Why Be A Christian? Justin Brierley and Alex O'Connor | Cosmic Skeptic Podcast #5
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 июн 2019
- iTunes: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/16wUbvD...
To support me on Patreon (thank you): / cosmicskeptic
To donate to my PayPal (thank you): www.paypal.me/cosmicskeptic
To purchase Cosmic Skeptic merchandise: teespring.com/stores/cosmicsk...
To anybody who supports (or even considers supporting) my channel monetarily, thank you. I am naturally grateful for any engagement with my work, but it is specifically people like you that allow me to do what I do, and to do so whilst avoiding sponsorship.
-------------------------------------VIDEO NOTES-------------------------------------
Justin Brierly is the host of 'Unbelievable', a highly popular Christian radio show which brings Christians and non-Christians together for debate and discussion. Justin speaks to Alex about why, after a decade of talking with atheists as a profession, he still retains a belief in the Christian religion.
-------------------------------------------LINKS--------------------------------------------
Tweet us at #cosmicjustin for a chance to win a signed copy of Justin's book!
Unbelievable: The Big Conversation: • The Big Conversation
Unbelievable RUclips channel: / @premierunbelievable
----------------------------------------CONNECT-----------------------------------------
My Website/Blog: www.cosmicskeptic.com
SOCIAL LINKS:
Twitter: / cosmicskeptic
Facebook: / cosmicskeptic
Instagram: / cosmicskeptic
Snapchat: cosmicskeptic
---------------------------------------CONTACT------------------------------------------
Business email: cosmicskeptic@gmail.com
Or send me something:
Alex O'Connor
Po Box 1610
OXFORD
OX4 9LL
ENGLAND
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remember to tweet us a comment on this podcast with the hashtag #CosmicJustin for your chance to win a signed copy of Justin's book!
Exams finish at the end of June. After that I'll be uploading like normal again. *Big* interview coming soon.
Nice! Anyway, why do you not seem to ever bring up inflation when it comes to the cosmological constant? Inflation solves the flatness problem (among other things such as the horizon problem and the relic particle problem), hence here you have a physical principle that you were looking for (in the sense that you mentioned it in a earlier video).
Best of luck in your exams Alex, not that you'll need it. ;)
Excited for the interview!!! Thank you for all of the effort you apply!! You truly love what you do and it shows.
Best of luck with your exams!
Sounds really exciting! Can't wait to catch up on podcasts like this once I finish my A Levels next week!
Alex, I’m a Christian and I love your channel. Thank you for being so respectful in discussion. It’s refreshing and keeps me coming back to listen to more of your videos without being intellectually ambushed/ attacked like I’ve felt listening to other atheist channels. People would ultimately make a higher impact on the world if they carried themselves like you do.
Hi. How can you praise an atheist for the 'impact' he is making on the world? He is calling your Father (I hope or suppose) a liar!
Do you know the Lord? Have you been born again, filled with the Holy Spirit? Do you have 100% assurance that you are saved, not because of your confession, but from the witness of the Spirit? Do you hunger for God's Word and enjoy fellowship with Christians more than you do the friendship of the world?
I don't know if you are saved, but your words concern me. Whoever is not for Christ is against Him. Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
@@kenshiloh yeah nah
@kron n Basic Christianity evidence to show the probability God is real is almost 100% and it’s the Christian God
First of all whoever is reading this Jesus died as a sacrifice for the punishment for our sins so we can attain eternal life through him. All you have to do is accept that gift and follow him. If Christianity is false you live a meaningless life without following God and win and lose nothing. If
Christianity is true and you reject you receive punishment for your sins which is eternal separation from God and everything that has to do with God’s nature commonly known as hell. Before any of your objections come into play if Christianity is true they don’t matter. I urge you to research. God bless.
The reason I believe is because of the evidence, the probability of a creator, eye witness testimony to miracles, people’s life experience, and my life experience.
Look into the resurrection evidence, the fine tuning argument, the moral argument, the teleological argument, the cosmological argument, purpose, love, law, order, Biblical prophecy, look into Christian miracles, eye witness testimony to miracles, life testimonies from Christians, look into Jesus’ impact on society such as what year we are in right now and why, look into the historical evidence of Christianity, science stated in the Bible, the archeological evidence for Christianity. That should give you a great place to start if you are skeptic you shouldn’t trust me on the matter. You should seek out all these things to the fullest.
Great resources:
Frank Turek has quick short to the point RUclips videos on misconceptions about Christianity, evidence, and more great place to start. William Lane Craig has a great channel as well.
Watch bishop Robert Barron vs cosmic skeptic debate. Watch Frank Turek vs Christopher Hitchens debate. Watch William Lane Craig debates. Watch John Lennox debates. Watch Frank Turek vs cosmic skeptic debate.
Read:
“Is God a moral monster?” “I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist” “Stealing from God” and “A Case for Christ”
If you research this while pursuing nothing but the truth with an open heart with all objections aside you will find God. I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist. You’ll understand what that means once you see this evidence. Anyone who has “evidence against Christianity” I urge them to type in what that evidence is and watch a Christian apologist refute it.
Debate or discussion links:
ruclips.net/video/0tYm41hb48o/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/eOfVBqGPwi0/видео.html
@@muncher1753 Basic Christianity evidence to show the probability God is real is almost 100% and it’s the Christian God
First of all whoever is reading this Jesus died as a sacrifice for the punishment for our sins so we can attain eternal life through him. All you have to do is accept that gift and follow him. If Christianity is false you live a meaningless life without following God and win and lose nothing. If
Christianity is true and you reject you receive punishment for your sins which is eternal separation from God and everything that has to do with God’s nature commonly known as hell. Before any of your objections come into play if Christianity is true they don’t matter. I urge you to research. God bless.
The reason I believe is because of the evidence, the probability of a creator, eye witness testimony to miracles, people’s life experience, and my life experience.
Look into the resurrection evidence, the fine tuning argument, the moral argument, the teleological argument, the cosmological argument, purpose, love, law, order, Biblical prophecy, look into Christian miracles, eye witness testimony to miracles, life testimonies from Christians, look into Jesus’ impact on society such as what year we are in right now and why, look into the historical evidence of Christianity, science stated in the Bible, the archeological evidence for Christianity. That should give you a great place to start if you are skeptic you shouldn’t trust me on the matter. You should seek out all these things to the fullest.
Great resources:
Frank Turek has quick short to the point RUclips videos on misconceptions about Christianity, evidence, and more great place to start. William Lane Craig has a great channel as well.
Watch bishop Robert Barron vs cosmic skeptic debate. Watch Frank Turek vs Christopher Hitchens debate. Watch William Lane Craig debates. Watch John Lennox debates. Watch Frank Turek vs cosmic skeptic debate.
Read:
“Is God a moral monster?” “I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist” “Stealing from God” and “A Case for Christ”
If you research this while pursuing nothing but the truth with an open heart with all objections aside you will find God. I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist. You’ll understand what that means once you see this evidence. Anyone who has “evidence against Christianity” I urge them to type in what that evidence is and watch a Christian apologist refute it.
Debate or discussion links:
ruclips.net/video/0tYm41hb48o/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/eOfVBqGPwi0/видео.html
@@blakejohnson1264 still nah
I am an atheist and I have to say, Justin Brierley is probably my favorite popular Christian. He is the most honest christian I've ever seen. Not many Christians will admit that they don't know for sure that god exists. Even though he has spoken to atheists for 10 years and is still a christian, he still shows some willingness to be convinced otherwise.
many Christians admit they don't know for sure god exists. In any case you are an atheist - and your post is irrational according to what he argued in this show. So best not to post in future until you embrace Christianity.
Same. Although sometimes I wonder if some “Christian’s” that are honest and help “civil discussion” are actually non-believers but feel the best way to reach into the echo chamber is to simply call themselves Christian, smuggle in honest arguments for atheism. I’m an atheist and feel Christians like him help our cause more than they know.
