and eventually it must start with something that is all Act and no Potency. Something that is already everything that it could be and will be. -the Teleological Argument for God: If we were to look at a machine you would assume it was made by an intelligent creator. So why does the universe not apply to that? There are many things in this universe that imply an intelligent creator because of how specific and machine everything is. Such as DNA, the Four Constants of the universe, the arrangement and consistency of the universe, quantum physics, etc. The Natural can’t always explain how such machine-like natural things exist, and the only thing that might explain it must be God. -the Ontological Argument for God: God exists because of what he is. God is described as a perfect being, so he must be unbreakable, sinless, all-good, all-powerful, all-loving, eternal, all-knowing, all-intelligent, above all else, alive, creator not created, and furthermore, he must exist and be necessary, because if he did not exist, he would not be perfect. An Atheist would agree that God is supposed to be perfect, but if they believe God does not exist, how can they agree that he’s supposed to be perfect? An Atheist might say, “Just because we can imagine a perfect being doesn’t mean it exists.” But truly existing is better than existing in the mind, so how can we imagine a perfect being if it does not exist? God is maximally great, so he must either be necessary or impossible. Since we can imagine the possibility of him existing, it shows that his existence is at least somewhat possible; therefore, it is impossible for him to be impossible, so he must exist and be necessary. An Atheist might say, “Well I can use that to argue for the perfect sandwich.” But the definition of a sandwich implies something that is breakable, something that is inanimate. Once you try to imagine the perfect sandwich by removing those limitations, it no longer is a sandwich and is now God. -the Moral Argument for God: Basically every human believes in some kind of morals. Many Atheists might object to Christianity by calling it immoral, but how could they? The only way morals can be objective is if a higher being above all else decides something is right and something is wrong. In Atheism, morals can only be subjective, so how can they object to Christianity if to them, they are just doing what they believe is morally right? To an Atheist, what is the difference between someone being forced to commit morally wrong things by someone else, and someone being forced to commit morally wrong things by brain chemicals. If someone believes in morals, they must also believe in a God. -the Meaning of Life Argument for God Without a God, what purpose is there for life? How can an Atheist say a life has meaning without believing in God. How can Atheist object to the taking of a life when that life has no meaning? God gives purpose to life as creations that are meant to love themselves and everyone, avoid evil, and have a special relationship with God. If someone believes in life having a meaning, they must also believe in God. -the Transcendental Argument for God We as people have to make assumptions even if we can’t prove it. We assume that logic works, we assume math and science work, we assume there’s consistency in the natural, we assume there is truth and falsehood, we assume that things happen, we assume there is reason, etc. We combine our experiences into a single coherent self-awareness; a single coherent narrative. But we can only justify our narrative and assume these things with the existence of God. God is behind all things and these things that are assumed exist in the mind of God, so he can justify our understanding of the world. If we assume these things, we must also assume God to justify our assumption of these things. Otherwise, we have no reason to assume these things are true. Put simply, a world where God exists, is a world that makes sense. -the Mathematical Arguments for God When we do math it doesn’t always correspond with the natural world. In simple math, 2 means two things, 2x3 means two groups of three things, etc. This corresponds with the natural world like we would expect since we first started using math to correspond with the natural world. But when math gets more complicated, it starts to diverge from its correspondence with the natural. Some examples are imaginary numbers, negative numbers (kinda), transfinite numbers, the Banach-Tarski paradox, etc. which do not correspond (or haven’t been proven to correspond) with the natural world, but yet work and make sense perfectly in math. This points to there being a higher reality (God and heaven) where these actually do correspond to something. Not only that, there are a lot of “coincidences” in math which some believe point to an intelligent creator. Such as Euler’s identity where what’s considered to be the five most important numbers in math {0, 1, e (Euler’s number), π (pi), i (imaginary unit} all fit together perfectly into this formula: e^(iπ)+1=0. Euler considered this to be evidence of an intelligent creator (God). Another example is the Mandelbrot Set. The Mandelbrot Set is a two-dimensional shape generated from a math problem that has infinite detail that keeps on getting more and more complicated the more you zoom in. To some, it seems impossible something as complicated and perfect like this that doesn’t correspond to the real world would just naturally exist in math without an intelligent creator. Not only that x2, but there’s also the argument from probability. The chances that everyone who was born has been born, the chances humans evolved to be what they are, the chances life came into existence on this planet, the chances the earth was formed, the chances the sun was formed, the chances the galaxy was formed, and the chances the universe even sprang into existence are all so incredibly low that it is essentially impossible a universe like this could’ve ever existed. The only way the universe probably could’ve ended up this way is if there was a divine force that made things the way they are. Put simply: -Everything is improbable -It’s only probable if there is a divine force deciding what happens -Therefore, it is probable that God exists.

