Challenging Alex O'Connor's Doubts About God
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 июн 2023
- This is a clip from Alex O'Connor's debate with Jonathan McLatchie in Boston during the fall of 2022. In his opening statement, Alex argued that the problems of divine hiddenness and evil are the reasons why doesn't believe in God. This is Jonathan's rebuttal. The full debate can be viewed here: • DEBATE: Theism vs Athe...
For more of Jonathan's response to the problem of divine hiddenness, go here: jonathanmclatchie.com/grappli...
Are you a Christian struggling with doubts? Get 1-on-1 counseling at talkaboutdoubts.com
Help support me: / isjesusalive or paypal.me/isjesusalive for a one-time gift
Amazon wish list: www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls...
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @testifyapologetics
Visit my blog: isjesusalive.com
This is a clip from Alex O'Connor's debate with Jonathan McLatchie in Boston during the fall of 2022. In his opening statement, Alex argued that the problems of divine hiddenness and evil are the reasons why doesn't believe in God. This is Jonathan's rebuttal. The full debate can be viewed here: ruclips.net/video/rnIQFI1pYLM/видео.html
For more of Jonathan's response to the problem of divine hiddenness, go here: jonathanmclatchie.com/grappling-with-divine-hiddenness-why-does-god-not-make-his-existence-more-obvious/
Are you a Christian struggling with doubts? Get 1-on-1 counseling at talkaboutdoubts.com
What do you think of the problem of divine hiddenness?
As an agnostic, the problem of divine hiddenness doesn't bother me.
If there is a God, and they are omnibenevolent and omniscient in nature, then any reason they have for divine hiddenness is beyond my knowledge, and so, what reason would myself, a mere mortal, have authority to question it?
@@darkwolf7740I want to know on what standard can atheists and agnostics criticize Nazis and Soviets for their wrong doings considering that atheists and agnostics believe that morals are created by societies and therefore each society has it's own moral standard. Can you tell me where you get that standard from?
@@BhikPersonalOn a subjective basis, they can still be wrong. The problem with naturalism is that this can not be grounded objectively as a fact.
It presupposes that the evidence is not sufficient or not evident, even though what suffices as evidence for one person or another will always be different. "Well why isn't the evidence more obvious?" I'd argue it is, philosophical scientific and historical investigation that corroborates Christianity is pretty apparent, and it hasn't been hard to access by God, but by the academia holding the data.
"God should be made so manifest that without reasonable doubt people will believe He exists!"
The problem with that is that humans often *unreasonably* doubt all the time. No amount of logic in the world will clear the hurdle of an illogical bias.
Hey Erik, what did you mean by saying that Alex O'Connor is going to be a Christian apologist?
Even as a Christian, I’m a little skeptical of Jonathan’s (first) response.
1. Within the context of the debate, Alex pointed out how Christian belief seems to correspond to the relevancy Christianity has within a culture. Alex specifically gave Thailand as an example, where a mere 5% of the population are theists. Jonathan’s response about how God only reveals himself to those he knows will accept Him plays into (by my lights) an absurd speculation. To speculate entire countries as not even having the ability to be Christians because of their stubbornness is absurd. A much better response is to identify every human person has free will. If every person has free will, then a difference of social trends throughout different societies would be expected. One can then be directed to the Second Vatican Council, which claims, every person who pursues truth pursues Christ.
Perhaps Justin Martyr puts it the best, “If some should accuse us as if we held that people born before the time of Christ were not accountable to God for their actions, we shall anticipate and answer such a difficulty. We have been taught that Christ is the first-begotten of God, and we have declared him to be the Logos of which all mankind partakes. Those, therefore, who lived according to reason (logos) were really Christians, even though they were thought to be atheists, such as, among the Greeks, Socrates, Heraclitus and others like them.”
Thailand is a 95% Buddhist country which means that while they may not be theists, they do hold beliefs which may be considered adjacent to theism. Many Buddhists consider Jesus to be a Bodhisattva.
In Buddhism, there are different paths or stages of spiritual development. One of these paths is that of the bodhisattva, who voluntarily postpones their own final liberation or enlightenment (nirvana) in order to help alleviate the suffering of others. Bodhisattvas are motivated by compassion and the vow to work for the welfare and liberation of all sentient beings.
I have been to Thailand 2x as a volunteer with Compassion International and to see the Child that I and the other sponsors supported through this Christian service ministry to many different mission organizations in Thailand.
Christianity maybe small but has a great effect on poor people that through Compassion International poor people can keep all their children in Christian schools instead of getting suckered into selling one child into factory work for a years wage that usually leads into the child sex trade.
This is an interesting bit of perverse tap dancing. In general, the only modern thinkers who operate entirely according to reason are atheists, who must reject Christian belief for its irrational and unreasoned doctrines and foundational beliefs.
@@davidjanbaz7728 So essentially, you have confirmation bias and apologetics in your corner.
@@highroller-jq3ix
Way to misrepresent the opposition.
If you actually read what he says without a bias in your heart, you could see that he appreciates the positive impact that Christianity can have in smaller nations where Christianity is not dominant.
It seems you are guilty of the very thing you are accusing others of.
Glad they addressed this! I respect that Alex is open to both sides of the coin, it's good to see a skeptic weigh up the arguments fairly to come to a conclusion based upon evidence and reason.
That's how skepticism works.
@highroller-jq3ixo
From what I've seen, many skeptics just like to deny everything.
Alex actually does what skeptics are supposed to do, but don't in practice.
@@darkwolf7740that’s the one thing I respect about Alex💀
@@Kingrich_777 That's why he is the only one I genuinely like 😆
@@darkwolf7740 yeah him and GM Skeptic
About 6 minutes in, and I've heard a lot of "some raise the objection that," or "another objection that may be raised is," and then responds to those objections. Ok, but these are not the objections Alex rose in his opening argument. I think more time should have been given to Alex's actual arguments. I'm a christian, btw.
God bless you, Testify. Let's hope that these counter apologist atheists and agnostics turn to Christ.
@@Obscuredbywinds It's a good thing that people convert based upon evidence then.
@@Obscuredbywinds
Just because you don't find the evidence sufficient doesn't make it non sufficient. Some find it sufficient, and some don't.