@@jasonr.8822 Yes, it can work both ways. As a Christian I would say you’re suspicion is at least justified. When he made that assent, it made it clear to me he had no personal relationship with Christ, or at least I personally doubt he has, because there is one heavy doctrine implied in Christian magisterial teaching when concerned with the noetic effects of faith. Meaning, you can no longer deny “rationally” when you come in contact or confronted with Christ. You could dismiss one thing for what you perceive in another as a greater good but the reality of the said referent could never become a nonentity. Example: someone could make me lie, conceivably, today, that it didn’t rain, by torture or some other extreme method, but what would not follow is that my dismissal on grounds of pressure would give me the capability to deny the reality of the rain that fell today. Similarly, with the Christ God. One could deny Him, dismiss Him, be harmed by society in such ways that it seems a far greater good to retreat from Him, but the retreat would prove the reality of the time when with Him and knowing Him as for those who believe. No one can state it’s possible for someone to disprove Christianity without logically giving away the fact that they know not God personally, neutralizing them as a valid person to contend with as an atheist. If I were you I wouldn’t waste time with such people. Us real blooded Christians who are honest and would genuinely be surprised if you proved the faith invalid (but the surprise would come with a proof of an impossibility, and plus, we rarely listen to such “believers”, which in both our estimation, is akin to imposters) don’t follow and listen to such people when he states such things are many other things which are equivalent to what we see as unbelief. I will make clear, I hope for his sake we are both wrong, and for your sake you would reconsider your base existential axioms because Christ is and always will be the case.
God rest
@@TheChristianNationalist8692 All your rational-speak gives you away as a Western Christian, if other factors were ignored.
So much rationalizing about something beyond human rationality.
Question: have you ever experienced significantly altered states of consciousness? Via extreme fasting, exertion, or meditation/ prayer, or via psychedelics?
@@TheChristianNationalist8692 To put it another way, have you ever _met_ God? Spoken to him? I don't mean in a general or vague sense, I mean literally met him, literally spoke to him.
Very nice platform. A dialogue with a Christian rather than arguing.
Please, define dialogue and argumentation.
@@MrGodofcar I guess, godless is trying to say, there is the question being asked and then answered. Its a conversation about the mindset of each person.
To be expected from smart individuals that studied at Oxford. xD
@@oomfiekat Ivy League education not required for thoughtful sensible civil dialogue.
@@redpillpusher exactly
Love how respectful this conversation is!
At least Justin is honest and seems vastly more reasonable than most of these professional Christian debators that we're so used to. I actually enjoyed hearing his point of view.
ruclips.net/video/hlCc_TA7gw8/видео.html justin's not a bad guy
Then you should listen to Justin's podcast 'Unbelievable'. But be prepared to lose you mind in the absurdity of believers trying to convince each other they are rational and reasonable in their faith.
@@R3DASH09 How many likes this ridiculous video has holy shit. The banana we human selected is fit for human consumption and we human are adapted to our environment but not because of evolution ofc HOW AMAZING.
Being nice and respectful is good and I love it too, but it's not the point here.
@Your Greatest Ally I agree but I can understand the aggression of atheists that have been educated in a belief that threatened them when they had no chance to defend against their indoctrinators. It is unbelievably difficult to get rid of such an education. Alex once said in a video about hell, that can still feel a fear deep inside about it.
He looks like genetically modified skeptic's dad. 😂😳
LOL
😂 😂
I actually thought it was him at first lol
And gordon ramsey looks like his dad
@12 years oldwhat , no why
To maximize the experience of this conversation, it is important to imagine that Justin is taking damage every time he says "hmm"
I'm a Christian and fan of Justin's show. I watched this because he linked to it. I appreciate the civil discussion. Thanks for having him on :)
ty
You should be ashamed of yourself for being a christian.
@@MrGodofcar Oh, shut up you troll.
@@KingOfBboys You shut up, and I'm not a troll.
@@MrGodofcar Why be ashamed of being a Christian?
21:24 start of the actual discussion of arguments for or against Christianity.
The start of the shifting of the burden of proof.
I would say it's the 35 min mark ^_^
Naw, one should not miss Justin's ridiculous commentary re: atheists in the first 30 minutes
@12 years old
Yes
One way that societies can become more moral is by people losing religion.
On "free will" Justin didn't offer up an argument he just kept repeating over and over that he doesn't believe that we don't have it!
Huge respect to Justin! Pretty sure he's the most pleasant believer I have ever witnessed in a discussion.
yes and he believes that you have no ability to reason - so your post is without any foundation.
@@theunrepentantatheist24 He literally does say you have the ability to reason because it comes from free will. Did you even watch the video? My God stop being arrogant and go back to Dodge Dillahunty.
Every one of his points boiled down to, "I don't like the consequences of X being true so I feel X is false."
Who are you taking bout m8?
@@lalaluv093 Justin.
@@lalaluv093 for example, he rejects determinism because he doesn't like the idea that he isn't a free agent...... and he rejects subjective morality because he doesn't like the idea that torturing babies could be morally permissible (and confuses moral subjectivism with moral relativism)
@@xImBeaST12321x The thing since he believes in god, he can't have free will. Even without god we don't have free will but with god its even more so true we don't have free will.
davelanger you can have free will with God. Just because God knows what you’re going to do doesn’t mean you don’t have free will.
"This episode of the cosmic skeptic podcast is braught to you by... EU"
Take that Brexiteers! /s
@@hansb1337 Checkmate atheists
The EU sponsoring godless barbarians as usual hehe
@Damian Sauce i dont give 2 fucks who dead people love.
Hey simple pimple.. you sure are a dummy.
The fear of death and the search for meaning in life can cause extreme cognitive dissonance.
We all know the meaning of life. It is 42.
@@boterlettersukkel With a little procreation in between.
Patrick Connor Very well said. I think childhood indoctrination plays a part too.
That plus a lack of education, and critical thinking skills.
Pretty much your identity, everything is just based on beliefs - why should we only focus on religion? It is cognitive dissonance as well
These two guys are two of my favorites in this whole realm.
This is how these sort of discussions should be had. Gives me so much hope to see a young person being mature and calm and capable of hosting a well planned, organized conversation with someone of an opposing view. Thank you for the stimulating video!
i like the friendly conversational debates, it feels more like a cooperation trying to find the truth instead of competition
one problem with him saying god choosing humanity gives humans a feeling of dignity is that it intrinsically makes other groups worth less in their eyes even if they're similar.
this is probably a significant reason why christians and muslims never had a large vegan population
The ONE PROBLEM in all of this is the presupposition that god(s) even could exist.
Not exactly. Scripture shows that God values all people...even non-Christians. This is the message in the parable of the Good Samaritan, the Book of Jonah, and many others.
@@jamesgossweiler1349 Scripture does 'show' anything. It's the claim, not the the evidence or proof of the claim.
There are other religions with scripture too, and some of them don't value all people. Do those 'show' anything?
Hi Greg! Interesting point. Even within the Christian community there are two views. Some hold Scripture as the inerrant word of God and "cold fact" and others believe it was written by people "inspired by God." I think the answer is somewhere in the middle. Actually, Scripture shows plenty. Having studied the Bible in the original Hebrew and Koine Greek since the 1970s, I think I'm qualified to make that statement. As for me, I simply believe...I don't need scientific proof. Each has to decide for themselves.
@James Gossweiler
i think you misread my arguments, i was talking about the treatment of animals and how god choosing humans over them doesn't just give dignity but also blinds them to similarities animals have to humans since it goes against their notion of humans being special. this in turn reduces their capacity to feel empathy for them and makes them justify cruelties that is simply undeserved.
that being said, i've met several christians in my christian childhood that claimed we were "chosen" by god to have the correct faith, i know that's not based on scripture but that's the logical consequence of people with low self esteem using scripture to justify propping themselves up.
as for scripture itself, there are a lot of statements in the bible that are at best open to all sorts of interpretations so i don't consider it reliable.
there is also the problem that once you consider one group not worthy of life based on their genetic background (ea not being human) and inability to defend their moral worth, it opens up the possibility of being open to hurting others which are less capable of that as well. the bible, koran and torah/talmud are great examples showing a real distaste towards consideration for women and children. of course it's also because of other factors at play, but a culture that finds killing/exploiting other beings okay even though they know pain and want to live does not escape spillover effects to other groups.
Fantastic dialogue. I learn twice as much in the same amount of time when two perspectives can bounce off each other. When only a single side is presented, it can be fun to feel like your team is winning, but in reality it builds up an edifice of understanding of only one side of a perspective. If one side is all you learn, later on you can't grasp the opposing perspective, and may find in insensible, rather than recognizing the difficulty of building the corresponding edifice necessary for understanding in your mind.
My big takeaway is these are not easy topics. As Cosmic Skeptic has said elsewhere, watching debates is the best way to build ground-level knowledge such that you won't be lopsided.
Don’t forget your short, informative videos. I believe they helped a lot of people with misconceptions. I enjoy your long discourse but miss the videos that got me started with you. Best wishes on your exams.
This is so great. Both of them stayin so calm and collected like actual adults. Bravo gentlemen
The moral argument presented here appears to come down to Justin's internal sense of right and wrong, coupled with a distaste of the idea that it may be in some sense arbitrary. All those feelings can be explained naturalistically (by evolution), and whether or not something is uncomfortable has no bearing on whether it's true.
