This is a clip from Alex O'Connor's debate with Jonathan McLatchie in Boston during the fall of 2022. In his opening statement, Alex argued that the problems of divine hiddenness and evil are the reasons why doesn't believe in God. This is Jonathan's rebuttal. The full debate can be viewed here: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/qNR5hKl6lta9fIE.html For more of Jonathan's response to the problem of divine hiddenness, go here: jonathanmclatchie.com/grappling-with-divine-hiddenness-why-does-god-not-make-his-existence-more-obvious/ Are you a Christian struggling with doubts? Get 1-on-1 counseling at talkaboutdoubts.com What do you think of the problem of divine hiddenness?

Even as a Christian, I’m a little skeptical of Jonathan’s (first) response. 1. Within the context of the debate, Alex pointed out how Christian belief seems to correspond to the relevancy Christianity has within a culture. Alex specifically gave Thailand as an example, where a mere 5% of the population are theists. Jonathan’s response about how God only reveals himself to those he knows will accept Him plays into (by my lights) an absurd speculation. To speculate entire countries as not even having the ability to be Christians because of their stubbornness is absurd. A much better response is to identify every human person has free will. If every person has free will, then a difference of social trends throughout different societies would be expected. One can then be directed to the Second Vatican Council, which claims, every person who pursues truth pursues Christ. Perhaps Justin Martyr puts it the best, “If some should accuse us as if we held that people born before the time of Christ were not accountable to God for their actions, we shall anticipate and answer such a difficulty. We have been taught that Christ is the first-begotten of God, and we have declared him to be the Logos of which all mankind partakes. Those, therefore, who lived according to reason (logos) were really Christians, even though they were thought to be atheists, such as, among the Greeks, Socrates, Heraclitus and others like them.”

Glad they addressed this! I respect that Alex is open to both sides of the coin, it's good to see a skeptic weigh up the arguments fairly to come to a conclusion based upon evidence and reason.

About 6 minutes in, and I've heard a lot of "some raise the objection that," or "another objection that may be raised is," and then responds to those objections. Ok, but these are not the objections Alex rose in his opening argument. I think more time should have been given to Alex's actual arguments. I'm a christian, btw.

God bless you, Testify. Let's hope that these counter apologist atheists and agnostics turn to Christ.

I did find Alex's opening statement compelling. The idea of non-resistant non-belief can sometimes pose an interesting thought process to consider. Mostly because its becomes a personal stance and is not easy to directly refute so I can see why he used this statement (especially in contrast to his previous debate with Jonathan where we he was less open to God as an 'angry' atheist). But I can think of a few ways to address this: 1 - We all like to think God will directly commune with us but there are definitely times where God is remarkably unresponsive and non-engaging. I can think of many times in my personal life where I hoped God would touch my life emotionally or spiritually; like through music for example. However, I am a drummer so I often think too technically about music and it gets in the way of that emotional or spiritual connection. I also see others who hear his voice or break down and cry. This just doesnt happen for me. My belief comes not from my experiences of God responding to me, talking to me, answering prayer, or engaging with me, but that God is the most reasonable explanation for the universe, truth, personality, morality, purpose, and life. Even if God never talks to me (which He does in His Word, certainly), my conviction of HIs existence is based on logic and reason more so than my direct experiences of His seeking me out. 2 - If we are ultimately honest with ourselves, we all have some bias in us. This is not something we like to admit and it can sometimes even be subconscious, but it really is there for all. I mean when you set out to do something like write an article or complete a task, you have a way in which you plan to do things or know how things should be. Of course if you are open to convincing elements, you may change that bias. But we each have a set way in which things will work in our mind. Does this mean Alex isnt open enough or doing this on purpose? Of course not. My point is saying we all have some level of bias to anything and the way to convince anyone of any specific truth varies in degree based on the person. So for me to tell Alex how to specifically believe in God given his attempts is not realistic for anyone to respond to. I especially find it difficult to talk to given that hes already started to change his position on it from the last debate he had with Jonathan. Is he using his life story to come to a better position for this debate? Or has he truthfully sought out the answers in complete earnest? If you watch Alex's channel he is one of the most earnest atheists I have ever known so I would certainly lean that way. But for me, this isnt exactly a convincing argument in its whole since its speaking more to his personal and psychological state than it is about the real world. 3 - Coming to faith in God is not a result of anything we do specifically. Nor anyone else. It is the Holy Spirit who works in us as a result of that to come to said faith. This is nothing we can control (aside from the direct accepting or rejecting based on free will). All we can do is present the faith to those who dont believe and let the Holy Spirit do the work. Maybe the timing for the Holy Spirit to work in Alex has not come yet. Finally, here is a personal moment in my life that helped me to deal with the difficulty of Divine Hidden-ness some. When my middle son was 3 he was watching a video on an ipad in the house. I told him we needed to go and he got in the car with the device still playing. Once we started driving, his video stopped and he said 'Why did my video stop?' I said 'because we dont have wifi in the car.' He said, 'Whats Wifi?' Now I had to pause....how am i going to explain wifi to my 3 year old? Do I give him detail he likely wont understand? Or do I try to simplify the explanation into something he will reject later? I decided to just say 'trust me buddy, it just doesnt work in the car.' This inevitably made me think of God and Job or other examples of God's divine attributes not being fully explained or explainable. How can He? Will we even understand? How would that knowledge change our understanding of the world? of the future? free will? Or our relationship to Him? Might it be fair to say that some information we cannot conceive? I would think so given other complex ideas such as the Trinity. And wouldn't we expect some attributes of a literal God to be inconceivable to us? I mean if they all where conceivable, would He really be God? Ultimately I think we each have to come to our own realizations about this topic. I believe the evidence is convincing even though I struggle with some of it. Others may not. But each of our personal stories shouldn't be the only baseline for the evidential standard for all given how different we all are.

