Видео

Am afraid I have to agree to everything you just said. This is amazing to see 😅

Ah, yes, thinking critically can be so exhausting, can’t it? It’s much easier to just sit in church, nod along, and shout "Hallelujah!" on cue. No messy questions, no pesky contradictions-just the comfort of someone telling you what to believe. But here’s the thing: real thinking, while tiring, is infinitely more satisfying. Instead of blindly swallowing what you’re told, you get to wrestle with ideas, confront hard truths, and reach conclusions based on reason and evidence. It’s not always easy, but it’s worth it. So yeah, if the responses here feel “beyond tiresome,” maybe it’s because they demand something more than a “Hallelujah.” They demand thought.

If God didn’t know how it was all going to play out, that’s not just a hit to his omnipotence-it’s a blow to his omniscience too. How can you be all-powerful and all-knowing yet somehow be surprised by your own creation? That’s like designing a clock, watching it tick, and then going, “Wow, I had no idea it would keep time!” If God didn’t foresee the chaos, suffering, and “fall of man,” then he’s either not omniscient or he’s willfully negligent. Neither option lines up with the idea of a perfect, loving deity. So, which is it? A god who didn’t know? Or a god who knew and let it happen anyway? Either way, the idea of omnipotence takes a big hit.

@@theGuideMarkII 100%, and exactly the same when it comes to something like Noah's Ark: God was "disappointed" with his creation so decided to delete it all. Huh? How can an all-knowing and all-powerful entity possibly be 'disappointed' by anything. He either designed it or foresaw it, or both. How on Earth can something happen outside of either his knowledge or will? Absolutely ridiculous and logically devoid at even the most basic level. Important that we don't let apologetics continue to try and make the argument more complicated or convoluted in order to try and increase its legitimacy. We have to keep bringing them back to these basic and fundamental failings that in any situation outside of religion would be totally stupid and worthy of contempt.

Thank you, Anna, for your kind words and well wishes. I truly hope one day you find wisdom that is grounded in reason, evidence, and the beauty of understanding the world as it truly is. While atheists often have questions, they refuse to settle for “god of the gaps” reasoning, where anything we don’t yet understand is attributed to a deity. True wisdom embraces the big questions, seeks answers, and admits when it doesn’t yet know. If I may nudge you just a bit-next time you’re in church, try really listening to what’s being said. Not just nodding along or taking it as truth, but listening critically. Ask yourself if it makes sense, if it truly reflects reality, or if it’s filled with contradictions. That’s what I started doing, and ironically, it’s what set me on the path to losing my faith. It might feel like stepping off the beaten path, but as Dorothy learned, sometimes following the yellow brick road can lead you somewhere far more real and profound than the Emerald City. Keep asking, keep listening, and I “pray” (to no one in particular) that you find joy in seeking truth for yourself.

I think it would be a waste of Alex's time in this particular case, sadly. There's no conversation to be had with this level of integrity-void fundamentalism that could have any useful outcome, I don't think. When intellectual exercise and enquiry is met with an almost robotic level of rehearsed scripture and doctrine, it's just time to walk away. Sad but true, and I wish I was wrong. It makes me incredibly sad to think that children may be subjected to this sort of thing. 😥

This promise of God was invented by people to justify their actions. Nothing more and nothing less.

@@tawhv ?

@CharlesBrighton-mr4ev What is the question? Do you really believe that the Israelites would have written down that God condemned them for their actions and that they would have included that in their Bible? Isn't it much more plausible that they knew it was wrong, did it anyway and then passed it off as God's command? Let's look at how Putin or Islamists act. They present their actions as God's wish

@@tawhv I'm glad you clarified because I thought that's what your original comment was saying. But yes, wars and atrocities justified by holy books are within the past, exist within the present, and will continue into the future.

@@tawhvagree that’s more plausible and what I’ve always thought as well. The bible is not a historic account describing things chronologically.

Hold up-so he is asked how this docrine justifies this act-and he justifies it by interpreting doctine?!? Insane!

@@Dechelgo No, that's not what he is asked though. Justifying the act using the doctrine is easy and pointless. For example: Q. How does the bible justify God's homicidal tendencies? A. Because the bible says it was God's will and that it was OK in these circumstances. Nothing 'satisying' about that. As I said - you can simply use the thing to prove/justify the thing. I believe he was more likely asking how it is justified OUTSIDE of the doctrine. As in, "how do you as a follower and/or a preacher of this religion, justify or reconcile the acts of your own God?" Not "How does God's doctrine justify the acts of God?".

@ well that is how they reconcile it. The title is pretty click baity, but that’s really the only issue.