Thomas Jackson atheist are the ultimate users of ad hoc hypothesis with regard to Darwinian evolution (not to mention in complete ignorance of incompleteness theorems). Pathetic. And also why they’ll never win a debate with a real philosopher.
So are you saying that good and evil don't exist apart from our subjective opinions and preferences? If so, how can you make any moral condemnation or criticism of religious morality when all moral opinions are on a par on moral subjectivism?
@@anonymousperson1904 i'm not sure what you mean by "moral condemnation of religious morlity". If you mean how could we morally condem for example the catholic churches stance on homosexuality. We really could do only two things, say that their stance doesn't fit with our subjective morals and try to, as alex explains, convince them that we all agree to seek pleasure and avoid pain (per definition) and convince them that their stance on homosexuality does not actually help them in the persuit of plesure and the avoidance of pain.
@@John-lf3xf your projection is showing
That's my exact interpretation
This was great. I'm so used to hearing Brierly as a moderator/host. I liked hearing his thought process here (as well as yours, Alex). This was a thought-provoking conversation.
As always, a pleasure and delight to watch and engage with. Its sad that many places on the internet are not so amicable or polite. Awesome video. Much love to everyone. Take care of yourselves.
JB - Can you choose to be convinced of something
AO - Yes
JB - Okay...choose to not believe in god
AO - No...I can't
He just answered that in a hurry because he got a different sense from what Alex wanted to point out.
That's why he then corrected himself and explained why he can choose to make the action to reason.
Btw, Alex's question is irrelevant to the question whether or not free will exists.
It's like saying "can you choose the person to love? If not, boom... free will doesn't exist".
It doesn't work like that. Yes, there are some things you can't choose, but that doesn't mean free will doesn't exist.
It just means that free will doesn't apply to everything. Simple as that.
@@alexinhoMelius I'm more radical. I believe that choice is inherently not free. Because there is always something that will make you take an option over the other. Be it reason, desire, morals... you name it. That is my case against free will; will, by definition, is not free. You do not choose how logic works, you do not choose your desires, and I could definitely make the case that, on a fundamental level, you do not choose what morals you have. And since every choice is based on those, choice is inherently not free. At least, definitely not in an absolute sense. You can't go back and just decide to take the other option based on nothing that will compel you to that other option; like, you could do it just to prove me wrong... but then, you do it to prove me wrong, so it's not based on nothing, and therefore, you would be proving me right.
So that is my condensed argument against free will. I will be happy to read your counterarguments (unless you do agree, and you were just explaining how that other argument doesn't work).
@@alexinhoMelius That point was to show that you cant choose what you believe in or are convinced of not that free will doesn't exist. The claim was that free will allows you to choose to believe in God and he was saying you can't choose to believe not as a proof of free will not existing but to demonstrate that you can't choose what you are convinced of. Though if you can't choose what you believe in it does disprove being able to freely choose God
@@Mercure250
What made that stone rolling? I do research and find 10 ways to cause a stone to roll.
Now i am the master of causality, who can cause stones to roll.
But what made that stone rolling?
You must admit, that we have a strong bias towards causality and determinism. That's how we created the mess we are in.
But i agree. Most popular debates are beating strawmen.
So let's ask differently: Is everything motivated by deterministic causality?
@@Mercure250
I would like to make a premise first.
I believe none of us can prove his point, so whatever we say it's just an opinion.
Do you agree with that?
Saying that, my opinion is that from my point of view your theory is illogical.
So, it pretty much depends on what exact logic applies in every human's brain.
I disagree with your statement "you don't choose how logic works".
My theory is that you can't choose *common* logic, but you can choose your own logic.
And your own logic pretty much depends on your IQ, character and how you were raised.
Now you would ask me "if everyone has their own logic, why does common logic exist?".
Because we have some things in our dna that make us want to have the best possible social life. That means that we biologically tend to imitate others.
So, we choose to have a logic that is very close to the logic of the biggest group of people who think similarly (which is called common logic), so that we can have positive, peaceful and comprehensive social relations with other people.
Then you could say "but you can't choose your IQ, your character and how you were raised".
That is true, but you can choose to change the first 2 of them by changing your life actions. For example studying, have a mental coach, listening to philosophical lectures, etc...
All those are results of free will.
In the end, I think we may have different definitions of what free will truly is.
This comment section is disappointing. For all the intelligence that's supposedly there, it's sad to see people not engaging in the arguments at all.
Yes, he believes in God, so what you, the critical listener, should take away isn't "omg guy so stupid", but rather "Why does he believe?"
This doesn't mean that he is objectively right (that neither can be is acknowledged in the first few minutes) - but for real, people, try to engage with an argument you don't agree with.
I mean, I'm an outspoken atheist, but the guest does have a worldview that's way more solid than mine.
The fine tuning argument has been a joke the entire time it has existed.
No. I listened to a good 1/2 hour of the podcast. His ONLY argument is ‘it’s the best explanation for this”...
Abductive reasoning only gets one so far. He arguments are all shit
@@TheMrfrodough It's a highly complicated argument that I personally don't find convincing.
But the fact is, as far as we know there is only one universe, and it brought life with it. That can be coincidence, there may be a multiverse with different parameters, there might be something entirely different. If the argument didn't make you pause for at least a short while, I'm not sure you've understood it.
Anyway, even if you think this argument is hilariously stupid, the guy's view on the moral argument was the first one that I can actually get behind. ("I think humanitarianism is super important, and so is objectivism - so I chose a world-view that had it as its core")
Doesn't mean I'm a Christian now, but I can see how this helps powering through "doubt"
@@Fs3i the fine tuning argument is actually incredibly simple and effectively a logical fallacy in of itself.
TheMrfrodough it is not a logical fallacy, it is a serious and deep argument which many cosmologists take seriously. And it actually drives discussions and research about certain cosmological issues (such as multiverses and even Boltzmann Brains). You could've been more honest and just admitted that you have a layman, superficial understanding of the Fine-Tuning Argument and have never actually read anything by, say, Robin Collins or Luke Barnes. We both know that is the case, right? So yeah.
Just listened to this as a podcast, Alex. Super discussion and a great guest. Keep up the good work.
I really like and respect Justin and think his show is a great way for the general public to interact with these ideas. Props for having him on, and I'd love to see you on his show more Alex.
I enjoyed your conversation with Justin Brierley. Whenever I have any talk with a theist I always begin by asking if their belief in god started at a young age. Did they begin going to church at as a child. We’re they told that if they engaged in an action that was unacceptable, they would be tortured for eternity in hell. That fear is so deeply indoctrinated in them that to give up that belief takes an enormous amount of self reflexion and teachings. However, when asked if they believed in Santa Claus growing up as a child they found it very easy to give up that belief because there was no fear of repercussions. Fear is an extremely challenging emotion to rid oneself.
To me, catching them young is akin to smoking; once caught it's extremely difficult to stop
As an agnostic, it’s so nice to see the conversation between Christians and Atheists moving in a civil direction. I think every belief or idea that I’ve changed my opinion on, came from a person who showed me respect, and understood that my opinion wasn’t a reflection of my character or day to day behavior. People can hold really strange beliefs, but still be caring and compassionate. So it’s good to separate the human from the ideology.
The journey of epistomology has become so much more interesting listning to this balanced discussion , wondefull to assertain a coherent and informative insight from both of you .
🤯 Alex, your mind is incredibly fascinating. I love your show, love your logic and I'm just over all impressed with the patience and calmness you exhibit when I'm on my phone rolling my eyes (not at you) after you explain your clearly made, logical response for the 4th time, lol.
justin has such a soothing voice. love to see these 2 together
Fine-tuning argument:
If things were different then things would be different. Whoop-de-do!
The probability of rolling 3 consecutive sixes is the same as the probability of rolling a 1 and then a 2 and then a 5.
D LJ yes exactly. I always find the fine tuning argument funny - of course if things were different we wouldn’t be here.
However, one could imagine the universal laws being slightly different and a different form of life happened.
Then they’d say “woah it’s fine tuned for life!”
It’s obviously whatever life you find is gonna be fine tuned for the universe it’s in.. else it wouldn’t exist.
@@meller7303
Indeed. It's the Douglas Adams puddle story.
Oh, and I have a naturalistic explanation of morality if anyone is interested.
@@meller7303
Yes, fine tuned by natural adaptation through simple things going into less simple things. From a reactionary existence to adaptive change and rivalry with kin and similar, further going into evolution through natural environmental /sexual selective pressures among other things. An in essence elegant yet highly faulty but "Working" natural process, unique only as to the arbitrary point in space time whatever kind of life developed over time.)
Design don't exist other than in the minds of people.