Sliding in with a quick rebuttal. Huge fan of Alex, he's the vestigial bones of my atheism in the new creation that is my doubts of it. Was about to watch his video and was impressed that this rebuttal was up in conjunction with the original.

Appreciated his observation that conscious sentience is a prerequisite for suffering, and that it presents just as much of a conundrum for the atheist as suffering does for the theist. That was a good point. Wish he had spent more time addressing Alex’s geographical argument, as I don’t feel like that was adequately answered and there are good rejoinders even in the Bible itself. However, I know he only had so much time.

Thank you

Divine hiddeness and problem of evil are the 2 big ones that stump me and discourage me. I think this response is great and is a good next pathway for me and others to keep exploring answers to these based off of what you have said

Let's see....... ❤️

Great Vid!

When I looked at that clip, I thought "Mmmmmm...that seems the kind of clip designed to provoke responses"

I would love to see you discuss and refute Joseph Campbell's teachings. They are being taught today (my grandchild told me that I need to read the wonder Joseph Cambell, who she learned about in her World Religions AP class at the local college). Will make your hair stand on end! and they are being taught as truth to our vulnerable young people. Sickening!!!

It is not a problem if someone talks fast, but when interpunctuiation is totally ignored it makes things said meaningless. Furthermoer one should not start a refutation with his opinion.

What makes Christians think that the only God who can be discerned is the one described by Christian doctrine? God is perceived to be many different things.

Man, why do atheist insist so much on the problem of evil, is not a strong arguement, why don't they attack divine simplicity or something better

Ever heard of Dr Irving Finkel? I wonder if you could respond to his claims about Christianity.

In my opinion, a non-resistant non-believer is an oxymoron. If I don't believe in something or support something, then it's inevitably due to some resistance or prejudice. In the case of the truth of the bible, or more specifically the resurrection of Jesus. The only reason to reject it as historical fact would be some preconceived belief, reason, or bias that the gospels are false. For example, a Muslim being raised to believe the version of Jesus'story in the Quran is true, so when confronted with the biblical story they reject it.

I myself dont really understand why the problem of evil is a problem, heard examples why its bad but is it really that big of a argument? sure God could made it a bit better but its not really a issue tho?

Yessir!