@@Dechelgo Fair enough. I think it is click baity - and dishonest - too, it's very frustrating to just get copy-paste responses when you're looking for decent points and debate.

@ The two choices are, from what I know, as a catholic, this one, and the arguments that is it symbolic by people Jonathan Pageau & Jordan Pererson. I don’t know if they talk about this story specifically, but that’s how they would describe it.

That’s an excellent angle I hadn’t addressed in my responses, as the discussion here is more about the nature of “God.” But you’re absolutely right-this point deserves much more attention. The historical and archaeological record shows that the Israelite conquest didn’t happen and that the Israelites were simply another group of Canaanites. Their language, culture, and religious practices were virtually identical to those of the Canaanites, and even their early god, Yahweh, seems to have emerged as a regional deity among many others in the Canaanite pantheon. Archaeological evidence, like the lack of widespread destruction layers in cities they supposedly conquered, points to a gradual cultural shift rather than a dramatic conquest. Genetic studies further confirm their close ties, showing no significant differences between Israelites and other Canaanite populations. These conquest stories were likely invented during the Babylonian exile to give the remaining tribes a shared identity and history-a narrative to explain their struggles and unite their people. It’s both fascinating and ironic that these fabricated tales are now used to justify the actions of a supposedly loving God. Hilarious, indeed!

I’m sorry, friend, but your philosophy is appalling here. “Beyond space, there’s nothing.” Begging the question. You’re right, if naturalism is true, but you can’t assume that a priori in this context. “Without space, there’s no way to store information.” Think about that sentence a little deeper. Information is immaterial. All concepts (information) are inherently abstractions. Material objects only contain information through intent (sender), interpretation (recipient), or both. Information is thus linked to thought, and hence does not need space to contain. Further, as an omniscient being, God does not “process” information; He already knows. The argument from irreducible complexity is targeted specifically at Darwinian evolution. It is not an ontological argument. The premise that all irreducibly complex systems cannot evolve =/= the premise that all irreducibly complex systems must be created. Further, Darwin himself conceded the validity of the argument: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” (Bear in mind, I’m not trying to prove God here. I’m only pointing out the flaws in your arguments.) I’m still thinking and parsing through argumentation, as I’m sure you are. While we should have at least a general stance on such important issues, it’s best to keep questioning and not to settle prematurely.

@@goodbyesanity1765“Information is immaterial.” Actually, no-it isn’t. Information always requires a physical medium to exist. Let’s break it down: Information Requires a Material Carrier: Information, by definition, is data encoded in a system that can be observed, measured, or interpreted. DNA is a perfect example-it’s a physical sequence of molecules that stores information about building proteins. Without the material structure of DNA, the information doesn’t exist. Even concepts or abstractions rely on physical substrates. When you think of an idea, it’s the result of neurons firing in your brain. When you write it down, it’s stored in ink, paper, or pixels on a screen. Strip away the material carrier, and the information is lost. Abstractions Are Derived from Material Interactions: Concepts like “cold” and “warm” don’t exist in a vacuum; they relate directly to our sensory systems, which are physical processes. They’re ways we categorize material phenomena, not independent entities floating around in some metaphysical realm. Information is always grounded in material reality, even if we later abstract it for easier understanding. Omniscience and Processing: Your claim that God “already knows” and doesn’t need to process information is a convenient way to sidestep the problem, but it ignores how knowledge works. To “know” something requires the ability to distinguish one thing from another, and this requires sequence, cause, and effect-all of which are grounded in time and space. Without sequence, knowledge collapses into a meaningless singularity where everything and nothing are indistinguishable. The Problem of Storage Beyond Space: Without space, there is nowhere to store information, even conceptually. Storage requires a system with parts (like bits in a computer or neural connections in a brain) that encode distinctions. Without spatial structure, there are no distinctions, and thus no information. Your Argument Contradicts Itself: You claim that “information is linked to thought” and thus doesn’t need space. But thought itself is a process that requires sequence and context, both of which require time and space. Without these, thought cannot occur, and thus neither can information.