D LJ Yeah, always seems to me as though they have everything backwards with the fine tuning argument. The universe is the way it is and we are what happened to evolve from that, it wasn’t ‘created’ with us in mind.
It also seems incredibly arrogant to believe the cosmos is finely tuned with us in mind when our own little speck of dust called Earth is largely uninhabitable by humans much less than entire observable universe appearing to be naturally uninhabitable by humans.
I’m late to the party, but I love this video! The friendly, respectful debate here puts a smile on my face every 5 minutes.
I talked with some Atheists and we came to an interesting Result:
Atheists dont have this 'inherent desire to spread their word',
which of course is UNDERSTANDABLE buuut it also has negative side-effects, evidend by Atheist-Channel generally being smaller than theist-channel.
So i think we should all self-reflect here.
Hey @CosmicSkeptic,
I'm a Christian, but every time I've seen your videos I've truly admired the charity and respect with which you engage others. It really makes you stand out, among both atheists and Christian thinkers. It's truly an inspiration.
You make it clear that you are genuinely looking for truth, not just to win an argument. I really hope that journey takes you to amazing places over the course of your life.
Video Deconstruction:
Alex is spot on when he questions where in the evolutionary process god intervened to create humans in his own image. Justin believes god built compassion (and everything else) into humans. But we can arrive at compassion naturally by understanding that compassion evolved in many social species - species dependent upon one another for their survival - a trait without which these species would have gone extinct. No god necessary. Justin goes on to ask atheists to consider why humans think humans have value on a naturalistic worldview. Simply because every species has evolved to generally favor itself over other species, otherwise they would have gone extinct. Humans can just articulate this view better than others. But had dolphins developed the appendages to use complex tools, along with robust communication skills, one dolphin would be asking another dolphin on a PODcast (get it?) why dolphins all think they are so special as a species.
Justin later says he believes people just know torturing babies is wrong, but thinks the only grounding can be god because naturalism doesn’t do it. But of course it does! Once you allow for certain traits like compassion and empathy to evolve in a species, you have a natural grounding for an innate sense of wrongness for torturing babies. Furthermore, if two branches of humans broke off from each other long ago, one who brutally tortures their youth, and another which does not, one can reason the psychological and physical impacts of being tortured when young would be detrimental to that society in the long term, thus eliminating the branch of torturing humans from the evolutionary tree.
I do have to disagree with Alex when he seems to simplistically ground morality in the subjective pleasure/pain dichotomy. Just looking at it through this lens, it isn’t robust enough to ground our morality as a species. He does hint at something more when he briefly talks about making the case that rape is objectively less pleasurable on a grander scale, but needs to flesh this out. He would also wager that a rapist alone on an island with a victim wouldn’t truly find pleasure in raping. Prisons are full of rapists who enjoyed raping and would go on raping absent being caught. Rape of defeated societies was also widespread and commonplace throughout history (including the bible). So human morality cannot be boiled down so simply to just pleasure vs. pain, but rather our morality is a combination of inherent evolved traits (such as empathy and compassion) combined with an intellectual structuring of ethical rules.
For example, as a thinking agent, I can see that other humans are also thinking agents, and therefore I can imagine myself in their shoes. Employing a veil of ignorance suggests that, when considering morality, we should imagine ourselves as both the rapist and the victim. While the rapist may indeed derive pleasure from the act of raping, the victim derives pain. This is an observable fact. So, we need an additional perspective beyond just subjective pleasure and pain when considering human interactions. To paraphrase Jefferson, we need to consider that all humans have evolved equally, and thus, to be consistent, should be considered equal regarding moral considerations. With this principle, we can see why the Nazi’s were immoral for torturing and killing Jews (because the Jews were not any less human despite claims to the contrary). We can see why slavery in the bible and elsewhere is and always has been wrong (because no human is elevated to treat another human as property), etc. There is more to be said, but this begins to address why I think Alex’s assessment of morality is too simplistic as expressed in the video.
To Justin’s point, we can objectively assess other societies that devalue women and recognize that there is an artificial limit placed on the women of that society. Coming from a society which places higher values on women and individual liberties, we have an empirical basis for assessing which system is preferred given humans have evolved equally and thus there is no basis to treat them unequally. For example, few women (or men for that matter) in a free society where they are valued equally would choose to subjugate themselves to men and abandon many of their liberties to a less free society. Alternately, we can see many people have tried to escape oppressive societies to relatively more free societies all the time. And it is this empirical, comparative component which is what allows human morality to improve over time. Once we have an understanding that we are all equally human and all value liberty, pleasure, and wellbeing, and that we, as a species, are in charge of our own moral landscape, the notion of a god becomes superfluous and, can in fact, pollute the discussion.
Lastly, free will. Justin simply asserting that he could make a different decision than the one he made if the clock was rolled back is simply an assertion without any means of demonstration. If all the factors which exist at time T lead you to choose A over B, then you would have to somehow introduce a new factor which didn’t originally exist at time T that would lead you to choose B over A if you could run the experiment again going back to time T. The set of all factors which led you to choose A over B in the first place would not and could not change if you could somehow go back to time T. Case closed.
Overall, this video represents a fantastic, civil discussion between an atheist and a Christian which was far more productive in generating food for thought than most structured debates in my opinion. Well done!
One could argue humans have dignity to see not only they are special other species are special and valuable, more so than any other species in its relationship with other species..Compassion and empathy can be evolutionary,however it must have developed very quickly in order to be valued and taken hold..It is after all allocating care for your survival and that of another.What really caused that?The inherent realization that I am not seprate from my surroundings.The Q being..were those traits already inside of us as the christian believes or are they caused because humans recognized the pleasure..I will go for inherent,dormant qualities that awakened due to circumstance rather than learned behavior.
oh my gosh thank you for writing this, i was thinking so many of these points and i was kinda shocked Alex didn't make them
I saw one of the debates alex has had on his show & i remember being so impressed with this guys moderator skills. I didn't even knw he was Christian. Wow
Great discussion, really enjoyed it and would love to hear you two talk again. That said I really feel that any discussion about morality or free will should start with both parties clearly defining what they mean by those terms. I really feel you spent most of the discussion talking past each other as you were using different definitions for those terms.
Realy enjoyed the good-spirited conversation. I love the "unbelievable?" show because Justin is an honest, humble, and great mediator and I think you have won me as a subscriber due to similar characteristics Alex. There is a lot of toxicity that goes around in conversations like this and it immediately shuts people down when they sense it, just read youtube comments if you don't believe me.
What if we don't need a god to tell us that we have value and simply agree on it? Adding a God to agree on does not seem necessary.
Furthermore, it's not as if that God put value on all people in the bible (slavery in both NT and OT, disregard to women, if not complete genocide), so I find saying this comes from the Bible disingenuous.
François Plesse What you are saying is an entirely subjective value judgement. Furthermore, you could level the same argument as John Locke against your argument.
Why do you feel you have the right to have no concrete justification for anything yet tell people what is or is not good morality?
@@John-lf3xf I would only partly agree with you: the foundation for the moral system I find most convincing is well-being (from human beings to sentient animals to all living organisms, the line has to be drawn somewhere which can also be discussed). This in itself is I would agree subjective. However if two people agree on that foundation, then what conclusions you can draw from that are completely objective, and I would argue much easier to test than morality from a book written thousands of year ago with very different issues and subject to mistranslation and so on).
So I would say that I have a concrete justification for my morality and it is this justification that makes me criticize the morality that would be drawn from a litteral reading of the Bible. And if people are not litterally taking their morality from it, then they are basing theirs on something else. And finally, I think that making people agree on well being is much more reasonable than to agree on a version of a God to which I have presented with no compelling evidence.
Could you explain what the argument from John Locke is ?
Also, where do you think I'm wrong ?
François Plesse You may feel like your Rousseauan social contractionism less arbitrary than morality derived from a thousand year old book, but that’s just not the case. Also what about it multiple people agree on the same thousand year old book?
John Locke said atheists cannot be trusted because they have no transcendental reason for doing anything.
@@John-lf3xf So what about the parts in the Bible that many of these people choose to thankfully ignore ? On what ground are they choosing to do that ?
Well, John Locke was wrong, you can choose rational atheists to be convinced that this social contract will work in their interest and to uphold it. Also empathy is a thing. Transcendental reasons can be so fickle and chosen to mean whatever people want, so I wouldn't rely on those for trusting people, especially when some of them think that they get a free entry into a new life.
François Plesse Transcendental means that which is outside oneself, and since it is unprovable and untestable, belief in it means very fundamental passionate belief
It seems as if many of Justin's beliefs are held in part because of his discomfort with the contrary. I was hoping Alex would ask him: "Why do I need Jesus?" It would have been interesting to see if Justin would be comfortable to reply: "Because if you don't believe in Jesus, you are heading straight to hell".
