The fact is Alex could do a better job arguing for gods existence than 90 percent of the people he debates, he takes the question far more seriously than the people who claim to believe.
Can I ask why you say: "the people claim to believe"? Everyone claims to believe in something. You seem to suggest that all atheists are lying about their lack of belief ...
It’s amazing how such an intelligent man like Sir Collins can be so intricate in his scientific methods, but resort to “it feels right” for his religious claims. Even admitting that he hasn’t really looked into the credibility of the New Testament. How do people switch like this?
Alex a very sharp highly educated intelligent man with 2 intelligent Christians I find well sided. seems like for what ever direction any one may feel free to choose . I couldn't find it interesting enough to dive right in to this delicate Debate for I couldn't feel to pay enough atention may be my loss . Just felt like any other religous living room discusion easy on the debate. New testament is about equel with the old as far as spiritual law. Jesus saying not a tid bit has changed old or new. a little confusing on one with no scientific back ground growing up because of religions strict rules. his new testament less credibility where I lost interest. I hear what your saying.
I think most honest philosophers will end up at something like a basic intuition or "raw feel" when it comes to why they choose one hypothesis over another.
@ agree. his recent 'debate' with the father & son troupe was a complete shitshow. quality is really going down, and alex resorts to the exact same retorts talking 'points' in every single video now. there's more to the con of christianity than the tired old tropes. collins is a tiger woods of science. he explained as much in is opening about how he was raised. tiger would probably suck at most other sports about as much as i do. in exactly the same way, the fact that collins is 'intelligent' with with regards to SOME science, has no bearing on his ability to properly judge criteria for choosing - literally - to believe in one single brand of christianity, which is incredibly multi-varied as we all know. as for me, anyone who depends on joseph campbell for ANYthing is already showing their lack of intelligence with regards to philosophy, religion & philosophy of religion. he couldn't even truly nor completely grasp alex's point about the inherent limitations of a supposed 'all-powerful god'. the host realized this & decided to change the subject to the resurrection. neither the host nor alex just called a spade a spade & remarked about collins' completely wishful thinking + inability to grasp the point alex was making. the point about sedatives in lions' teeth was interpreted by collins as god having to intervene in evolution when the point is that god shoulda set up the process of evolution in that way from the get go. can't believe that alex didn't push the point further. collins is inept with these kinds of discussions.
An atheist gets a theology degree. Gee, any chance he thinks he can perturb theism? SO facile! Guaranteed he can't traduce any of the following...it's actually science unlike their "origin of life" ruclips.net/video/fwrZ0lHHlVQ/видео.html
It's frustrating when people say "yeah well you're coming at it with skepticism" and then write Alex off completely. Like his questions aren't even worth considering. They always talk about ego being in the way of finding God but can't put their own ego down and just hear him out!
@@MrWishihadagibson I think most Christians ask others to approach it as if it MIGHT be true. It also seems that the majority of Atheists approach it with a bias that it is entirely false. Or that the chances are too low, and therefore one needs "extraordinary evidence."
In these debates, I always find myself rooting for the theists, hoping they can effectively address Alex's skepticism. Unfortunately, they never seem to succeed. I had particularly high expectations for Dr. Collins, given his impressive credentials, but many who believe in God do so after yielding to their biases. Rather than overcoming them, they appear to accept their beliefs because it "feels" right. Pause and you can trace the exact moments when Dr. Collins's logic stops ends, where his impressive intellect ceases to fight against the possibility that God really might not exist. I find it puzzling why others aren't as persuaded by Ehrman's scholarship or the incisive thought experiments Alex presents. Religion truly is a fascinating phenomenon.
I understand your hesitancy with Francis Collins' take because he does seem to compartmentalize his science and religion/philosophy. But I very much thought Trent Horn and William Lance Craig ran circles around Alex(no disrespect to Alex, Craig has been debating this topic for longer than Alex has been alive). And although Ben Shapiro isn't the best theologian, I did think he handily beat Alex though there were a few good points Alex made from what I recall.
@@Daxcheese555 Are you brain damaged? Trent Horn continuously IGNORED Alex's questions and committed horrendous fallacies over and over again (while Alex has NEVER ONCE committed a fallacy because he catches himself and corrects it immediately) and I dont need to say anything at all about "Low Bar Bill". I could possibly accept that you felt they just beat Alex by a small margin, but to claim they "ran circles" around him is just flat out mental delusion... you need to see a medical professional as this level of mental deficiency MUST be affecting other aspects of your life
Thing about atheism is its fundamental flaw in evidence for faith. Nobody human living or dead has material empirical evidence for everything they believe, including a faith in ‘no faith’. The arrogance that ensues is a frustration that only those who experience it can properly appreciate.