That's like saying you can't believe that China exists if you've never been there or seen it with your own eyes. Evidence exists that proves China is a real place, just because someone may reject the evidence doesn't make it irrational to accept the evidence in the first place.
@@Obscuredbywindsever looked into mysticism or read books like the Philokalia? Granted it's no "proof" but that's not the point. If God could be proved, religion would be a school subject like math and chemistry. Seems strange to me.
But so far I never heard a single atheist say stuff like: "I meditated for 10 years and prayed, I felt God so real as the love I feel for my kids. But then I lost my faith because of, moo, 'contradictions in the Bible' or because we can't prove God."
@@ObscuredbywindsI could argue that even if evidence were insufficient for God, atheism and agnosticism still could not be justified.
The reason why is because the moment you reject God and the supernatural, this leaves only the natural, and if humans are purely physical or natural beings, this leads to determinism, and that would mean all of our actions, behaviors, conclusions, beliefs, or lack of belief, are the result of natural triggers driving our reactions regardless of what is true or not true, and we have no choice but to conclude whatever determinism has forced us to conclude, and this would undermine rationality and knowledge, and therefore removes the basis for such a position to be a "default position", because defaulting to such a position presupposes rationality to default to it, whereas this concept would be self-refuting because the position itself undermines rationality.
Therefore, any position that presupposes only nature in evaluating evidence cannot be a default position. Therefore, it is justified to presuppose The supernatural exists *as the starting point* of evaluating evidence from, Of which implies that there's an immaterial aspect of the human identity or being that exists independent of the natural world, which is consistent with the concept of "souls", which would imply the physical body was designed for the soul to dwell in, therefore pointing to a Designer, God.
This would make Theism the true default position, even if the claim were true that there is no evidence for God.
However, if a person wishes to object to this conclusion, because one presupposes a naturalistic framework through that objection, it therefore invalidates the objection because one is presupposing a self-refuting position to evaluate evidence from. Thus, atheism and agnosticism can *never* be justified, even if it's claimed that evidence is insufficient were true.
@@Obscuredbywinds_"If science can't explain it then you have no grounds to show that religious belief is corresponding to anything true"_
This is also a self-refuting idea. The reason why is because this claim you're making is not in itself a scientific claim, *it's a philosophical claim about science* which cannot be proven by science. Therefore, by its own standard, it should be rejected and concluded as "not true".
I did find Alex's opening statement compelling. The idea of non-resistant non-belief can sometimes pose an interesting thought process to consider. Mostly because its becomes a personal stance and is not easy to directly refute so I can see why he used this statement (especially in contrast to his previous debate with Jonathan where we he was less open to God as an 'angry' atheist). But I can think of a few ways to address this:
1 - We all like to think God will directly commune with us but there are definitely times where God is remarkably unresponsive and non-engaging. I can think of many times in my personal life where I hoped God would touch my life emotionally or spiritually; like through music for example. However, I am a drummer so I often think too technically about music and it gets in the way of that emotional or spiritual connection. I also see others who hear his voice or break down and cry. This just doesnt happen for me. My belief comes not from my experiences of God responding to me, talking to me, answering prayer, or engaging with me, but that God is the most reasonable explanation for the universe, truth, personality, morality, purpose, and life. Even if God never talks to me (which He does in His Word, certainly), my conviction of HIs existence is based on logic and reason more so than my direct experiences of His seeking me out.
2 - If we are ultimately honest with ourselves, we all have some bias in us. This is not something we like to admit and it can sometimes even be subconscious, but it really is there for all. I mean when you set out to do something like write an article or complete a task, you have a way in which you plan to do things or know how things should be. Of course if you are open to convincing elements, you may change that bias. But we each have a set way in which things will work in our mind. Does this mean Alex isnt open enough or doing this on purpose? Of course not. My point is saying we all have some level of bias to anything and the way to convince anyone of any specific truth varies in degree based on the person. So for me to tell Alex how to specifically believe in God given his attempts is not realistic for anyone to respond to. I especially find it difficult to talk to given that hes already started to change his position on it from the last debate he had with Jonathan. Is he using his life story to come to a better position for this debate? Or has he truthfully sought out the answers in complete earnest? If you watch Alex's channel he is one of the most earnest atheists I have ever known so I would certainly lean that way. But for me, this isnt exactly a convincing argument in its whole since its speaking more to his personal and psychological state than it is about the real world.
3 - Coming to faith in God is not a result of anything we do specifically. Nor anyone else. It is the Holy Spirit who works in us as a result of that to come to said faith. This is nothing we can control (aside from the direct accepting or rejecting based on free will). All we can do is present the faith to those who dont believe and let the Holy Spirit do the work. Maybe the timing for the Holy Spirit to work in Alex has not come yet.
Finally, here is a personal moment in my life that helped me to deal with the difficulty of Divine Hidden-ness some. When my middle son was 3 he was watching a video on an ipad in the house. I told him we needed to go and he got in the car with the device still playing. Once we started driving, his video stopped and he said 'Why did my video stop?' I said 'because we dont have wifi in the car.' He said, 'Whats Wifi?' Now I had to pause....how am i going to explain wifi to my 3 year old? Do I give him detail he likely wont understand? Or do I try to simplify the explanation into something he will reject later? I decided to just say 'trust me buddy, it just doesnt work in the car.' This inevitably made me think of God and Job or other examples of God's divine attributes not being fully explained or explainable. How can He? Will we even understand? How would that knowledge change our understanding of the world? of the future? free will? Or our relationship to Him? Might it be fair to say that some information we cannot conceive? I would think so given other complex ideas such as the Trinity. And wouldn't we expect some attributes of a literal God to be inconceivable to us? I mean if they all where conceivable, would He really be God?
Ultimately I think we each have to come to our own realizations about this topic. I believe the evidence is convincing even though I struggle with some of it. Others may not. But each of our personal stories shouldn't be the only baseline for the evidential standard for all given how different we all are.
The issue with your personal experience is that god could have made us so that we were able to understand. The fact is that he clearly didn't if there are non-resistant non-believers. If he couldn't have made us able to understand, then he is not omnipotent.
#1: No atheist needs direct communion, though it would be nice. Simply show that Christian prayer works, and that will be rather convincing. If god will not show any supernatural events, why should we believe there is a supernatural realm to begin with? He clearly doesn't want some people to know, meaning he doesn't want a relationship with them. There are plenty of people who have used reason to arrive at atheism, just as you arrived at theism.