But the Christian view isn’t about that, it’s not about fear of going to hell, we don’t want people to become Christian because we don’t want them to go to hell, rather we can see a light in. Em and opportunity in heaven
I'm a Christian. I would say because life is more fulfilling and joyful when you're living the way God designed you to. That's the selfish reason at least.
@@seeinggrey7945 I've heard that said alot, but also the phrases 'my Saviour', 'I'm saved', 'my salvation', etc. From what? It boils down to going to Heaven or going to Hell, regardless of how more fulfilling your live is as a Christian or not.
Best conversation ever from two people who completely disagree! I wish all of our disputes in the world could be handled this well.
Alex has some very solid lines of approach
Actually, no. Lots of false dichotomies and grasping at straws.
@@danielosetromera2090 easy to say, harder to demonstrate. At best the theistic argument was why we may of made the god concept up
I really admire Alex’s goodwill when talking to Christians. I cannot do that, I lose patience very fast.
ruclips.net/video/hlCc_TA7gw8/видео.html
I was going to say that Alain's comment says more about him than it does about Christians.......I was going to say that......then someone linked to a Ray Comfort video......probably one of the most intolerable, disingenuous, dishonest pieces of shit in the Christian World.
'Ashley' proving Alain's point beautifully.
*Weak minded people lose patience.*
Rather lose patience then be a pretentious snob who calls others weak minded for being human.
*I would rather be a realist than an overweight virgin keyboard warrior sweating on his computer and triggered on the internet because his mom hasn't cleaned out his shit bucket yet.*
*Insert coin[s] to try again.*
"You cant convince Genghis Khan with your world view, he would just say I don't care."
But isnt this exactly how it would play out with your "Objective" view?
The truth is that the only evidence for morality being objective is that you REALLY want it to be b/c it would just suck if it wasn't... In fact the world looks suspiciously like morality is subjective.
Eric Mitchell no, that's not true. Look up phenomenal conservatism, and try a book like Ethical Intuitionism by Michael Huemer.
Why would we take Gengis Khan's moral framework as an example of his culture? Every culture has its psychopaths.
Dignity is an objectively true moral law. It applies equally to all, and everyone benefits from it (individually, universally and collectively).
@@stylis666
Dignity is an objective true moral.
@@1StepForwardToday objectively*
But you're using the word _objective_ as true for all people and the universe is more than people. If you say that dignity is an objectively true moral for people, I agree. If you say it's objectively true I disagree because morals are just not universal. I don't think a male spider is very dignified when it masturbates and brings his semen to the female, losing more legs with every attempt.
The spiders don't need morals, as long as the male has enough legs left to succeed in his delivery.
I suppose dignity is important for other social animals as well. Probably not for all of them, but as vain as my cat is, I think it's safe to assume it's important for her as well :p Nah, I was actually more considering the death ceremonies some animals have, but I think my cat isn't even such a bad example to support your position. It's just not a very large sample size. (Don't tell my cat I said that; she thinks she's a sufficient sample size to make all judgement in her favour :p)
Refreshing to listen to opposing arguments, by two sensible and accommodating people. Well done!
This was an exceptionally epic discussion ! The patience and determination (and intelligence!) from both sides allows for a much deeper and more rigorous form of inquiry, getting to the root of disagreement. I particularly enjoyed Alex's thought experiment about turning back the clock to where all atoms were in the exact same state/position and posing the question to Justin of whether he believed the outcome could have been any different for the observer, ie whether or not "independent" thought could influence material outcome. I think that they could very well have touched on what is also a fundamental question in Science, namely wave-particle duality and the influence of the observer in collapsing the wave. The deeper we go into fundamental particle physics (eg, quantum mechanics), the less classic/concrete things behave based on our normal and intuitive understanding of the otherwise physical and mechanical universe. Shrodinger's cat, double slit experiment, and all of that. We have good reason to believe that all of matter conforms to the EM spectrum, and is therefore all fundamentally a manifestation of waves, even if our senses seem to suggest otherwise. This lends credence to the notion that thought/faith precedes form/outcome, thereby strengthening the rational case/justification for believing, from a Scientifically-supported point of view, in the existence of God and His claim of being the Great "I AM", the Alpha and Omega who is the causal/metaphysical necessity (ie, Creator) beyond the constraints of all space and time. I think the bottom line here, is that even if the theist is being overly optimistic about his assessment, a truly informed atheist should have no place mocking him with ridicule or condescending arrogance, which is anything but what we see from our god-less peers who are evidently therefore unsophisticated/uninformed, assertive village idiots for the most part. Barring Alex and anyone who thinks like him, that is :) I've never heard anyone do such a great job at making the notion of a lack in belief in freedom of the will (which on the face of it, seems patently absurd) sound so convincing, as CS does
I wish i could have these convos with the people around me, but its too sensative. Your videos are a vent for me. Thanks for feeding my curiosity.
I had a conversation about belief with my mother in law and she ended up walking away saying I was being antagonistic
There are ways to have these conversations. Look up Street Epistomology.
@I know I’m wrong but, here in America, theists get super defensive. Especially in the bible belt
It'll always be 'too sensitive' w/that mindset/inaction
i must congratulate you CosmicSkeptic to be such a nice debater.
Great discussion! love the topics and your arguments. i hope some of them had an impact on Justin.
I hope some of them had an impact on the cosmic skeptic
I had no choice but to comment lol great talk guys. Thank you so much for the great content. Both of you!
So he has a problem with atheists saying that we lack belief because rocks and plants also lack belief?
Really? Come on. The word “bald” means not having hair. Rocks and plants don’t have hair. Does that mean the word bald is also invalid because rocks and plants are bald?
Really? Am I the only one who thinks this sort of objection is absurd?
That would be like walking into a party and asking me who in the room is married, and then I point to a lamp because the lamp isn’t married....
Sorry I just can’t.
Tracy Harris calles that the "ick factor" - people tend to dislike being compared the rocks, and obviously when it comes to intelligent, we are very different from rocks. It is just a knee-jerk reaction "oh, we aren't rocks therefore the argument must be absurd". But of course a moment's thought shows THAT to be absurd.
Fallacy of false equivalence
How can Alex keep a straight face with all these Christians. I couldn't.
Metalli Vegaani maybe that’s because you don’t have enough intelligence to do anything else
@@mrseph007 Yeah, I know Alex is more intelligent than I am. But that... is pretty awesome regardless.
I was thinking about this very question today ...
Obviously I clicked immediately when I saw this
Hey, I really appreciate the thoughtfulness you put into your videos. I’m a Christian (I promise I actually think tho), but I’m readily aware that we’ve gotten thrown into a world where there doesn’t seem to be great answers from even the people claiming to have them all, and maybe especially them, so it’s applaudable that you are searching.
Anyway, I’ve been following your thought on the ‘force’ behind our life and just wanted to run a thought by you. So, you have said “there is some kind of unseen law that governs the fine-tuning of the universe” and then, “I argue it’s some kind of undiscovered law of physics…” That’s basically where I got with the reasoning out of human life. Like, evolution or whatever had to have some force upon matter to propel it forward. The difference between that and something like a God is the question of intent. Like, does it know it is doing that, or does it have a purpose or reasoning behind its force for life (reasoning coming from a form of mind). It seems like you would agree the question is obviously, “Is this force self-aware?” And so, how do you know if something is self-aware? I think you can only know if it talks to you (at least, if we’re using our logic, which is all we have to go by), maybe there’s a different way though, idk? Regardless, if communication is the way to know intent, then the only real proof one could have for a personal force is by the force communicating with them.
Christians make the claim that the force talked to them in our own medium as well as proved he was the ‘force’ by overriding the laws of our universe (death), so it seems like that actually is the only natural step for a God to make, if in fact he is the purposeful force behind our universe. I guess the claims of Jesus’ resurrection would be the next thing to look at? If they are fake then I don’t really see any evidence for the unseen force talking to us, though I’ve looked at psychedelics a little and maybe dreams - the resurrection seems more straightforward though. But, I actually think there is pretty solid evidence for that force communicating with us (basically Jesus). If you have any thoughts on this it would be much appreciated. Like I said, I am a Christian, but I care to be very solid on what I do with my life and so I like my beliefs challenged. I think the video I quoted was 3+ years old though, so I imagine you’ve had some new thoughts on this since then?
Clear & comprehensive debate. Love the way they both debate!