@@goodbyesanity1765 “Information is immaterial.” Actually, no-it isn’t. Information always requires a physical medium to exist. Let’s break it down: Information Requires a Material Carrier: Information, by definition, is data encoded in a system that can be observed, measured, or interpreted. DNA is a perfect example-it’s a physical sequence of molecules that stores information about building proteins. Without the material structure of DNA, the information doesn’t exist. Even concepts or abstractions rely on physical substrates. When you think of an idea, it’s the result of neurons firing in your brain. When you write it down, it’s stored in ink, paper, or pixels on a screen. Strip away the material carrier, and the information is lost. Abstractions Are Derived from Material Interactions: Concepts like “cold” and “warm” don’t exist in a vacuum; they relate directly to our sensory systems, which are physical processes. They’re ways we categorize material phenomena, not independent entities floating around in some metaphysical realm. Information is always grounded in material reality, even if we later abstract it for easier understanding. Omniscience and Processing: Your claim that God “already knows” and doesn’t need to process information is a convenient way to sidestep the problem, but it ignores how knowledge works. To “know” something requires the ability to distinguish one thing from another, and this requires sequence, cause, and effect-all of which are grounded in time and space. Without sequence, knowledge collapses into a meaningless singularity where everything and nothing are indistinguishable. The Problem of Storage Beyond Space: Without space, there is nowhere to store information, even conceptually. Storage requires a system with parts (like bits in a computer or neural connections in a brain) that encode distinctions. Without spatial structure, there are no distinctions, and thus no information. Your Argument Contradicts Itself: You claim that “information is linked to thought” and thus doesn’t need space. But thought itself is a process that requires sequence and context, both of which require time and space. Without these, thought cannot occur, and thus neither can information. So, who's reasoning is apalling?

@@goodbyesanity1765 sorry my replies don't show

​@@theGuideMarkII Sorry I didn't see your response sooner. If you wanna see all comments, switch to "Sort by Newest" instead of "Sort by Top." The following are some notes I would raise in objection to your points: Information Requires a Material Carrier: While information is often encoded materially, the material storage is for ease of communication and access (not the other way around as you suggest). The information itself exists and persists outside of the material. For example, the information in a message, such as a letter, exists prior to the letter being written and after the letter is burnt. It is stored in the mind - and not in neural connections, as the same neural firings can encode completely different thoughts, demonstrating that while the material facilitates thought, they are not equivocated concepts. As an inverse example, the image of a "face" on the moon via shadows does not contain true information, demonstrating that information and its physical carrier are distinct. Abstractions are Derived From Material Interactions: While abstractions can describe physical phenomena, not all of them do, nor are they bound by the physical. For example, the laws of reasoning exist, even if humans aren't present to process them. To deny this, we deny reason's power to derive objective reality, rendering all judgments and conclusions void (which is self-defeating if one is engaging in debate in the first place). Omniscience and Processing: God's omniscience is a necessary aspect of His being, especially in a Christian theistic paradigm, not a convenient sidestep. If information is conceptual, not materially-bound, then God can know of "sequence," "distinction," and "causality" sans space-time. Conceptual distinctions exist outside space-time (otherwise information would change with the passage of time, which we do not observe with the constant axioms of mathematics, for example), so it isn't a paradox to have preconceived awareness. I think you're conflating natural processes to God's ontology here. You can't bind the creator of natural laws to natural laws. In a theistic worldview, creation reflects Creator in a limited capacity, not the other way around. Storage Beyond Space: If thought is indeed distinct from their material carriers, distinct concepts can exist even if they don't exist within space-time. Information is stored via intent (source), interpretation (recipient), or both. Refer to the first argument on "information requires a material carrier." Contradictions: This commits the fallacy of equivocation. As I used it, "thought" referred to concepts, not "thinking" as a process. The argument I posed is not self-defeating in this light. Ironically, you use DNA as a prime example of information in the material, but if DNA does contain true information (from intent and not only interpretation), then this is a strong argument for intelligent design that I - in my admittedly limited repertoire of knowledge - am aware of no respectable skeptic scholar denying. (As far as I'm aware, they deny the premises instead, not the conclusion. Yet you're affirming the premises.) Since you didn't respond to my point on irreducible complexity, is that as a concession to that particular refutation? Overall, all of these arguments seem unique to you. I haven't come across these before, so I'm very curious as to your references. If you know of philosophers arguing these talking points, can you refer me to the material so I can look into it further? As far as I'm aware, even those who assert that information is materially-bound must concede that information itself is immaterial.

What have you replaced your Christian faith with? Will it result in a more loving and less evil world?

@@joferg12 What have I replaced my Christian faith with? Reality-a commitment to living authentically, taking responsibility for my actions, and caring for the world we share. Has Christianity ever truly resulted in a more loving world? Let’s be honest: the history of wars, crusades, inquisitions, and oppression in the name of “the Lord” says otherwise. On a personal level, I can say I’m far more loving, caring, and responsible now than I ever was as a Christian. Why? Because there’s no shortcut to “forgiveness” anymore-no divine clean-up crew to erase the mess I’ve made. I take ownership of my actions, make amends, and strive to do better. As for the world, Christianity’s track record hasn’t been great. The environmental neglect alone is staggering. How many Christians see this planet as disposable because they believe in a “new heaven and new earth”? This kind of thinking has turned Earth into a wasteland, with no accountability for the destruction caused. If replacing Christianity with reality means more love, more care, and more responsibility for the only life and planet we have, then yes-it will absolutely result in a better world.