Im sorry but the idea that human beings couldn't have lied and manipulated accounts of events thousands of years ago, it childish and absurd. The desperation for meaning and purpose is so transparently pathetic. The idea that magical miraculous occurrences were common , for some reason in biblical times, but for some reason stopped occurring, is also ridiculous.
@@brothercaptainxuul784 “Ridiculous” Listening to militant atheists unwittingly pontificating about metaphysical realities such as ultimate “TRUTH” and preaching about what is and isn’t “RIDICULOUS” whilst subscribing to the belief that we are all nothing more substantive than ULTIMATELY MEANINGLESS, ULTIMATELY DETERMINED, HOLLOW AND SOULLESS APES WHO SHARE HALF THEIR DNA WITH A POTATO IS PRICELESS!! Listening to strictly reductive materialists, atheists or philosophical naturalists pontificating about being “RIDICULOUS” whilst subscribing to the belief that we are all nothing more substantive than ultimately meaningless, ultimately determined, hollow and soulless, overgrown amoebas with delusions of grandeur is as entertaining as watching someone trying to thrash the front of his car with the branch of a tree in order to BEAT IT INTO SUBMISSION! It's very Basil Fawlty like at times and very Monty Python like at times! But without the intended comedy value! CRINGE ATHEISM in full effect! Militant atheism is a walking ball of self contradiction and cognitive dissonance!!
The reply that I don’t hear brought up enough when the apostle’s deaths or willingness to die for their beliefs comes up is the fact that this willingness to die for something we believe in seems to just be a fact about human psychology. People die for things that we judge untrue every day. Think of followers of the “big” cults like Jonestown or Waco, we don’t assume that their teachings were true simply because the followers were willing to die. It’s tragic, but it has nothing to do with the veracity.
I love how FC accused Alex of reading biblical accounts with skepticism and trying to find fault when he reads the same thing as a believer and looks for ways to make it fit into his magical thinking.
Yes, and it is not much of an accusation, because Alex's sceptic approach is more prone to finding truth, than Collin's backward gullibility ever will. As a scientist, Collins truly is a disgrace.
skepticism is a bit of a misused term there too because it doesn't refer to being intent on finding fault with something no matter what that would be just as close minded as religious dogma
@@S.D.323it would not be, there is no such thing as too skeptical. How do you think we improve phones, cars and other technology? By trying to find the faults and improving it that's why there's an IPhone 2 and now its 16. Skepticism is the engine for human advancement idk y people use the term too skeptical in a bad way
I don’t think the point of animal suffering can be brushed away so casually by Francis. If I chain my dog out in the hot sun and forget about it for days people would rightfully blame me for neglect. It’s my pet and I have a responsibility to take care of it. Whose responsibility is the natural world? How well does god care for his creatures that he lovingly created? I could go save a deer trapped in a mud pit and spare it an horrific experience and I would be moved by pity to do so, but I’m supposed to believe that an all loving all powerful God watches on unmoved? Why don’t we judge God by at least the same standard as humans and if we did God would be a callous psychopath.
Well articulated argument. I totally agree with you. Why would a loving God create his humans to be compassionate and rescue that dog in the heat, but at the same God just sit there and watch human starvation and suffering from famine existing in his planet he created for his humans.
"Why don't we judge God?" Because the molecules in our own body don't judge us. If you really take the position that a creator exists, then "He" is squarely outside the reality you and I operate in, and it doesn't make any sense for us to "judge" him. It makes just as little sense as to judge the universe as whole. Of course it does not matter whether you do or not, though. Many people DO judge God. And many people don't, and hold the position that he is righteous. In the end, none of it matters. If it is real, there is no possibility that a human mind would ever be able to comprehend it in the slightest. All we'd be able to hope for is to get a glipse of his being, and live according to his Word. Especially if it is true that He literally came down to earth, and lowered himself to our level. Do you frequently talk to ants? Should they not judge you for not giving them the best lives possible? No, you are indifferent. It's a bad comparison because we still live in the same realm. But you catch my drift.
"Look at the birds in the air. They don't plant or harvest or store food in barns, but your heavenly Father feeds them." When it is convenient, God is a loving being who takes care of all living beings, but when it comes to explain the constant suffering those animals go through suddenly God is not responsible for that anymore.
@@justzekebuildingasandcastl4265 Luckily you can just step out of life if you feel it's too much to bear and you don't believe in the afterlife. You can't both hold the position that it's unfair what's happening to you, AND hold the position that there is a God that's made you live. In the end, all we experience is a gift beyond compare. The alternative is to not have lived at all.