Did Justin offer anything other than Argument From Incredulity supporting his claim that reason's validity is dependent on free will existing? I remember hearing him say repeatedly that reason's trustworthiness depends on free will, and that he can't understand how we could trust logical conclusions without the ability to choose between options, but I don't remember hearing any evidence or examples, only assertions. Did I miss something? I found Alex's example of the inability to believe something on command useful, and was disppointed that Justin apparently brushed it off instead of addressing it directly.
he said at then end that free will choices would still be needed to get to the stage of being convinced by something which Alex is saying is something you cannot choose. All total nonsense of course. Im afraid the Darth Dawkins presup disease is spreading.
I don't see how any reasonable person can read the bible and not realize how much bullshit they have managed to pack in one book. This guy is either a liar or isn't actually listening to the atheist arguments. He's obviously using the skeptic community's good will to increase his brand.
I don’t get. Are you saying Christians aren’t reasonable?
great vid guys, really enjoyed this one!
really enjoy you guys. Alex has challenged my beliefs on so many levels and I appreciate that because it has forced me out of a hollow Christianity and into a much deeper dive. Like Justin, I have not been convinced by the counter perspective.
Just a thought to add to the discourse: While touching the hot stove, the natural reaction is to pull back away from the stove as to not harm oneself. However, you can override that reaction with will of the mind and leave your hand there full knowing that it will inflict harm. Thus, I am convinced that putting my hand on a stove would cause harm and not be for my betterment but I can by Free Will choose to overcome that convincing fact and inflict harm to myself.
Does that hold any weight?
I've changed my mind about the ability to reason without freewill. I thought it wasn't possible, but Alex has convinced me otherwise. Instead, I now believe you can reason if there is no freewill. You just can't know if your reasoning is leading you to the truth or not.
Sleep, diet, coffee, life experience and the like may influence our "will" to some extent, so I don't know if we have true "free will", but I almost no doubt we have some degree of "will", or "won't" if you prefer.
Do you think we choose what to believe?
If faith is trust, then call it trust. Dillahunty's good on this point.
Faith technicaly has seven definitions, were of I think four were a version of trust and the other two being the biblical version of belief without evidence and the last being the Christian interpretation (excuse)of this same passage.
My personal definition of faith is simply this, it's nothing more than another term for intellectual dishonesty.)
@@guytheincognito4186 Can you tell me where and how you arrived at these "biblical" definitions?
@@TKK0812
One is directly stated in the Bible as mentioned, the other is simply the subjective interpretation of said passage by the average Christian.
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" Hebrews 11: 1.
To see a thorough explanation of the seven definition and their meaning, just go to rationality rules channel and his video on faith and it's definitions. I think the video should still exist. He lost alot of videos like a year or so ago, I don't know the details regarding that however so I can't say anything about whatever happened.
@@guytheincognito4186 Thanks for the response, Guy. So I would quickly disregard discussing a colloquial definition given the vast amount of data we have from the Bible and secular works on the socioeconomic system of client patron reciprocity and how writers of the biblical text would have described or understood grace and faith.
In regards to the Hebrews 1 passage, I'm confused as to how you go from this passage to "believing without evidence".
The word translated “substance” comes from the Greek hupostasis (Strong’s # 5287), which means “a placing or setting under, a substructure or foundation.” This word appears elsewhere in the New Testament as “confident” or “confidence” (2 Corinthians 9:4; 11:17; Hebrews 3:14).
The word translated “evidence” comes from the Greek word elengchos (Strong’s #1650), meaning “a proof, or that by which a thing is proved or tested; conviction.”
The context in question deals not with deciding whether or not a god or the supernatural exist, it's regarding trusting God based off evidence and confidence in His revelation to us and our trust towards Him. Read the whole chapter. Look at verse 29. It talks about Moses, by faith, going through the split Red Sea as if on dry land. How in the world would that be classified as "belief without evidence"? It's because that's not at all what the word means.
Biblical faith comes from careful observation and the weighing of all available evidence to trust God, not just believe He exists. People are sent to prison every day for crimes no one saw them commit. Would you say they are sent off belief without evidence because we didn't see the crime committed? No, it's comes from an examination of evidence. Now you may disagree with the evidence available being justified, but just don't misrepresent faith because your definition is indefensible, anachronistic, and not biblical.
@@TKK0812 You just redefined the definition to mean the same thing. Faith is "the confidence in things hoped for, the proof of things not seen." This is the new passage with your "corrected" definitions. You would be correct in stating that the passage isn't arguing whether god exists but rather that we must have faith in him given that he does, but that's the problem, you're assuming a given. You can't have "faith" in something performing an action if you can't even prove it exists yet. Well, you can, but that would be stupid.
Regarding your example of Moses, belief without evidence is exactly what occurred. Moses had never split the red sea before, and he had never seen god do it, therefore he had no evidence outside of god's word, (so no tangible evidence), that the water would clear away at all. He, by definition, acted on faith.
You are committing the fallacy that was quoted by Dillahunty at the start of this thread. You're just redefining faith to mean trust. In that case just call it trust. "Biblical FAITH comes from careful observation and the weighing of all available EVIDENCE to trust God." You have contradicted yourself within the same sentence. Having faith in evidence is just trusting evidence. You can't have faith in evidence. The statement is a paradox. Your prison example fails for the same reason. We can't see air or gravity, yet we have instruments that can detect both and we can see them in action immediately with a simple jump from the ground. Our hair will move in contact with the air, and we will come back down to earth thanks to gravity. We don't have faith that we will come back down to the ground. We have a trust in physics that we will.
i love hearing both sides of the debate and many times hear an argument that i don't believe. and find that i enjoy it and listen to it and agree with it more or better i guess u could say when it is presented in a calm adult manner and in a well thought out way.i am more likely to listen to it and consider it when it is done that way. unlike calling names and making fun of the other side i listen to reason from both sides and look at what has been shown from both sides of the point and try to make a decision for my self on the subject. i love that u both have shows that respect the other side and debate not like children but like adults the subjects. i m a non believer but will watch both shows from now on and tell others about them . ty
Hi Guys, I've just watched this entire video. Very good conversation despite of the deadlock you guys had. I very much enjoyed the bits about the problem of evil. I've seen very few good conversational material about it. If you guys can do more of it, or point me in the direction of more, I certainly would love it. I've wrestling with it for a while.
Free will (at around 1:24:00)
I would think of it like this.
You cannot choose not to be convinced. Even if you weigh up the evidence, and go through the process as Justin suggests, once you are there were you are convinced, and you say to "Alright, I have weighed all the evidence and I am convinced X is more likely true".
You cannot then go "You know what - I am convinced, but I am going to choose to not be convinced. So now I am no longer convinced."
So .. Alex is right, the way I see it.
You cannot even choose the thoughts you have. As soon as they appear, they are already there. You didn't pick them.
@@hester234 RIght but when a situation arises in your circumstance and multiple thoughts and solutions pop into your head and you ponder them and weigh them and go with the one you believe is the best are you not choosing which one to execute or embrace? Did you not contemplate how to word your response, whether not to answer at all, whether it was worth you time, whether to proof read your response or not, whether you are going to dismiss on dwell on what I am asking you and whether I am even worth answering? I feel like there are more layers to the whole concept of free will then yes or no. Humans seem more complex and beautiful then this. Do you disagree?
@@matthew8720
Humans are very complex and beautiful, but they don't need to have illusions about free will. We are part of nature and as such we as organisms and each of our cells follow the laws of nature. We are not above them.
Of course you can ponder, and decide, and choose, and contemplate - nobody says you can't do that. "No free will" doesn't mean "no will". Every single little step you experience, f.e. when making a decision, is yet another thought that arose in your brain. A thought you didn't author. A thought that was just there.
You can think about your decision for hours or days or months, but every thought that you have must appear first before you even notice that it's there.
There is no freedom in having your next thought. But it shouldn't bother you, it can't be any other way and your will remains unbroken. It's just not supernaturally floating above the laws of nature :)
Too hot out here Right but you still get to choose which thought you want to act out in many situations based on what you value. And a lot of values are built from habitual choices. Call that whatever you will. We don’t have to call it free will. We still have to choose between things. Though one can argue between how many layers there are to such things.
@@matthew8720
Of course we choose but every choice is yet another thought that arises. Every single one, no matter how often you switch between A and B, each time it is a thought that simply appears. You didn't author it.
Logic itself can IMO only exist in a deterministic universe. You cannot freely choose that 2+2=4, either you understand that 2+2=4 or you don't understand it, but anyway you didn't choose to understand or to not understand it, you simply do or don't.
If you choose to learn math, this decision is a thought that appears due to prior causes.