#2: God is omniscient and knows our biases. He could have made us without biases, or he can work around them. A common retort to this is that we have biases due to sin and free will, but that doesn't matter. God knowingly created the world such that we would fall into sin and receive certain biases. It's his fault - unless you wish to claim he isn't omniscient in the sense most people do, which is what I think Christians have to admit in an honest reading of the Bible.
#3: You would have to prove that every person who died an unbeliever was resistant for this to be true. This is simply impossible for you to do, and I think there are many specific examples that show otherwise.
Ultimately, god is either: not fully good, not omnipotent, not omniscient, or doesn't want a relationship. There are only two ways to rebut this: show no one is non-resistant or appeal to god's mystery (as you did in your personal anecdote). If god exists and has a shred of goodness, he will forgive me for not believing either of those propositions.
@@WaterCat5 You've got free will wrong. love can only be chosen freely, thats why God gave us free will.
@MaryJones-rx3my #1 - You have no proof free will exists outside of your holy book (which on a different interpretation suggests that we don't have free will). Look at actual neuroscience, and you may start to disagree that free will exists. Our brain decides many things before we are conscious of our decision.
#2 - As above, God could just let us know he exists. He doesn't have to compel us (but he already does by threatening hell). There is no reason why God making himself more clearly known would damage our free will. Are you saying you can never love a hualman being because knowledge of their existence removes your free will? It's just ridiculous.
@@WaterCat5 you are not understanding free will as a theological concept. when Christians say free will, they mean that God gave us the ability to chose between loving him (heaven) or refusing him (hell). love can only be given freely. you can't enter into communion with God if you dont want to. also are you trying to argue that humans don't make decisions? bc we clearly do. also the Bible is only part of my experience of God. i have felt his presence many times.
@@WaterCat5 *Our brain decides many things before we are conscious of our decision*
One might ask if you actually came to this conclusion or if your brain just told you to. And if thats the case, can we trust the resulting claim?
On top of this, taking free will out of the equation means life just is what it is. Science, reason, intelligence, right and wrong, good and bad, and purpose are all meaningless terms and concepts. I can’t affirm that anything makes sense, because I can't assert that the course was at least designed intelligently or for a reason. "Sensibility" has no place, and learning is a misleading concept. The only thing I can affirm is that what is, is. Truth is not part of the equation because all that is happening is that we are traveling: survival. The set up was blind (we can’t say the route is purposeful or intelligent), all changes in direction were randomized (we can't say that any particular end is inherent in the route), and even if we grant that the car has Artificial Intelligence and can "learn" as it goes (natural selection), we can't assert any particular thing it is "learning" because its only program and mode is to drive. Without free will, we negate education, science, reason, intelligence, truth, and morality. It's all necessarily a farce. We are claiming that there is nothing besides what inevitably is.
The core of the problem with this perspective is that it's fundamentally self-defeating. If we subscribe to it, we can't claim it’s true or right or that we have come to this conclusion by reason. Those are impossible assertions.
*As above, God could just let us know he exists*
I believe he already has. We did already address this earlier when talking about supernatural events and miracles. I pointed you to Craig Keener as someone who has researched this topic. Aside from that there are various ways to see God and study the idea of God through Jesus even from the historical angle in connection to the bible. The issue isnt if God is presenting himeself. He does and has through miracles, through the supernatural, through his son Jesus. In doing so some who directly experienced it STILL did not/do not believe. So the assumption of God just letting us know he exists doesn necessarily work to change the heart of a person.
*There is no reason why God making himself more clearly known would damage our free will. Are you saying you can never love a human being because knowledge of their existence removes your free will? It's just ridiculous.*
I would also argue that faith/belief NEEDS to be component. Because if God just presented himself in a way that showed he is the creator 100% provable to every being, it would mean we have no choice; we must follow him for there is no clear alternative. But this isnt what God wants. To force us to follow would make him a dictator and his desire for a relationship with us. One were we chose him not feel forced. And thats where the difference lies; knowledge of God has different implications of a relationship with him than with other people. So your analogy does not work for me here.
Let's see....... ❤️
Sliding in with a quick rebuttal. Huge fan of Alex, he's the vestigial bones of my atheism in the new creation that is my doubts of it. Was about to watch his video and was impressed that this rebuttal was up in conjunction with the original.
Thank you
Appreciated his observation that conscious sentience is a prerequisite for suffering, and that it presents just as much of a conundrum for the atheist as suffering does for the theist. That was a good point. Wish he had spent more time addressing Alex’s geographical argument, as I don’t feel like that was adequately answered and there are good rejoinders even in the Bible itself. However, I know he only had so much time.
Divine hiddeness and problem of evil are the 2 big ones that stump me and discourage me. I think this response is great and is a good next pathway for me and others to keep exploring answers to these based off of what you have said
Good luck in your search for Odin!
Good luck in your search for brain cells 🤯
@@jamesemerson4102 _"The world is a mix because sin entered a perfect world and tainted it"_
And where exactly did this 'sin' come from? And how could the world have been 'perfect' if right off the bat everything went wrong!
Before God created everything sin didn't exist...right? Therefore when God decided to create everything sin could only have been a factor in this creation if it had been _planned!_ Cars don't sin because the capacity for sin wasn't designed and built into them by the engineers!
Ergo, sin came _entirely_ from God!
@@cardcounter21Planning for something and that thing being your fault is not the same thing. When you have a child, you obviously don't plan for that child to misbehave, but you know that will eventually happen at some point. Same with God and sin. God is ultimately logically responsible for everything, including sin, but that doesn't mean He directly created it or is at fault for it's existence.
@@oggolbat7932 _"When you have a child, you obviously don't plan for that child to misbehave"_
True! We don't want our children to misbehave but we can't stop it because _we_ have no direct control over their behavioral instincts. God does!
A child can follow two paths: to behave correctly or to behave incorrectly, but in order to take a path that path must have been conceptualized first! God had to create the possible path of misbehavior along with the desired path of correct behavior, otherwise only the correct path would exist! Its like telling a child not to drink from a bottle of acid and then entirely blaming the child when it does! The child only drunk the acid because _the bottle been put there in the first place!!!_
You can't escape it! If God created 'everything' then he created all the bad along with all the good - the desire to rebel along with the decision to obey! You can argue for free will but why should God give humanity free will and then be held completely blameless for how they choose to use it? To repeat, all possible choices/desires had to have been created by......God!