[@fire15aidenspencer72]

@@vipnetworker 1. The definition of all Christians, Jews, and Muslims. 2. Because that’s the only God that can exist. There are many arguments for God, here are some: -the Cosmological Argument for God: Everything has a cause. For every scenario there is a chain of cause and effects. But eventually there has to be an uncaused causer who caused all other events. We know the uncaused causer must be separate from the universe because we know the universe had a beginning, and thus, a cause. We know the uncaused causer has to be eternal and timeless because having a start and end implies being caused. What we are basically describing here is God. Everything in the universe has Act and Potency. Act is what the thing is, and Potency is what a thing could be if acted upon by another. There goes a chain of things turning each other’s Potency into Act and eventually it must start with something that is all Act and no Potency. Something that is already everything that it could be and will be. -the Teleological Argument for God: If we were to look at a machine you would assume it was made by an intelligent creator. So why does the universe not apply to that? There are many things in this universe that imply an intelligent creator because of how specific and machine everything is. Such as DNA, the Four Constants of the universe, the arrangement and consistency of the universe, quantum physics, etc. The Natural can’t always explain how such machine-like natural things exist, and the only thing that might explain it must be God. -the Ontological Argument for God: God exists because of what he is. God is described as a perfect being, so he must be unbreakable, sinless, all-good, all-powerful, all-loving, eternal, all-knowing, all-intelligent, above all else, alive, creator not created, and furthermore, he must exist and be necessary, because if he did not exist, he would not be perfect. An Atheist would agree that God is supposed to be perfect, but if they believe God does not exist, how can they agree that he’s supposed to be perfect? An Atheist might say, “Just because we can imagine a perfect being doesn’t mean it exists.” But truly existing is better than existing in the mind, so how can we imagine a perfect being if it does not exist? God is maximally great, so he must either be necessary or impossible. Since we can imagine the possibility of him existing, it shows that his existence is at least somewhat possible; therefore, it is impossible for him to be impossible, so he must exist and be necessary. An Atheist might say, “Well I can use that to argue for the perfect sandwich.” But the definition of a sandwich implies something that is breakable, something that is inanimate. Once you try to imagine the perfect sandwich by removing those limitations, it no longer is a sandwich and is now God. -the Moral Argument for God: Basically every human believes in some kind of morals. Many Atheists might object to Christianity by calling it immoral, but how could they? The only way morals can be objective is if a higher being above all else decides something is right and something is wrong. In Atheism, morals can only be subjective, so how can they object to Christianity if to them, they are just doing what they believe is morally right? To an Atheist, what is the difference between someone being forced to commit morally wrong things by someone else, and someone being forced to commit morally wrong things by brain chemicals. If someone believes in morals, they must also believe in a God. -the Meaning of Life Argument for God Without a God, what purpose is there for life? How can an Atheist say a life has meaning without believing in God. How can Atheist object to the taking of a life when that life has no meaning? God gives purpose to life as creations that are meant to love themselves and everyone, avoid evil, and have a special relationship with God. If someone believes in life having a meaning, they must also believe in God. -the Transcendental Argument for God We as people have to make assumptions even if we can’t prove it. We assume that logic works, we assume math and science work, we assume there’s consistency in the natural, we assume there is truth and falsehood, we assume that things happen, we assume there is reason, etc. We combine our experiences into a single coherent self-awareness; a single coherent narrative. But we can only justify our narrative and assume these things with the existence of God. God is behind all things and these things that are assumed exist in the mind of God, so he can justify our understanding of the world. If we assume these things, we must also assume God to justify our assumption of these things. Otherwise, we have no reason to assume these things are true. Put simply, a world where God exists, is a world that makes sense. -the Mathematical Arguments for God When we do math it doesn’t always correspond with the natural world. In simple math, 2 means two things, 2x3 means two groups of three things, etc. This corresponds with the natural world like we would expect since we first started using math to correspond with the natural world. But when math gets more complicated, it starts to diverge from its correspondence with the natural. Some examples are imaginary numbers, negative numbers (kinda), transfinite numbers, the Banach-Tarski paradox, etc. which do not correspond (or haven’t been proven to correspond) with the natural world, but yet work and make sense perfectly in math. This points to there being a higher reality (God and heaven) where these actually do correspond to something. Not only that, there are a lot of “coincidences” in math which some believe point to an intelligent creator. Such as Euler’s identity where what’s considered to be the five most important numbers in math {0, 1, e (Euler’s number), π (pi), i (imaginary unit} all fit together perfectly into this formula: e^(iπ)+1=0. Euler considered this to be evidence of an intelligent creator (God). Another example is the Mandelbrot Set. The Mandelbrot Set is a two-dimensional shape generated from a math problem that has infinite detail that keeps on getting more and more complicated the more you zoom in. To some, it seems impossible something as complicated and perfect like this that doesn’t correspond to the real world would just naturally exist in math without an intelligent creator. Not only that x2, but there’s also the argument from probability. The chances that everyone who was born has been born, the chances humans evolved to be what they are, the chances life came into existence on this planet, the chances the earth was formed, the chances the sun was formed, the chances the galaxy was formed, and the chances the universe even sprang into existence are all so incredibly low that it is essentially impossible a universe like this could’ve ever existed. The only way the universe probably could’ve ended up this way is if there was a divine force that made things the way they are. Put simply: -Everything is improbable -It’s only probable if there is a divine force deciding what happens -Therefore, it is probable that God exists.

