Hey nice eye!

Best comment ever

Civilized comment.

Or...it's coincidence.

Good observation. 😁

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

😂😂

@@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.

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

​@@Pretty_Fly_White_GuyStrongest evidence against Christianity.

You fornicator you..

Congratulations!

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

I broke while listening to this

If you drink it you get superpowers

You're not talking intellectually speaking I take it.

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

Right?? Damn

I thought it was funny.

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...

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.

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

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

@@thedubwhisperer2157are you a seeker?

@@gorb_oron A what?

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.

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

@@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.

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

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

Well said! That matches me perfectly man.

Samesies.

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.

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

@@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.

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

@@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.

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

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.

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

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

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

@@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.

@@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.

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

Thank you so much for these time stamps!

Can we get this comment pinned please?

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.

@ContriteCatholic MVP of the comment section 😎

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

I am cooking and have done the same. ⚘

@@rosiegirl2485 You walk while you cook? :p

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

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

@@Solbashio F

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?

@@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

​@@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.

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.

you must be new to this.

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

@@archangelarielle262 this comment is gold

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

@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.

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

My respect for him has skyrocketed as well.

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.

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

@@OrangeRaft Which God do you believe in?

@@GlossRabban 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”

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

@@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.

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.

@@joannware6228 oh dear god…

@@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.

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

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

"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.

@@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.

@@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?

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

^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.

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!

Well that sucks lol

What evidence made you leave a relationship with Jesus?

@@JG-pw1wp I think it’s more of the lack of evidence of the god in the Bible.

@@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.

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 🤮

@@tomyossarian7681 I agree for sure.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

@@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.

As everyone should

I think he is more likely to give up Jesus

@@theunrepentantatheist24 I doubt it.

I wish

Lol

​​@@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.😂

He is brilliant ✨

Same

me too... mf made me go vegan xD

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

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

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.

@@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.

@@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.

@@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?

@@Joseph-zi2pe 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.

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

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

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

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

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.

@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.

Trent has a great way of confidently not understanding the question

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

@@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.

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.

@@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.

@@lesmen4 In English, please.

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

@@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

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

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

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)

@@ChristenDOM010 Ahh! I need to practice more 🧐

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

I'm at 1:39:22 so maybe they'll bring it up.

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.

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

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.

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.

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 :)

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.

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

@@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!

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

Demeaner

Damn it!!! Its demeanour

It's scary.

He has watched all of Hitchens videos and read his books

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Science Bless ❤

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

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

@@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.

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

@@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.

Why is animal suffering relevant? The debate here is about whether the Christian conception of God exists. I am unaware of anywhere where traditional christianity has held animals to have more value or rights. Certainly God never behaved as they did in the bible. It could both be the case that God is all good and that animals suffer greatly if animals do not have moral value.

@@masteroftheforce1 Correct, but the proposition that animals have no moral value is rejected by almost every modern human with a thinking brain, since we now know animals are sentient -- and therefore have a capacity to suffer. Your apparent solution to this is to weirdly concede that god doesn't care about the suffering of his own sentient beings. So all you've done is create an even more ridiculous dichotomy: 1. Animals suffer because the world is indifferent (Atheism). 2. God is a psychopath (Christianity). XD

@@masteroftheforce1 Right, which would be an equally preposterous conception that doesn't square with the facts of reality where animals suffer in precisely the same way as we do and suffering is the universally recognized thing that makes morally wrong things bad. It's OP's option 2. You can keep that implausible BS.

Nope. It was a huge disappointment. When they were speaking about “I don’t care” and intellectual laziness, I thought this described Trent well, lol.

I didnt hear anything about living in blissful ignorance and being completely unempathetic to everything.

@@Z4r4sz what scripture do you follow that says this?

Literally why I don’t accept Alex as truthful anymore, he doesn’t accept this world wasn’t Gods plan for man yet through our fallen nature God has devised our way to reconcile ourselves back to him

Yawn, Matthew 7:18; Romans 8:30, Romans 9:12, japexican007 . Define 'our' and 'us' and 'man'.

What, the place where Lucifer started?

Hey bro Hope ur doing well

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

@@peterp-a-n4743 Listen to Sunset Limited

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.

@@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")

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"

There is a difference between infinity on this planet and eternity in a dimension that feels you with nothing but love and peace. Hope this helps, if it doesn't then that's all I got tbh, that's how I see it.

The god argument has always been circular if not contradictory, even though they dont see it that way, if I want to be blunt. The worst way to convince a good thinker. Pure mental gymnastics to fool common folks. Because for many millennia, they acquired zero proof.

@@paulhayes5684 The Christian Kingdom of God is supposed to be set in this planet

If that were true you wouldn't need an explanation point. Everyone would just know. And you don't think it's telling that it's called being an apologist lol.

@@talyahr3302 Apologist ultimately comes from Late Latin, meaning “a speech in defense of”, in this case Christianity. Also, you saying that Christ isn’t Lord doesn’t make him any less the Lord.

⁠@@micahcollins6412You Christ is Lord doesn’t change the fact that it’s actually the eternal Oompa Loompa that is Lord. Prove to me it isn’t.

Is equally same atrocious to let you infant decide he is a transgender so the government can mutilate him and then in 20 years that child commit suicide by state sponsored euthanasia

Hey I saw your latest video, and really enjoyed your points. Was wondering if you would do a full review of this debate?

That's a terrible argument. I wouldn't go into debating. Premise 1 intelligent people talk. Conclusion Therefore god

❤

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

@@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.

Polytheism is a much more coherent idea.

Bingo

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

@@paulhayes5684care to elaborate ?

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

@@lawrence1318those are non séquitors.

@@lawrence1318 kzfaq.info/get/bejne/bN6hds6pm721cnk.htmlsi=mAF52CNHkNgnz0yU&t=18m24s

​@@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.

Complete dodger

@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.

@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.

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

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.

@@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.