Btw, if you're demanded to exercise your free will only in service of someone else then _you have NO free will!_
When I looked at that clip, I thought "Mmmmmm...that seems the kind of clip designed to provoke responses"
Great Vid!
It is not a problem if someone talks fast, but when interpunctuiation is totally ignored it makes things said meaningless. Furthermoer one should not start a refutation with his opinion.
God bless you all!
Yessir!
I would love to see you discuss and refute Joseph Campbell's teachings. They are being taught today (my grandchild told me that I need to read the wonder Joseph Cambell, who she learned about in her World Religions AP class at the local college). Will make your hair stand on end! and they are being taught as truth to our vulnerable young people. Sickening!!!
Ever heard of Dr Irving Finkel? I wonder if you could respond to his claims about Christianity.
What makes Christians think that the only God who can be discerned is the one described by Christian doctrine? God is perceived to be many different things.
For me, all the evidence points towards that, as well as it just being logical. I Logically think for something to be GOD. It has to be one above all, just all powerful. There goes the other beliefs of multiple God's. And no offense to Islam but my beliefs are some of the things islam permits in the quran "supposed word of God" makes my moral compass tick logically I don't see alot of the things in the quran to come from the creator.
Same thing I use for the quran I use for other books and all the other stuff. Not biasly but looking at evidence and using my personal logic
@@CFSChickenfriedsteakWhat evidence are you referring to?
If you mean by SOME of the evidence, we don't. We say which evidences just point to a general theism. If you mean the evidence such as the highly specific evidence of Christ's resurrection, it should be obvious why that points specifically to Christianity.
@@logicianbones Hello there! Long time no see! I'm very glad to have found you again!
Hey, can you make a response to “the non-alchemist” video on you?
I did, but in a blog post: isjesusalive.com/yes-you-can-prove-the-resurrection-actually-a-reply-to-the-non-alchemist/
I don't wanna engage the guy in video, he's a bit of a jerk, as demonstrated here: twitter.com/AlchemistNon/status/1655240957053358082
@@TestifyApologeticsseeing how you linked that tweet, what did you think of his response?
I myself dont really understand why the problem of evil is a problem, heard examples why its bad but is it really that big of a argument? sure God could made it a bit better but its not really a issue tho?
Which particular god claim do you refer to?
I am a Christian. The problem of evil is a problem for lots of people because God is not presented as some bumbling fool who tries his best but can't control everything, and thus is left watching his creatures suffer with no way to help; instead he is pictured as the omnipotent sovereign who defines morality, as good God who loves his creatures, and the God to which all other gods must bow. As a result, what excuse is there for such a god to allow kids to die from starvation, or to be born with torturous conditions dying later in pain... What would prevent God from creating a world where such thing do not exist if he's both good and omnipotent? The answer I adhere to is free will and because this life is meant for us to experience pain to better highlight the joy in the afterlife, but it is a troubling problem.
How much suffering have you experienced? Maybe that’s the problem.
@@anangelsdiaries Do those with dysfunctional psychological disorders or severe mental disabilities have this supposed free will? The legal systems in most developed western countries assert that free will in the legal sense is undermined by either coercion or mental incapacity. Where is your god on these issues.
Where is a child's free will when being sexually assaulted by a psychopath or in regard to cancer? Why don't all children die from cancer if it's "good" agony for some?
Are you serious? Think of all the terrible suffering people and animals and whatever else can and do experience. Take all the time you need.
"conscious sentience experience"
🤦♂️
Conscious SAPIENT Experience.
SENTIENCE means SENSATION - FEELING. Feeling does not THINK.
Sapience meanings Thinking/Discerning.
Titus 2:13-15
13 while we wait for the blessed hope-the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, 14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good.
15 These, then, are the things you should teach. Encourage and rebuke with all authority. Do not let anyone despise you.
On "Divine Hiddenness";
General revelation is evident in that the vast majority of humanity to have ever existed believes in A God, a creator. They have even found conditions under which the human mind experiences a 'religious' state and think they've found where in the brain that is caused (Granted our understanding is rudimentary, ever changing and likely wrong on most things given the crisis in replication) demonstrating not only do we have a sort of yearning for spiritual connection we're literally built for it.
But the further one lives from that spiritual connection the easier it is to deny. Like someone who lives in a city all their life might deny that natural silence exists.
On the question of Evil;
There are many good responses to this question but the problem is that someone who denies God also denies the eternal perspective, that this corrupt world is temporary and will be restored. The 'good' world will exist but for people to be 'good' they must have the option to choose not to, otherwise they would merely be machines. You must WANT to be good. Which means there will exist people who do NOT choose to be good who could not live in the 'good' world, because it would no longer be 'good'.
We're literally built for irrationality and cognitive biases, it's true. We're also built to overcome them. If general revelation results in an elusive set of mutually exclusive fantasy comfort creatures, that includes fairies, gnomes, goblins, ogres, brownies, sprites, nymphs, elves, leprechauns, and sprites, then all it reveals is the human capacity for anthropomorphizing the unknown. The more one applies rational skepticism to imaginary realms and beings, the easier it is to pop the soap bubble and dissipate the air castle. Like someone shown the methodology behind a magic trick.
To deny the full dimensions of humanity and to live in a "good" way because of psychological terrorism is to be an anxiety machine in the service of a fantasy overlord.
@@highroller-jq3ix
"Rational people can be convinced by arguments"
But only when it is an argument you agree with, got it.
The idea that the belief in Christianity is psychological terrorism is absolute nonsense, and a complete misunderstanding of doctrines.
@@highroller-jq3ix
Romans 1:18
18 But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who suppress the truth by their wickedness.[i] 19 They know the truth about God because he has made it obvious to them. 20 For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.
21 Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn’t worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. As a result, their minds became dark and confused. 22 Claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools. 23 And instead of worshiping the glorious, ever-living God, they worshiped idols made to look like mere people and birds and animals and reptiles.
If you assume humans invented things to explain away their irrationality then your explanation is also an invention. Your "rational skepticism" extends only as far as you need it to justify your way of living the same way anyone imagining fairies, goblins, sprites, nymphs, elves, but with a new set of concepts such as "Deep time" aliens or living in a simulation. Ideas which many entertain openly while rejecting a creator God.