[@fire15aidenspencer72]

@@vipnetworker 1. The definition of all Christians, Jews, and Muslims. 2. Because that’s the only God that can exist. There are many arguments for God, here are some: -the Cosmological Argument for God: Everything has a cause. For every scenario there is a chain of cause and effects. But eventually there has to be an uncaused causer who caused all other events. We know the uncaused causer must be separate from the universe because we know the universe had a beginning, and thus, a cause. We know the uncaused causer has to be eternal and timeless because having a start and end implies being caused. What we are basically describing here is God. Everything in the universe has Act and Potency. Act is what the thing is, and Potency is what a thing could be if acted upon by another. There goes a chain of things turning each other’s Potency into Act and eventually it must start with something that is all Act and no Potency. Something that is already everything that it could be and will be. -the Teleological Argument for God: If we were to look at a machine you would assume it was made by an intelligent creator. So why does the universe not apply to that? There are many things in this universe that imply an intelligent creator because of how specific and machine everything is. Such as DNA, the Four Constants of the universe, the arrangement and consistency of the universe, quantum physics, etc. The Natural can’t always explain how such machine-like natural things exist, and the only thing that might explain it must be God. -the Ontological Argument for God: God exists because of what he is. God is described as a perfect being, so he must be unbreakable, sinless, all-good, all-powerful, all-loving, eternal, all-knowing, all-intelligent, above all else, alive, creator not created, and furthermore, he must exist and be necessary, because if he did not exist, he would not be perfect. An Atheist would agree that God is supposed to be perfect, but if they believe God does not exist, how can they agree that he’s supposed to be perfect? An Atheist might say, “Just because we can imagine a perfect being doesn’t mean it exists.” But truly existing is better than existing in the mind, so how can we imagine a perfect being if it does not exist? God is maximally great, so he must either be necessary or impossible. Since we can imagine the possibility of him existing, it shows that his existence is at least somewhat possible; therefore, it is impossible for him to be impossible, so he must exist and be necessary. An Atheist might say, “Well I can use that to argue for the perfect sandwich.” But the definition of a sandwich implies something that is breakable, something that is inanimate. Once you try to imagine the perfect sandwich by removing those limitations, it no longer is a sandwich and is now God. -the Moral Argument for God: Basically every human believes in some kind of morals. Many Atheists might object to Christianity by calling it immoral, but how could they? The only way morals can be objective is if a higher being above all else decides something is right and something is wrong. In Atheism, morals can only be subjective, so how can they object to Christianity if to them, they are just doing what they believe is morally right? To an Atheist, what is the difference between someone being forced to commit morally wrong things by someone else, and someone being forced to commit morally wrong things by brain chemicals. If someone believes in morals, they must also believe in a God. -the Meaning of Life Argument for God Without a God, what purpose is there for life? How can an Atheist say a life has meaning without believing in God. How can Atheist object to the taking of a life when that life has no meaning? God gives purpose to life as creations that are meant to love themselves and everyone, avoid evil, and have a special relationship with God. If someone believes in life having a meaning, they must also believe in God. -the Transcendental Argument for God We as people have to make assumptions even if we can’t prove it. We assume that logic works, we assume math and science work, we assume there’s consistency in the natural, we assume there is truth and falsehood, we assume that things happen, we assume there is reason, etc. We combine our experiences into a single coherent self-awareness; a single coherent narrative. But we can only justify our narrative and assume these things with the existence of God. God is behind all things and these things that are assumed exist in the mind of God, so he can justify our understanding of the world. If we assume these things, we must also assume God to justify our assumption of these things. Otherwise, we