Again, I don't think this fact diminishes any beauty or complexity we appreciate about the human mind. There is agency, it's just not detached from causality and only a small percentage of it is happening/appearing in consciousness.
Didn't catch a word, I've just been staring at that wallpaper.
Dude, same!
It's hard not to stare at it! I really love the pattern
Best debate I've had the honour to see so far :D
Justin is always an honest and courteous host and moderator, he does a great job, and I thoroughly enjoy his show. It was great to see him in more of an active role in the conversation here. Thanks for having him on.
he's not being honest here
@@notwhatiwasraised2b How so? I don't see him being dishonest, I see him disagreeing and not being convinced by Alex's arguments (even though I think he should be, as I am also on Alex's side here).
@@twstdelf Justin knows that 'atheist' means nothing more than not believing god claims, but he wants to attach a lot of other things to 'atheist' so that he can launch his practiced assault on whatever he attaches to atheism. Then he asks the atheist to defend a worldview s/he may not subscribe to or have thought much about. Then he reclassifies the person as 'agnostic' and proposes some form of divinely revealed knowledge the 'agnostic' can't match. Then he claims victory of his 'rational' and 'reasonable' conclusion that god(s) must have done it.
What's honest about that?
He's been at this for years and he know better than the misrepresentations he is making here. So I am left to interpret his misrepresentations as a desperate attempt to straw-man the 'atheist' as an agnostic lacking meaning, purpose and/or 'objective' morality. Muslims can claim 'objective' morality just the same and some of that morality will be very different than the Christian's.
"that definition of agnostic is very wide.." yeah so? You can oppose it to believer it's wide too, I don't get his point...
I want to believe my dick is bigger
This is like (a)theism debate 101 too. How do "professional" Christians keep getting this wrong? (A)gnosticism is a question of knowledge and (a)theism is a question on belief. They don't share the same spectrum. Agnostics are not the "middle ground" between theism and atheism. The natural state of a healthy, curious, and skeptical mind will always be that of agnosticism. To argue otherwise is to claim to know things you can't. This is where every single argument for/against God(s) should start. If the theist does not like this definition, then they are moving the goalposts because they won't dare be caught in a situation that deems them as agnostic. And because of that, it's so incredibly easy to point out the bedrock of their entire argument; that they are in fact not operating with a healthy, curious, and skeptical mind. If they can't admit they are agnostic about the question, then there is no debate to be had because they are not operating with a skeptical and open mind.
Such a shame that this exercise of having to properly define agnosticism to these "professional" Christians over and over and over. They try to avoid, at all costs, having to admit that they don't know. And that, therein lies, the fundamental problem with their entire worldview. They aren't skeptical at all. It's a facade that is constantly having to be broken down and it's such a shame that the opposing atheist never really hammers this home. The rest of the "debate" means nothing if the theist doesn't understand the difference between (a)gnosticism and (a)theism.
Someone gave a good response but it reminds me of people who say no one is really bisexual.
I would love a video in which you lay down your objections to the Argument from Reason.
Watch the debate between him and a muslim then
@@ivorystinkershack3422 Mohammed Hijab ? I watched the debate ,and I don't remember them discussing it.
Superb podcast. I lold when Alex asked, 'why the hell are we playing chess?'. I ask myself a similar question most days.
Thanks for having Justin on the Show... interesting conversation.
Bloody awesome discussion 👏🏽👍 In particular the issues around free will. Jordan Peterson (not a fan) once stated he acts as if god exists. I act as if free will exists.
About time you released another podcast! lol
I love this video. Both people made great points. I think at the end of the day, debates like are what debates should aspire to be. It's more about the pursuit of truth.
I notice that many people feel the need to announce what they identify as in the comments. I don't think this is a bad thing, they're trying to give perspective.
You can kind of see that even though they may have some flaws with their current model of thinking, it's what they sort of have to stick with to see how it plays out in the long run. Terence McKenna talked about this, the idea of entertaining ideas rather than letting them fully controlling you.
Love that discussion about what colour to paint the walls whilst sitting next to that fugly B&M wallpaper!! 🤣 Killer point, though 😎👌
I've been hearing arguments for Christianity for over 35 years and I'm equally unconvinced.
Being a believer isn't something one gets "convinced" about...it's something you discern with your heart.
@@jamesgossweiler1349 To believe is to accept that a statement is true which is the same as being convinced something is true. If you believe in a god you are convinced god is real. If you believe chocolate is better than vanilla you are convinced as such.
Yes, one is "imputed" and the other is "actual." Convinced is belief, not actual knowledge.
@@jamesgossweiler1349 Who said it was knowledge?
Benjamin Schooley
Are you sure you heard them
May be they were just passing through your ears
Have you tried anything you have heard in open heart or you already know what’s coming
Think about brother
All my life I was an atheist so it's hard for me to understand fully how come one believe in God. But because I was experiencing the illusion of free will myself, that part I can understand why people have hard time giving up. It's just such a strong illusion, it was hard to give up that myself. But if one has to honestly follow where evidence points to, it's even harder to stick to it. How come so many theists claim that their so called spirit cannot be demonstrated by scientific methods, if most of them claim that at some point that undetectable, non-material thing may change the flow of the atoms in his brain in a different direction and therefore affect physical world? That is by definition something that science can test against existing physical laws that govern unconscious materials and matter.
Alex, I am a relatively new subscriber. You are awesome, thank you. I wish I found you channel earlier. Keep up good work brother. Cheers ;)
But you still act as though you have free will right? I lean towards free will not existing when I think about it, but my day consists of me believing that Ive got free will and that I'm making decisions.
@@jordanb1153 Exactly. I mean, I feel proud when I do job well, I feel guilty when I do something bad. That is exactly what makes the illusion so vial. I absolutely agree with you.
@@KemoHay Hello, then do you agree with Richard Dawkins that DNA just is and we dance to its music?
@@GustAdlph That would be helpful, if you would reference the source for me to see what he is saying exactly in the context. What do you mean "DNA just is", what else can it do?
@@KemoHay Hello Kemo, thank you for replying to my post. In "A River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life," (1995) Richard Dawkins writes: "DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music." He is a biologist so he is the person to let you know what DNA can do.
You’re the man Alex, Justin is a great moderator and it’s awesome you decided to interview him, even though he wasn’t convinced by your video, he seems to have a deep seeded need to believe. Regardless, unbelievable is a great show. As you said Alex, “I’m amazed” that Justin is still a Christian. More likely than not can certainly be considered agnosticism because you don’t know for certain.
Justin and you are a really nice combo for a chill discussion
I just went here to like the video (as a little form of support) but I'm going to listen to it on Spotify.
Edit: I just think that morality will always be subjective on some levels.
For atheist: subjective on which desires to act upon.
For Theists: subjective on the level of choosing a God, which morality they are going to practice.
This repeated idea that humans must have an intrinsic value doesn't work for me. Yes it is a common and intuitive belief to assume that they do, but I don't see why it needs to be justified, let alone with a god.
Is it really so hard to accept it as just another fallacy of human thought? Our brains find mathematics, quantum physics and engineering difficult enough to grasp; why should the idea that we are not special be false to the point of faith in such extraordinary beliefs just because it, like many things which we can demonstrate to be true, doesn't make sense to us intuitively?
The idea that humans must have intrinsic value is a very powerful tool that religion uses to win converts. People who are afraid of being specks of dust in the uncaring universe are very responsive to the idea that god created them for a reason and loves them. Some people just can't mentally handle the concept that you are a meaningless jumble of star stuff that will exist for the briefest scintilla of time. Such a thing terrifies them. Successful religious leaders know that and are very happy to use that fear to keep the flock in line.
It certainly is easier to mistreat people if they have no intrinsic value.
The fact we have a notion of value ,intrinsically shows we are valuable.
Fantastic discussion, really enjoyed.
Awesome vid, man
Much love from 🇨🇦
Great discussion, Alex. I particular liked how clearly and precisely you pressed the issue of free will.
And God said- "let there be wallpaper.. let it be even more trippy than the old set of draws"
😂
And the wallpaper was blue and God saw that it is the best color.
"we live in a society, that is the society in which we live, I am glad to be living in such a society" -Richard Dawkins
Just started watching CosmisSkeptic, probably the most polite Atheist I have come across. Amazing discussion well done gents.
check out david smalley
I hate how he thinks evolution is random (when he quoted his exchange with Dawkins)...
He is right that evolution gives whatever is *convenient* for survival though. And *convenience* of the belief that rape is wrong does not make it true.
technically it IS random, because the mutations are random. if the mutations are a benefit, then it passes on, if not, then it dies off.
@@virnalinebrida-sunga7748
The genome is selected as a whole package with a wagonload of foul apples.
Why are harmful things wrong?