Your analogy begs the question by using Al as an example. Al implicitly do not have "free will;" they function according to their programming. A more apt analogy for the Christian God would be children instead of Al. Indeed, the parent would be responsible for their children's education, nurture, provision, etc., but the children would still be accountable for their own decisions. On the topic of God's intervention into human sin, God at the very least provided all with a conscience and a basic moral compass (which you should grant if your critique is an internal one). The Amalekites rejected this basic conscience for 400 years, until, outside of Rahab, it seems not even 9 others in the land were (relatively) innocent, as with Sodom and Gomorrah. If you can consider God a monster, then I'm assuming you agree on some basic moral principles. Look into the Canaanite culture and their vile religious practices. It's hard to understand God's actions in the Old Testament without proper historical context. Slightly beside the point but on that note, if many historians can justify the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima (actual mass murders of innocents) for the sake of stopping global warfare, then God's OT justice become significantly less reprehensible to modern sensibilities. On a similar vein, many skeptics question why God did not act against events like the Holocaust. Now imagine the crimes of the Holocaust committed on a civilization-wide scale, and you get Ancient Canaan. In effect, God is acting against the "Holocausts of Ancient history" in the OT, but we understand the events anachronistically and hence condemn God for the actions we demand of Him in the same breath. I cannot claim to perfectly understand God's actions. In the interview cited, I applaud Cliffe and Stuart for admitting that the text is difficult, and I admire Alex for deeply contending and engaging with the most challenging aspects of the Bible, raising relevant questions that no Christian should shy away from. (He is indeed a brilliant and open-minded skeptic - one I hope to emulate in my own future.) But neither do I think the text or history, read and understood in context, paint a picture of a divine tyrant. Of course, balancing the tightrope of justice and love is difficult, especially when it comes to dangerous implications like accidentally justifying the Crusades. This is where Jesus comes in. "Perfect love covers all." It's ironic you mention this, because that is the precise culmination of the Christian message: the death and resurrection of Christ, the embodiment of "perfect love covering all." Under the New Covenant, Christians no longer expect to receive direct commands of justice (although God may still act indirectly). Thus, God's justice is complete: He will judge even the slightest misdeed because God is necessarily ontologically holy. Every sin is magnified in His omniscience, as He observes the cascading events (while not necessarily deterministic, are still causal) in full. At the same time, His merciful love is complete: He covers all sin for those who willingly choose to accept His free gift and properly repent - complete with the remorse and the drive to emulate Christ. Whether or not you decide to accept this free gift is entirely on you; God is not so tyrannical as to force your hand, as you condemn Him for. No, it is not megalomanic to punish those who reject Him - it is both a just penance for genuine evil and is a logical consequence imposed by the individual on themself. As the source of love, life, joy, hope, etc. as a necessarily good being, rejecting God also ultimately rejects those same ideals. When someone rejects God, He will remove Himself from their presence in full, as they demand. As the late Christopher Hitchens said (I'm paraphrasing), "Even if God existed, I wouldn't want to go to Heaven." As C.S. Lewis said, "The Gates of Hell are locked from the inside."

Your logical parallel fails. An AI car company exists within a world which would exist independent of the car company’s existence. The world, with gods existence, would not exist independent of god as he created every aspect of world. It’s a lot more complicated than the existence of evil as I would argue 1. We can imagine infinitely better worlds we can live in as well as infinitely worse. In every possible world the worst thing would hold the same essence as every other worst thing in other possible worlds. An atheist living in a world absent of suffering would argue, “Well if god exists why does he allow people to die!”. If you completely remove bad you remove free will. The entailment is if you remove all worst things it will eventually lead to removing people’s choices, we’ll there’s always then going to be a worst or most evil choice so why wouldn’t you remove that as well? Eventually you are going to remove the very essence of person that we are, and eventually argue for the cessation of anything that exist as in reality there’s always a worst. Salvation is complicated but id argue it solves this very simply. 100 years is a blink in the eye of eternity. Yes things suffer for days maybe even years but, to cast judgement on god would presuppose and ignore the aspect of salvation itself. Everything I listed I can go more in depth on but this is sort of how I look at it.

​@@soreeze8483there is no free will and there is no your god of the Bible.