have no reason to assume these things are true. Put simply, a world where God exists, is a world that makes sense. -the Mathematical Arguments for God When we do math it doesn’t always correspond with the natural world. In simple math, 2 means two things, 2x3 means two groups of three things, etc. This corresponds with the natural world like we would expect since we first started using math to correspond with the natural world. But when math gets more complicated, it starts to diverge from its correspondence with the natural. Some examples are imaginary numbers, negative numbers (kinda), transfinite numbers, the Banach-Tarski paradox, etc. which do not correspond (or haven’t been proven to correspond) with the natural world, but yet work and make sense perfectly in math. This points to there being a higher reality (God and heaven) where these actually do correspond to something. Not only that, there are a lot of “coincidences” in math which some believe point to an intelligent creator. Such as Euler’s identity where what’s considered to be the five most important numbers in math {0, 1, e (Euler’s number), π (pi), i (imaginary unit} all fit together perfectly into this formula: e^(iπ)+1=0. Euler considered this to be evidence of an intelligent creator (God). Another example is the Mandelbrot Set. The Mandelbrot Set is a two-dimensional shape generated from a math problem that has infinite detail that keeps on getting more and more complicated the more you zoom in. To some, it seems impossible something as complicated and perfect like this that doesn’t correspond to the real world would just naturally exist in math without an intelligent creator. Not only that x2, but there’s also the argument from probability. The chances that everyone who was born has been born, the chances humans evolved to be what they are, the chances life came into existence on this planet, the chances the earth was formed, the chances the sun was formed, the chances the galaxy was formed, and the chances the universe even sprang into existence are all so incredibly low that it is essentially impossible a universe like this could’ve ever existed. The only way the universe probably could’ve ended up this way is if there was a divine force that made things the way they are. Put simply: -Everything is improbable -It’s only probable if there is a divine force deciding what happens -Therefore, it is probable that God exists.

[@paulcrowder]

I was really surprised to get to the end of this video and find that this is a Christian KZbin channel. Props to you for posting a video that undermines the arguments for your religion, I guess.

[@dharmayogaashram979]

How can one share God when his existence cannot be proven?

[@badboyb123-n9k]

Existence of a creator is possible. However, the religious depictions of the creator cannot be proven.

[@Juanrepublicnotion]

Alex lately categorized himself as a non-resistant atheist.. he genuinely seeking for the truth about Christ, but he just could not see it or at least not convincing enough for him.. but he is seeking at least.. in other words he is open to the idea of God..

[@gwshelton4875]

As a child in the 1950s, watching Oral Roberts "lay hands" on the "afflicted" every Sunday on our black & white TV terrified me In 70 years, I've never set foot in a "church". Swaggart, Hinn, Jim and Tammy Fae, etc, reinforced my resolve. Hallelujah

[@strategic1710]

My dad graduated from ORU in Tulsa and he was a straight psycho so I guess that makes sense.

[@fimanu]

There are people like me who grew up surrounded by agnosticism being accepted, so basically adults around me said "we don't know what happens when you die, we don't know what's going on, but we ask questions and consider these things fascinating". I thought this was super interesting, but I was ok with not knowing. As I grew up I encountered religion but I never felt convinced by what people were telling me and I couldn't understand why people felt they knew things we clearly don't. Now, if you want to think my lack of belief is active resistance that's fine, but I love asking questions and looking for answers, and so far I believe we, meaning all of us, still haven't got answers. I'm ok with that and look forward to hopefully getting more answers in my lifetime. If not, I'd love to freeze my mind and bring myself back every 10000 years or so, just to check where we're at, whether any Gods revealed themselves, whether we understand reality and the universe in a significantly different manner, or discovered advanced Alien civilizations or some other amazing phenomena! So no, recognising that at this moment in time I still have no answer to life mysteries is not being resistant.