If there are only two classes:- 1. believers and 2. resistant non believers, - then which version of the Christian God are we referring to when we talk about "belief in"? Is it the Mormon one? The JW one? The deistic one? The Calvinist one? The Arminian God? The Trinitarian God? The non Trinitarian God? The Catholic God? The Protestant God? Given that believers have the inner witness of the Holy Spirit, spiritual discernment, a relationship with God that is better than any human relationship, and other forms of divine revelation then I think you folk need to work out which is the actual true God. Given the mutual finger pointing that goes on between you folk, you are all resistant non believers according to some believer, somewhere. Based on how Christians have behaved, and continue to behave towards each other, and given all the tools they supposedly have to help them resolve their differences, it seems to be that God is very hidden, even to Christians. Why should a supposed non-resistant, non-believer on hearing about a version of the Christian God and thinking that it does not make sense, therefore put his trust in that version of God, lest he be accused of being a resistant non-believer?

"If god knows that a given individual is not going to enter into a good lasting relationship with him, then why would god ensure that the person believes" This is assuming that, god being omniscient, would take the most logical step in this scenario which is not to waste time on people who will not believe. However, if you have read the bible, I think you will notice that it has PLENTY of situations where, god still being omniscient, does the LEAST logical thing. Consider this real world example. I've heard many people say that god let Hitler live as long as he did because he was giving Hitler "time to repent". Now, if god is omniscient, wouldn't he KNOW that Hitler would NOT repent? If that is the case, why waste time and allow him to kill so many Jews before finally stepping in? Another example would be the doctrine of predestination. Wouldn't it make sense that god only spends his grace on those he KNOWS will be saved (those he predestined)? Why would god do anything if there is a chance that it will not work (and if god is omniscient then he already knows what will and won't work)? Would god have created the plan of Jesus before the foundation of the world (1 Peter 1:20) if he didn't KNOW that sin would necessarily result from his creation? Being that he decided to go through with the events (the garden of Eden) anyway, doesn't that mean that god wanted sin to result? He wouldn't come up with the cure for something that wouldn't necessarily happen would he? This is the problem with god being omniscient. It makes sense that an omniscient god would only do what is logical and not waste his time with people he knows wouldn't believe, but the bible is FULL of examples of god doing the least logical thing despite him being omniscient. I mean, if you know everything, why focus on the cure when you can just focus on prevention? Wouldn't that be the more logical thing to do?

God bless you all!

On "Divine Hiddenness"; General revelation is evident in that the vast majority of humanity to have ever existed believes in A God, a creator. They have even found conditions under which the human mind experiences a 'religious' state and think they've found where in the brain that is caused (Granted our understanding is rudimentary, ever changing and likely wrong on most things given the crisis in replication) demonstrating not only do we have a sort of yearning for spiritual connection we're literally built for it. But the further one lives from that spiritual connection the easier it is to deny. Like someone who lives in a city all their life might deny that natural silence exists. On the question of Evil; There are many good responses to this question but the problem is that someone who denies God also denies the eternal perspective, that this corrupt world is temporary and will be restored. The 'good' world will exist but for people to be 'good' they must have the option to choose not to, otherwise they would merely be machines. You must WANT to be good. Which means there will exist people who do NOT choose to be good who could not live in the 'good' world, because it would no longer be 'good'.

"conscious sentience experience" 🤦‍♂️ Conscious SAPIENT Experience. SENTIENCE means SENSATION - FEELING. Feeling does not THINK. Sapience meanings Thinking/Discerning.

Titus 2:13-15 13 while we wait for the blessed hope-the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, 14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good. 15 These, then, are the things you should teach. Encourage and rebuke with all authority. Do not let anyone despise you.

Hey, can you make a response to “the non-alchemist” video on you?

Christ said, "They have the Law and the Prophets. If they don't believe them, they won't believe even if someone returns from the dead." I think what we decide on the God question is almost completely an emotional choice that we then justify with various rational arguments. These debates have their place, but no one is likely to be convinced by argument. They are convinced by action. So as Christians we must redouble our efforts to love our neighbors and reflect God's glory.

Why would God choose to create someone knowing they will choose to reject him and thus have a life in hell? He made them while knowing they would burn in hell for rejecting him?

Why this emphasis on the "stakes" involved in believing or not believing in God, when Jesus is quite clear that one's eternal welfare hinges on living a compassionate life, not on propositional belief? Small wonder that so many are deconstructing their way out of this spiritual trap predicated on a God much too small.