@@virnalinebrida-sunga7748 Not true, humans have over 4000 genetic disorders that pass on.
51:00 okay isn't this kind of circular reasoning? A: what is the proof that god exists?
B: because god is a better explanation to ground morality than naturalism which is just arbitrary.
A: but isn't god also just arbitrary cause god could have made something like raping moral if he wanted to.
B: yes but God has this special value that makes him equal to good because he created everything.
A: wait how do u prove he created everything?
B: oh yes so there's this moral argument.
Btw I'm not trying to hate or something I just wanna know how it inst circular.
@@philkesler
Logic is a methodology, not a conclusion. Logic is not required to prove itself. It's only required to be consistent with itself.
The premise that some things are caused and others uncaused is itself unprovable, much like the premise that an infinite regression is impossible. Those are assumptions on which the argument is built. The argument itself, even if logically sound, does not constitute proof.
Logic itself - which I will take to mean classical propositional logic - has very little to say about time, or about infinite chains of consequences, either extending forwards or backwards. Indeed, it has nothing at all to say. Logic is merely a tool which we use to investigate topics, but anything it has to say on the subject are from premisses which we supply. So what is logically possible depends on the premisses we adopt.
Obviously, if we _assume_ that there cannot be infinite regresses, we will conclude that infinite regresses are impossible; and if we _assume_ that everything must have a cause, then infinite regress is necessary. Boldly asserting our assumptions is not a form of logical deduction, however. So we must try to avoid doing so if we wish to consider logical possibility or necessity.
We _can_ observe that the two statements - everything must have a cause, and that there cannot be an infinite regress of causes - are in apparent conflict with one another. There is one possible resolution: a cycle of causes, where A ⇒ B ⇒ C ⇒ A, and the like, including potentially complicated networks of mutual-causation. If you find this just as dissatisfying as an infinite regress of causes or an uncaused event, then you may which to assume that such cycles cannot exist: but then you should remain aware that this is an _assumption_ on your part.
There is absolutely no proposition A that we know of, which "causes" another proposition B to hold - that is, where A ⇒ B - which prevents us from considering yet another proposition Z such that Z ⇒ A, and where we may regard A as true because Z is true. So every proposition can be _concieved of_ as being caused by another. But there is nothing which _forces us_ to formulate such a proposition Z, either. We must move beyond mere sentential logic if we wish to plumb this idea further.
*Infinite regresses in mathematics*
We may consider what ideas come from mathematics to inform our ideas about whether logical causal chains are possible: mathematics is in effect our most intense testing grounds for logical consistency of ideas. Indeed, in modern mathematics, infinite _forward-moving_ causal chains are common.
The simplest example is *Mathematical Induction* , in which one proves that if some property P holds for 0, and if P(0) ⇒ P(1), and if P(1) ⇒ P(2), and so forth ad infinitum, then P holds of all whole numbers: one essentially completes an infinite chain of implications in one swoop.
Something to bring up at this part is that natural cosmology says everything came from something (quantum fluctuations) while the religious "explanation" has two occurrences of "ex nihilo".
The first and foremost being how, why God exists. The second being, from what is the whole of existence made from.
They funnily enough they are the most headstrong about the premise "something cannot come from nothing" while having both both creator and creation be from nothing.)
@@philkesler
A "Whim" you say.
That's a severe misunderstanding that is.
A Methodology is the systematic, theoretical analysis of the methods applied to a field of study. Typically, it encompasses concepts such as paradigm, theoretical model, phases and quantitative or qualitative techniques.
A methodology does not set out to provide solutions-it is therefore, not the same as a method.
For the best explanation go to this link and read the second answer posted by John Doe.
www.quora.com/What-is-the-usefulness-of-propositional-logic
@@philkesler *My apologies, I'll be more precise. Can you imagine a square circle?*
@@philkesler
I like the way you think, but I wish I knew better english to understand your points more.
I mean, it's like recognising some objects in a blurred picture, but you wish it was more clear.
Or you wish you had the right glasses for your eyes :P
Anyone else’s brain start hurting at about 1:00:00. My brain was just like “sorry man, I’ve done my best but this is too much” and then proceeded to shut down.
Hi Alex. I know this might sound a bit weird...but what mic arms are you using for your podcast?
What so many of these discussions and debates ignore is the psychology of belief, which would totally expose the irrational nature of religious belief. You will never accomplish this through philosophical debate because it assumes that both positions are equally valid but they are not. If reason and logic dictate that there are arguments and claims that are more plausible, more probable, more realistic, or more believable, then it can be shown that science has a more valid argument than religion.
If God exist and God knows the future. How can you have free will?
- It feels like I have free will, but at the moment I just cant see how we have free will if God have preditermed everything.
I know! It makes everything seem so meaningless if I am not in control of my destiny. Why am I living out someone else's plan? And they already know how it's going to turn out.
“God sovereignly decreed that man should be free to exercise moral choice, and man from the beginning has fulfilled that decree by making his choice between good and evil. When he chooses to do evil, he does not thereby countervail the sovereign will [p.145] of God but fulfills it, inasmuch as the eternal decree decided not which choice the man should make but that he should be free to make it. If in His absolute freedom God has willed to give man limited freedom, who is there to stay His hand or say, ‘What doest thou?’ Man’s will is free because God is sovereign. A God less than sovereign could not bestow moral freedom upon His creatures. He would be afraid to do so.” A.W. Tozer
God sees the future, but humans can not.
From your perspective there is a future.You then attribute God as having the same perspective as he is all knowing.God does not need to create a future to be all knowing.What ever happens it recognizes and intrinsically knows.
Alex, this debate was a delight to watch. Two people with opposing views bringing their ideas cordially to the table. Well done. I do have to say, Justin has probably come the closest of anyone on finding the weakness to your view on freewill. I would like to take it a step further. If free will does not exist, Reason does not exist. For the Will is inclined towards the Good the Reason has reasoned to. And the Good willed inclines the Reason to Reason. The Free Will moves the Reason TO Reason in search of a Good. The Reason moves the will to be inclined to the proposition given BY Reason to consent to the Good. If you remove Free Will you remove the inclination towards the Good. If you remove the inclination towards the Good you remove the reason to reason about the good. In short, Reason and Free Will is a composite. To consent to one and not the other is to consent to a dead standard. Take Truth for example: Truth is a Good. Free will moves the Reason to search out the truth. And in reasoning to it, inclines the Will to consent to thus live out the truth Reasoned upon. You simply cannot uproot one without tearing the other up from the root with it. With no freewill there is no reason. And with no reason these debates are simply meaningless.
Great discussion, both are reasonable and respectful
I’m a Christian but I’m gonna have to side a bit more with the atheist regarding free will. I’m a Calvinist and believe in election, and I personally feel Calvinists put more emphasis on the providence of God than Arminians and that’s part of the problem that is tripping up the conversation.
Aye determinist Christian gang
A computer has no free will, but it can play a good game of chess.
Explain the HAL 9000 then!!!!!
Only after being programmed by an intelligent being.
@@andrewdouglas1963 I don't think that takes away from what I said. Decisions can be made by electrons flowing around a circuit, a good game of chess is played, without any laws of physics being violated. The computer can assess its environment (the chess board) and make good decisions and even rival a grandmaster chess player. Yes, an intelligent being programmed the computer, but the programmer didn't impart free will on the machine, they didn't impart a supernatural element to it. It shows that if you configure nature in certain ways it can then do quite surprising things, totally unexpected (to me) from the underlying laws of physics.
Moot point. The computer is programmed to play the game of chess. It doesn't think, it processes. Difference. By saying "the programmer didn't impart free will on the machine, they didn't impart a supernatural element to it", besides for basically making an implicit admission that the programmer has a sense of free will in the first place, you're also thereby implying that there is a fundamental difference between the way the computer processes, and the programmer thinks, because they actively CHOSE not to impart that thing, called free will. Imagine talking about this thing called "free will", and understanding its very concept and relevance, yet denying that it exists in any way. Seems alarmingly self-defeating and irrational, even if you do believe that it can be rationally accounted for in a deterministic world!
@@DimitriPappas You seem to have come to my post with a lot of baggage. I'm not claiming half the things you think I am. For example I didn't say there was no such thing as free will. You also need to understand what an internal critique is: Even if there is free will and/or a supernatural world we still don't think we can impart these attributes on to our chess computer. I was just highlighting this point "It shows that if you configure nature in certain ways it can then do quite surprising things, totally unexpected (to me) from the underlying laws of physics." The laws of physics can play a mean game of chess. I'm not even claiming that human thinking is the same as a computer programme.
always great videos!
Two are my favorite folks in this field.