[@Chapman1886]

​@@tafazzi-on-discordI've wondered why Christians say God died for our sins when he was resurrected within 3 days? He didn't in fact die then, so why make it out to be the ultimate sacrifice?

[@Chapman1886]

@@tafazzi-on-discord Isn't God dying for our sins a fundamental expression of his love for us? If God, an Almighty entity, doesn't in fact sacrifice Himself at all, doesn't that cheapen His love? Jesus is now eternal and back to being God, so he did it for what? A token gesture without stakes? Why do Christians put so much reverence to God for his "sacrifice", when it was no sacrifice for Him at all? I'm deeply curious if this is ever discussed among Christians?

[@Chapman1886]

@@tafazzi-on-discord We can't come to that conclusion because that would lessen Jesus from God to man, when he is both only as so far as God embodied an avatar, but was always God in human skin, so he didn't experience true death. Jesus was resurrected sometime within 3 days, so the the loss for God was nil, and can only be described as a gesture, not a true sacrifice with consequences. Yet, Jesus is heralded as making the ultimate sacrifice, even going so far as ridding us from sin and to quell God's wrath. I just find the framing strange, when Jesus is alive, eternal, present and ominpotent, according to Christian belief. I think it's something to ponder, because there's a lot of assumed guilt that believers should feel for our sins leading to God, through Jesus, having to die, despite not actually staying dead. If I was omnipotent and created an avatar to kill myself and tell my disciples that my sacrifice is because of their sins, knowing that nothing of me would be lost and it was all a play without real consequences, I'd think about why God would create such a scenario and guilt-trip his believers? I think I can understand why questioning such a fundamental part of the Christian belief won't be easily accepted, but calling it that he died for our sins is an overstatement as an eternal omnipotent being. Otherwise, we have to seperate Jesus from God, but that would create even more problems, and make the sacrifice even less understandable. It's an interesting question to consider, because of all the implications we can derive from it.

[@petretepner8027]

@@Chapman1886 "Jesus as an avatar", "God in human skin", is a heresy known as Docetism, definitively rejected by the Christian Church in 325. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docetism The reason why "questioning such a fundamental part of the Christian belief won't be easily accepted" is simply that such questions have already been thoroughly discussed a very long time ago within Christianity. The problems involved in separating Jesus from God (the Father), and the precise way in which this should be done, form a whole sub-branch of theology dealing with the "hypostatic union", and are the reason why the doctrine of the Trinity has arguably been fought over more than any other in Christianity, and is so complicated and hard to understand (or nonsensical, depending on your point of view). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypostatic_union

[@F5ss]

I myself used to be an atheist, then I figured, why make ultimate claims? And I became an agnostic. Then, I looked at my past and said "bro you had literal supernatural things happen to you what are you doing?" And realized, for me it would be irrational to deny the existence of the things I saw. It is not a matter of believing for me. I was only still denying them because popular scienece says it cant be. But I have looked at their explanations and no, they dont cut for the things I saw. Now I am a theist. Now I know. I only know that strange things happen for no reason.

[@JoeBuck-uc3bl]

Popular science repeatedly conflates “The Scientific Method” with “Defending Materialism.” And very often it’s not intentional deceit either. Materialism dogma is so deeply ingrained into popular science that tons of people (both professionals and laypeople) can’t tell the difference. In general, tons of people skate back and forth between making scientific statements and making philosophical statements…yet they think that all they’re doing is making scientific statements.

[@Caleb-u3u]

Have you remained as a theist or committed to a religion?

[@bcarollo1]

The problem of suffering in life isn’t such a problem when you think about it in terms of existence and non-existence. In other words, I start from the premise that I exist. From there, I begin to think about the opposite of that, non-existence. Then, I begin to feel an overwhelming sense of gratitude for the fact that I exist. I then come come to the conclusion that no amount of suffering that I could experience in my existing that would make me choose, if I had the chance, to never have existed in the first place.

[@nelson6702]

The number of things that exist that I and everyone never expected. Why not this world?