Fundamentally it is about your way of living, you've tipped your hand a bit there. You reject God because accepting God means accepting there are expectations on how we are intended to live and that we have failed to meet them. You would rather live however you please, judging your actions on how you feel about them, embracing the irrational cognitive biases you claim to have "overcome".
Accepting Christ means recognizing we have all fallen short of what we were intended to do. That is "Sin", to miss the mark. Jesus Christ demonstrated the standard by which we should live and no one can meet it. That's the bad news.
The good news is that by living a perfect life without Sin, Jesus accepted your punishment and has granted you pardon. You aren't expected to be a perfect person, but in knowing how we should act, try to do better. By accepting him as your savior you can be baptized in the spirit and begin the process of becoming a person who does good not to be saved, but because they are saved.
@@kriegjaeger
It is illogical to attempt to prove the veracity of a text using the text itself. That's like saying I'm right because I said I'm right.
@@avishevin1976
The scripture describes the condition we're discussing, the veracity is demonstrated in the rest of the argument presented.
If there are only two classes:-
1. believers and
2. resistant non believers,
- then which version of the Christian God are we referring to when we talk about "belief in"?
Is it the Mormon one? The JW one? The deistic one? The Calvinist one? The Arminian God? The Trinitarian God? The non Trinitarian God? The Catholic God? The Protestant God?
Given that believers have the inner witness of the Holy Spirit, spiritual discernment, a relationship with God that is better than any human relationship, and other forms of divine revelation then I think you folk need to work out which is the actual true God. Given the mutual finger pointing that goes on between you folk, you are all resistant non believers according to some believer, somewhere.
Based on how Christians have behaved, and continue to behave towards each other, and given all the tools they supposedly have to help them resolve their differences, it seems to be that God is very hidden, even to Christians.
Why should a supposed non-resistant, non-believer on hearing about a version of the Christian God and thinking that it does not make sense, therefore put his trust in that version of God, lest he be accused of being a resistant non-believer?
Man, why do atheist insist so much on the problem of evil, is not a strong arguement, why don't they attack divine simplicity or something better
The problem of evil is not an argument per se. Instead, it points to an inconsistency within a proposed god hypothesis and indicates an irreconcilable contradiction that renders the hypothesis incoherent. The problem of evil is not a problem for many or perhaps even most of the proposed gods across the span of human belief.
@@highroller-jq3ix Yes, but there is no logical problem, those are only evidential arguements. This is because as Aquinas already said in the 13th century
Objection 1. It seems that God does not exist; because if one of two contraries be infinite, the other would be altogether destroyed. But the word "God" means that He is infinite goodness. If, therefore, God existed, there would be no evil discoverable; but there is evil in the world. Therefore God does not exist.
Reply to Objection 1. As Augustine says (Enchiridion xi): "Since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil." This is part of the infinite goodness of God, that He should allow evil to exist, and out of it produce good.
Now, the idea that God is all good, comes from metaphysics, the good is that which all desires, is that which things are directed to. Like the eye and sight, or a seed to become a tree. goodness is an actual thing in the world just like being and truth, unlike, evil. Evil is only lacking a good, is like the hole of a donut. For example: Ignorance, blindness, lacking a leg, etc.
This is why i find the problem of evil so boring. We derived the idea that God is all good because goodness is real and he is the efficient cause of all of reality( that which is in the effect is already in some way in the cause)
now, regarding hiddness, i find it very problematic because it makes God dependent in the world. God does not need to show himself to prove he is love, God does not need to create to prove he is God, God does not need to save or forgive to be all forgiving and a saviour, he is those things already by being the pure act of existence. He is already those things.
@@highroller-jq3ixYour comment shows that you haven't actually read the literature on the topic. No philosopher today atheist or otherwise would claim that the problem of evil presents a logical contradiction, they just argue that it's an evidential argument against classical theism
The problem of Evil is pretty compelling, especially when it comes to someones personal life
@@Remembering1453”Those are only evidential arguments.” As though evidence is somehow the problem? The gap between theism and atheism just got wider.
I've heard many times that we're judged by the light that we're given. Does anyone have scriptural evidence for this?
Romans 2:12-29 talks about that
@@justinsmart5870 I'm reading this passage, but I'm struggling to see gradations of judgment in here, or varying degrees of culpability. I could totally believe it if we are judged more or less strictly based on our knowledge, but I'm having a hard time seeing that in this passage.
"If god knows that a given individual is not going to enter into a good lasting relationship with him, then why would god ensure that the person believes"
This is assuming that, god being omniscient, would take the most logical step in this scenario which is not to waste time on people who will not believe. However, if you have read the bible, I think you will notice that it has PLENTY of situations where, god still being omniscient, does the LEAST logical thing.
Consider this real world example. I've heard many people say that god let Hitler live as long as he did because he was giving Hitler "time to repent". Now, if god is omniscient, wouldn't he KNOW that Hitler would NOT repent? If that is the case, why waste time and allow him to kill so many Jews before finally stepping in?
Another example would be the doctrine of predestination. Wouldn't it make sense that god only spends his grace on those he KNOWS will be saved (those he predestined)? Why would god do anything if there is a chance that it will not work (and if god is omniscient then he already knows what will and won't work)? Would god have created the plan of Jesus before the foundation of the world (1 Peter 1:20) if he didn't KNOW that sin would necessarily result from his creation? Being that he decided to go through with the events (the garden of Eden) anyway, doesn't that mean that god wanted sin to result? He wouldn't come up with the cure for something that wouldn't necessarily happen would he?
This is the problem with god being omniscient. It makes sense that an omniscient god would only do what is logical and not waste his time with people he knows wouldn't believe, but the bible is FULL of examples of god doing the least logical thing despite him being omniscient. I mean, if you know everything, why focus on the cure when you can just focus on prevention? Wouldn't that be the more logical thing to do?
he could have created us without free will, but then we would merely be obedient, not loving.
Why would God choose to create someone knowing they will choose to reject him and thus have a life in hell? He made them while knowing they would burn in hell for rejecting him?
God designed the world to adhere to self replication. Cells multiply without any of our direct involvement but is byproduct of the natural laws set forth by God. Much can be said about humans. God doesn’t explicitly create person A and Person B. He sets things into motion and it is up to us as his creation to choose. And choosing the light isn’t difficult, many just prefer the dark.