I'm of the opinion that not a single Arminian can make a convincing argument against the Atheist claim of divine hiddeness. Johnathan's attempt here in the video is the best I've seen, yet still fails miserably I'm afraid. We as Christians need to stop being embarrassed over God's sovereignty and simply speak it as it is. God is sovereign over all things and that includes salvation. Why does God choose some to believe and not others? Our God is in the heavens, He does whatsoever He pleases! (Psalm 115:3).

Tribe A VS Tribe B. Nothing new.

But if God already knows I will not believe no matter what the evidence, then why does he allow me to exist if it will only result in my eternal damnation? I am not saying that an all-powerful and all-knowing God cannot know and do these things, but such a God cannot possibly be called just, good, or loving. So Dr. McLatchie may believe in a God that denies people like me and Alex O'Connor sufficient evidence of his existence, but he then cannot also believe that this God is "just" or "good" or "loving".

Like

I've heard many times that we're judged by the light that we're given. Does anyone have scriptural evidence for this?

I realize you were dealt a difficult hand, but that was pathetic. First and above all, pretending to know people better than they know themselves is a particularly bad look for Christians. You need to drop that gaslighting act asap. Second, what is subconscious is by definition beyond one’s volition and control. To claim in this context that “resistance” is subconscious is to admit it is nonexistent. Your attempted rebuttal of this point of Alex’s fails. Third, if you wish to make the extraordinarily counterintuitive argument that evil poses any problem whatsoever for the atheist, you will definitely have to do so with equally extraordinary detail and length. Consequently, your attempt to rebut this other point of Alex’s also fails.

As a christian I think that your first response is pretty bad. You're saying that in the Bible there were people who rejected God even though they had even more evidence. But that's pointing to the Bible again, which Alex doesn't believe in.

I will say, Alex O'Connor is one of the few atheists that is actually actively searching, and is not necessarily opposed to Christianity being true, he just isn't entirely convinced of it yet. His attitude towards the faith has definitely changed for the better over the past few years, which is very rare to see when it comes to online atheists. Here's hoping he'll be willing to finally put his faith in Christ one day. In my mind out of all the atheist voices out there, he's the most likely to do so.

I don't think the category of "non-resistant non-believer" exists, nor that despite his cordial attitude and openness to discussion that Alex is one. What he's doing is sitting in judgment of God, determining that his wisdom regarding what level of evidence God would/should provide is greater than God's wisdom in that respect. This is not non-resistant! The thing keeping humans in spiritual darkness is sin, Alex *is* a sinner and is not yet willing to repent, which again is not non-resistant! ETA: the very category of "non-resistant non-believer" necessarily assumes Christianity is false, because if Christianity is true then all humans are in rebellion to God until they submit to Jesus. This is not non-resistant!

The real question is why does God force people into existence who he knows won't believe in him and then punish them for it? Before responding _"but muh free will"_ make sure to comprehend the implications of omniscience and the free will decision to create or not.

I'm 40 seconds in and already found problem with Jonathan's response. He's basically making the case of _''If God already knows who's not gonna _*_submit to him_*_ then why would he bother showing up''_ To which stands an objection that immediately comes to mind. _Recognizing the existence of the president is different from being a follower of the president._ Christians often try to merge these two things as if they are one and the same, but they are not. One can believe in the existence of (the christian) God but still chose to not be a follower of christ. Matter of fact there are plenty of people like that right now. That's the whole point of the *free will* christians believe God gave us. The problem is we can't even establish conclusively the existence God, but chistians want to jump immediately to _"what's the point of believing in God if you're not gonna worship him?"_ My question then is which is more important: *Free will or Worship?* And the way Jonathan is arguing his case, the answer seems to be worship. * If the answer is worship, why give us free will? * If the answer is free will, why punish those who chose to not worship?

Dawkins said he doesn't believe in God and yet he begrudgingly admitted that Yeshua is legit on Joe Rogan's podcast. Doesn't he understand the paradox of believing Jesus is real but not believing in God since Jesus is God. So he atleast believes in something...he just doesn't want to call It, God.

Oh please. Stop arguing over the self evident.

Those are the worst arguments against theism lol

What original doubts.