God doesn't micromanage the universe, there is a degree of human freedom and general randomness God permits. Also, the fact that any people would come to God freely is believed to be a great good under Christian theism and allowing free will may be the best way for that to happen.
it’s up to you to decide what you think makes sense but personally I think dilemmas like this show how the bible is simply the minds of Bronze Age middle eastern men.
@@stussysinglet I have to disagree. If God had designed the world to be perfect, there would be no need to ask questions about imperfections.
@@darkwolf7740are you Christian?
Like
reply
@@TestifyApologetics response
Tribe A VS Tribe B. Nothing new.
In my opinion, a non-resistant non-believer is an oxymoron. If I don't believe in something or support something, then it's inevitably due to some resistance or prejudice.
In the case of the truth of the bible, or more specifically the resurrection of Jesus. The only reason to reject it as historical fact would be some preconceived belief, reason, or bias that the gospels are false. For example, a Muslim being raised to believe the version of Jesus'story in the Quran is true, so when confronted with the biblical story they reject it.
One of the many reasons why I reject Islam is due to the false historical claims about Jesus.
So your rejection of Islam and other religions is based on resistance or prejudice rather than on a good faith weighing of the evidence?
@@ElectricalpenguinNo, because Islam makes false historical claims that go against the evidence.
The resistance could be justified or unjustified, but to say nearly any skeptics in the West are simply non-resistant would not at all be true.
The only way one could say one was truly non-resistant is if they never heard the Gospel, which would make you exempt from the culpability of special revelation, but not from general revelation
@@yurigagarin7182 It's not possible to be born a Muslim or a Christian or a mathematician.
Why this emphasis on the "stakes" involved in believing or not believing in God, when Jesus is quite clear that one's eternal welfare hinges on living a compassionate life, not on propositional belief? Small wonder that so many are deconstructing their way out of this spiritual trap predicated on a God much too small.
That simply isn´t true though, Jesus teaches that belief in him is the only to get into heaven
Christ said, "They have the Law and the Prophets. If they don't believe them, they won't believe even if someone returns from the dead."
I think what we decide on the God question is almost completely an emotional choice that we then justify with various rational arguments. These debates have their place, but no one is likely to be convinced by argument. They are convinced by action. So as Christians we must redouble our efforts to love our neighbors and reflect God's glory.
Rational people might be, which is why Christianity collapses under the test of rationality.
@@highroller-jq3ixRationality is the quality of reason that people place on beliefs. There is nothing irrational about believing in Christianity based upon the evidence.
@@highroller-jq3ix I see you didn't read my comment. Or if you did, you didn't comprehend it.
@@darkwolf7740 That's a terrible and almost incoherent definition of rationality, but I agree that if there were sufficient evidence to justify belief in Christianity and overcome the abundant evidence directly contradicting or severely diminishing the probability of Christianity being true, then it might well stand the test of rationality.
@@sammygoodnight You don't seem to have comprehended my comment in light of yours, and perhaps didn't even comprehend the implications of what you posted. Rational people can be convinced by arguments. It is the irrational who operate through emotionality and confirmation bias.
But if God already knows I will not believe no matter what the evidence, then why does he allow me to exist if it will only result in my eternal damnation? I am not saying that an all-powerful and all-knowing God cannot know and do these things, but such a God cannot possibly be called just, good, or loving. So Dr. McLatchie may believe in a God that denies people like me and Alex O'Connor sufficient evidence of his existence, but he then cannot also believe that this God is "just" or "good" or "loving".
God didn't create you. Your parents did.
God allowed humans the freedom to reproduce, so I don't see an issue here.
Also, it's not like predetermination violates free will. We can choose what we do, but ultimately, the end goal will be the same, depending on what has been predestined for you.
@@darkwolf7740 You said: _" God didn't create you. Your parents did."_
That seems a strange thing to say if you believe God created everything, and knows everything as well. It's not like my parents went to the heavenly shopping arcade and assembled me from the parts they liked, is it? As pious Protestants, I am sure they would have selected a brain that would stick with Protestantism if they had had the choice.
God on the other hand knew from before creation that I would lose my faith and be damned to suffer for all eternity, and yet he allowed me to be conceived, he allowed me to be born, he allowed me to live where he allowed untold trillions of sperm and eggs to perish without fertilization, billions of zygotes to be miscarried, hundreds of millions of babies to die before reaching the age of discernment, only for me to end up in hell.
If Dr. McLatchie says God knew I would not be open to any evidence, then he knew I was doomed from before creation. My parents didn't, and even if they did, they could not have done anything about it without themselves being doomed. God could have done something about it before my parents were even born, before creation even. And yet he didn't...
You said: _"Also, it's not like predetermination violates free will."_
As parents do not make any free will choices regarding the minds of their offspring, that does not seem relevant to your argument above.
I also don't think what you are saying is true. If "predetermination" is true, "free will" must be just an illusion.
You said: _"We can choose what we do, but ultimately, the end goal will be the same, depending on what has been predestined for you."_
In that case, I don't see how we can freely "choose" what we do. We may *_feel_* we freely choose what we do, but if what you say is true, it is impossible that we actually were "free" at all.
@@hansdemos6510sounds like the argument is "id rather not been born" also bro believing the law isn't real doesn't change the law. If I got pulled over by a cop for speeding and I tell him " I don't believe I did!" I'm still getting the ticket lol
@@hansdemos6510and precisely what you said at the end it's the opposite we are free because we are allowed to make it to the kingdom or not. Gods not gonna force you into the kingdom My guy. Gotta call out for him
@@CFSChickenfriedsteak You said: _" sounds like the argument is "id rather not been born" "_
If the alternative is 80 years on this earth plus an eternity in hell, non-existence is objectively the better option. But please note that this is not my idea but your God's.
You said: _"also bro believing the law isn't real doesn't change the law."_
If you can show sufficient objectively convincing evidence that this "law" you talk of actually exists, then I might have reason to listen to you. If you only have your personal, subjective opinion that this "law" exists, I don't see why I should rationally accept that it is real.
You said: _" If I got pulled over by a cop for speeding and I tell him " I don't believe I did!" I'm still getting the ticket lol"_
We have sufficient objectively convincing evidence of cops and traffic regulations, but not of anything supernatural. You come with some evidence, and we'll talk.
You said: _" and precisely what you said at the end it's the opposite we are free because we are allowed to make it to the kingdom or not. Gods not gonna force you into the kingdom My guy."_
As it stands, with God not providing the evidence I need to be convinced of his existence, he is forcing me into hell. And as he knows that is what he is doing, and as he knows what would convince me, this is tatlly his responsibility, not mine.
You said: _"Gotta call out for him"_
Hey dude, you do you!
I'm of the opinion that not a single Arminian can make a convincing argument against the Atheist claim of divine hiddeness. Johnathan's attempt here in the video is the best I've seen, yet still fails miserably I'm afraid. We as Christians need to stop being embarrassed over God's sovereignty and simply speak it as it is. God is sovereign over all things and that includes salvation. Why does God choose some to believe and not others? Our God is in the heavens, He does whatsoever He pleases! (Psalm 115:3).
Two things: Jonathan *is* a Calvinist. That's something we disagree about, although I think reasonable people can disagree about this issue. That said, I think Calvinism arguably raises questions about God's goodness, seeing that he predestined some ultimately to not just have God hidden from them, but to spend an eternity in hell. I don't see how that fixes anything.
@@TestifyApologetics Interesting, for some reason he gives me non-calvinist vibes. :D Maybe it is his evidentalist approach.
no, God gives everyone a chance at salvation, he's all loving
It's a bad argument either way:
* the Calvinist position is clearly _way_ better at explaining divine hiddenness. But as Testify points out, it portrays God as an evil god who intentionally creates some humans evil, and will then decide (childishly? Insanely?) to punish those humans for acting exactly as God intended they act.
* non-Calvinist positions don't deal with Divine Hiddenness at all. We simply don't have reasonable evidence of any gods (and see O'Connor's full argument in the description link if you want an excellent explanation of why that's true.
I will say, Alex O'Connor is one of the few atheists that is actually actively searching, and is not necessarily opposed to Christianity being true, he just isn't entirely convinced of it yet. His attitude towards the faith has definitely changed for the better over the past few years, which is very rare to see when it comes to online atheists. Here's hoping he'll be willing to finally put his faith in Christ one day. In my mind out of all the atheist voices out there, he's the most likely to do so.
There is nothing wrong with being opposed to Christianity.
I can't actually speak for Alex, but he has been very influential in my thoughts and I agree with him on a lot of points. So as someone that feels like I am generally in very close agreement with him at least, I would say I find it very unlikely his change in attitude and tone is related at all in a shift to thinking traditional Christianity is at all likely to be true.
For myself at least, I've realized that to be as honest about my level as knowledge as possible I have to admit it is entirely possible that a God exists, and is entirely beyond my comprehension or knowing and despite it looking like no God exists to me, for whatever reason that is just my mind not being in the correct state to realize that fact. Even with that though, I find it extraordinarily unlikely that God is at all similar to most Christian ideas of God, especially the one that is tri-omni but has created a universe in which there is some sort of suffering or punishment for those that are unconvinced he exists.
I've done everything I can think of to convince myself that might be true, and I'm still so unconvinced of it that I find it impossible to worry about whether Christianity is true. I truly consider it more likely Islam or Hinduism or Buddhism might be right in some way, just because I haven't done the extremely diligent study and thoroughly committed attempts to understand and believe them that I've done with Christianity.
@@matthewnitz8367 I am a christian and I agree that God punishing people merely for unbelief is unethical. I also disagree that God is triune (for philosophical reasons and simply not knowing of any biblical evidence).
@@matthewnitz8367Believing is knowing without seeing. People (missionaries or even scripture gave you information of an existent deity, which counts as information and you continue to reject it and not live life according to his laws set out for his creation.
Being an unbeliever, doesn't absolve you from following his laws and repenting for its violations. Punishing his creation for denying him is not a wicked act, since it has big implications. Like I mentioned, it goes deeper than just negating his existence, since with that negation comes the violation of his rules for humanity and a lack of a solid moral framework based on these rules. You cannot follow the law of a God, you don't believe in in the 1st place.
Also the trinity makes more sense if you understood the principle, which few religions do, falsely equating it with polytheism.
God the Father (essential manifestation)
God the Son (carnal/human
manifestation)
God the Holy Spirit (energetic manifestation)
They are the 3 different (but coexistent) modes in which God manifests, holds the universe together and communicate with his creation.
To your point on being agnostic about God's existence, I definitively claim that a monotheistic God is easily provable by just utilizing Aristotelian Theology.
Finite regress: Every molecule, every atom and its components and the components of those and so on, only work in the ways they're supposed to do because they are actualized by an unactualized being (unmoved mover). There can only be 1 of its kind, since a deity that divides its powers onto lesser beings is not omnipotent.
@@MasterMoopere NT implicitly states the trinity in 1 Peter 1:2 and Corinthians 13:13.
On the trinity:
God the Father (essential manifestation)
God the Son (carnal/human
manifestation)
God the Holy Spirit (energetic manifestation)
They are the 3 different (but coexistent) modes in which God manifests, holds the universe together and communicate with his creation.
As a christian I think that your first response is pretty bad. You're saying that in the Bible there were people who rejected God even though they had even more evidence. But that's pointing to the Bible again, which Alex doesn't believe in.
I don't know, I've seen skeptics hand wave away some very well attested miracle claims with mental gymnastics so it seems like the Bible rings true. ruclips.net/video/m31FfpaXuqw/видео.html&feature=share9
You're slightly misunderstanding. Alex's critique is an internal critique. It basically runs along the syllogism:
"If Christianity is true, X should be the case.
X is not the case.
Therefore, Christianity is false."
This is a completely valid syllogism.
The christian response is to show how one of the two premises is false. In this case, we are showing that premise one is false by showing that "If Christianity is true, we SHOULDN'T expect X."
Notice, this Christian response wouldn't prove Christianity true. It's goal is merely to show the objection false.
@@TestifyApologeticsSome sceptics are willing to hand wave away historical facts if they conflict with what they desire to be true.
It's quite the sight.
@@nathanfosdahl4074 Aaah, ok. Thank you. I didn't know it started with the internal critique of Alex.
The real question is why does God force people into existence who he knows won't believe in him and then punish them for it?
Before responding _"but muh free will"_ make sure to comprehend the implications of omniscience and the free will decision to create or not.
Both William Lane Craig and Richard Swinburne that I think sufficiently address this in different ways. There are options available to the Christian here.
Yeah, I think this question is one of the most significant challenges to the Eternal Conscious Torment position.
@@TestifyApologeticsWhat do they say?
With all due respect, it’s very courageous of you to propose such a critique when your username possesses two contradictory terms.
@@TestifyApologetics Yeah, interested to hear something that doesn't boil down to fate or destiny.
What original doubts.
I realize you were dealt a difficult hand, but that was pathetic.
First and above all, pretending to know people better than they know themselves is a particularly bad look for Christians. You need to drop that gaslighting act asap.
Second, what is subconscious is by definition beyond one’s volition and control. To claim in this context that “resistance” is subconscious is to admit it is nonexistent. Your attempted rebuttal of this point of Alex’s fails.
Third, if you wish to make the extraordinarily counterintuitive argument that evil poses any problem whatsoever for the atheist, you will definitely have to do so with equally extraordinary detail and length. Consequently, your attempt to rebut this other point of Alex’s also fails.
As soon as you mention "extraordinary claims extraordinary evidence" you lose all credibility. First, define the outlines of that, as this is a purely subjective claim that has been spammed by atheists forever as a copout to many arguments and it doesn't help - almost everything can be considered extraordinary - Do you believe in Alexander the Great? He did extraordinary things, but the evidence is not extraordinary by any means - better evidence has been presented for Jesus and has been rejected by atheists. Yet, Alexander the Great is accepted. This is just one example, there are many.
"Nature has given humans an absolute control over the information that enters the subconscious mind, through the five senses. However, this does not mean that everyone exercises this control. Even more, in the majority of cases the average person does not exercise this control" so, no, the definition of subconscious is not what you present. Resistance is usually pretty evident despite claims of the opposite. As someone already put it here in the comments, a non-resistant non-believer is an oxymoron to begin with. A lot of atheists claim "I'd love to be a Christian if sufficient proof is presented/ I hope to be a christian/etc.", Alex being one of them who has made this claim multiple times, but studies on human bias have confirmed that the statement is not authentic.
The most important thing I'd like to mention is Faith. That is what is preventing atheists and others like agnostics as one example from believing, nothing else. You cannot put God in a box and see what happens. You cannot solve him, he's not a math problem. You can't find him physically in the traditional sense, he's not a location on a map. You cannot demonstrate him, he's not a science project.
He's a person. A being. With thoughts. With feelings. Approaching him "abstractly" or "doubtfully" and expecting something is counterlogical given his presented character. In the bible in particular, believers are given multiple instructions on how to "find" him, and given how many actually do, I'd say they work if applied correctly, speaking from personal experience, which you don't have to accept.
Only if your subconscious isn't part of "one." Of you. It is. It's your core. It isn't some alien attached to you LOL.
@@logicianbones, you need to read up on the subconscious.
Oh please. Stop arguing over the self evident.
@@CSUnger god isn't self evident.
Yes. He is.
I don't think the category of "non-resistant non-believer" exists, nor that despite his cordial attitude and openness to discussion that Alex is one. What he's doing is sitting in judgment of God, determining that his wisdom regarding what level of evidence God would/should provide is greater than God's wisdom in that respect. This is not non-resistant! The thing keeping humans in spiritual darkness is sin, Alex *is* a sinner and is not yet willing to repent, which again is not non-resistant!
ETA: the very category of "non-resistant non-believer" necessarily assumes Christianity is false, because if Christianity is true then all humans are in rebellion to God until they submit to Jesus. This is not non-resistant!
This is a bizarre angle to take from the perspective of someone who doesn't believe in God. Imagine you're an atheist for a moment, if you can, and picture that argument being used against you. Even if you're not being actively resistant, it's not going to move you over to say "you're expecting too much evidence".
I'm 40 seconds in and already found problem with Jonathan's response.
He's basically making the case of _''If God already knows who's not gonna _*_submit to him_*_ then why would he bother showing up''_
To which stands an objection that immediately comes to mind.
_Recognizing the existence of the president is different from being a follower of the president._
Christians often try to merge these two things as if they are one and the same, but they are not. One can believe in the existence of (the christian) God but still chose to not be a follower of christ. Matter of fact there are plenty of people like that right now.
That's the whole point of the *free will* christians believe God gave us. The problem is we can't even establish conclusively the existence God, but chistians want to jump immediately to _"what's the point of believing in God if you're not gonna worship him?"_
My question then is which is more important: *Free will or Worship?* And the way Jonathan is arguing his case, the answer seems to be worship.
* If the answer is worship, why give us free will?
* If the answer is free will, why punish those who chose to not worship?
Dawkins said he doesn't believe in God and yet he begrudgingly admitted that Yeshua is legit on Joe Rogan's podcast. Doesn't he understand the paradox of believing Jesus is real but not believing in God since Jesus is God. So he atleast believes in something...he just doesn't want to call It, God.
He accepts that Jesus existed, but not God.
The implication here is that Dawkins does not believe that Jesus was God in human form, but rather, just a wise man who walked the Earth in the 1st century.
This isn't a paradox at all.
That's not a paradox, I believe he existed, but I don't believe he was God.
Dawkins admits Jesus lives and Admits intellegent design is likely given the irreducible complexity of life on earth but thinks it's more likely aliens who evolved without irreducible complexity intelligently designed humanity and all life on earth.
Was he joking?
I think you've misunderstood Dawkins. He thinks Jesus was a person.
@@darkwolf7740to say Jesus was just a wise teacher is extremely foolish. He had a name among the crowd, king(of the Jews) if he had given himself up to death, not making his servants protect him, was his kingdom of this world? John 18:36 does great on this
The initial claim for the existence of a man named Jesus was the Bible, the New Testament. This initial claim was not really a claim but a record in detail. There is later attestation the claim for a man named Jesus and the religion that ensued from him, namely by writers like plinius the younger, tacitus, Josephus, etc.
Why reject the initial claim and accept only the support for the claim? It’s stupid honestly
Those are the worst arguments against theism lol
evil is good i think but not really hiddenness
@@MasterMooper once you assume moral realism, a theist could simply say its possible that there is a good that will outweigh the bad in the future. Moral realism is false