@@everythingiscoolio I didn't create ants, so that's a terrible analogy. But if I did, and made an effort to take the form of an ant so I could "lower myself to their level", wouldn't it be even more reason to make sure I did everything possible to eliminate their suffering?
EXACTLY. He claims to have come to Jesus because the evidence essentially required him to do so, and yet he does nothing but say there's not enough evidence to really believe anything.
"God is an artist", "God wants the Universe to be interesting", "God apparently is interested in nature following order". It's astonishing how many ad-hoc assumptions without any foundation a very intelligent man can make defend a believe. At least some theists are humble enough to admit that "The ways of the Lord are inscrutable" which is equally irrational but at least they don't come up with random assumptions about what a god wants.
Oh, religious people are deluded, by and large. Scripture is inscrutable to those who don't reflect upon their lives. That's why many sages have said, "Know thyself."
What I find interesting is how human beings can tell you what a God thinks, likes, dislikes, did or didn’t do with certainty. Yet, not a single person in history has ever see or heard from any God of any sort
I mean people do give testimony of how they met god or how they heard his voice and suddenly decided to be believers. I assume you are trying to say if god exists than a floating figure in sky should come and tell it all which is something that has never happened and probably never will.
I've always found Alex substantially more thoughtful than most of his interlocutors, and this discussion is a perfect example of how the ability to thoroughly break down concepts is far more important than rote expertise. Collins might even be one of the most technically skilled men in his field, and yet when pressed on specific points of contention falls back to shaking his head and parroting bog standard apologetics as if Alex were the one missing the point. Let us never forget just how segmented the human mind truly is. A person can spend decades mastering a specific field to a level beyond nearly anyone else to ever live and still fall prey to very basic errors in areas of knowledge even slightly outside their bubble. The reason we should not weigh the opinions of Collins over any random schmoe on the topic is the same reason we shouldn't take the words of Dawkins as representative of atheism. When you can be shown to be correct, you are correct. When you can be shown to be incorrect, you are incorrect. No abbreviated prefix before a name gives any extra weight on a topic if that prefix wasn't earned directly learning about the topic in question. Intelligence is not evenly distributed in the human brain. The mere fact of having an area of expertise does not allow you to handle all areas expertly.
Every SINGLE last point Collins made boiled down to his faith FEELING right to him. That could have prevented the entire conversation, but it’s important that their feet are held to the fire (for a lack of a better term) until they’re forced to reconcile with the fact that their belief is more or less all about their feelings.
Seems apparent to me that Dr. Francis Collins came to christianity from an emotional standpoint and not a logical one. He waves away his experiences as if they cannot possibly be explained by anything else and refuses to do any research into the fields of study (psychology perhaps) that would explain certain things. It also strikes me at how long it took Alex to get him to understand his point on whether god could bring about the same interesting universe despite switching the value of gravity. If god is all powerful that should have been a yes. Yet again another great performance by Alex. His patience, kindness, ability to listen, understand and explain complex ideas is admirable.
@@rl7012 What you are referring to are logical contradictions. Which they get into at some point in the conversation. Not the same type of question Alex was asking. Alex was attempting to show that the constants don't really matter as god would be able to bring about any sort of universe he wants with constants of any value if he is the creator of the physics that governs it. Definitely not a 'gotcha' question.
@@rl7012you should watch the whole video mate. They got into how God can’t make a square circle etc because that’s a logical contradiction. But he did create the constants and parameters that the universe abides by, so it’s more a question of whether or not he is constrained by those constants or if he can alter them which means that things could have been a different way.
@usernamediv I totally understand what Alex was trying to say which you have also clearly articulated, however what was Alex’s ultimate point with that? Yes, God could have made it to where there is no gravity at all, yet the world we know could still be the exact same if God so chose. What’s the point with this?
@@adamropp4757 People often use the constants argument in favor of a creator. I think Alex was attempting to illustrate that the constants argument doesn't necessarily do that very well. If a god could in fact bring about a universe "where there is no gravity at all, yet the world we know could still be the exact same" than what would talking about constants add to the argument? God can alter any parameters, create a universe and its laws in any way it pleases. Thats my take away from Alex and what I believe he was trying to get Dr. Collins to understand.
I really enjoyed the end of this conversation, when they started talking about beauty and music and art. It seemed like they both really understood each other, and it was cool that they both essentially started arguing for the opposing side for a second at the end. I think there would be more happiness in the world if more conversations were like this
Agreed. Francis Collins didn't steer me from my atheism at all, but I still found him likeable and appreciated the educated dialogue him and Alex had. I hope Alex invites him to his podcast!
Animals do not simply suffer fear and anxiety in the “acute moment” as Francis suggested, it is a constant factor in their lives, observe a bird feeding in your garden, it constantly looks around for predators, believe me critters know more about anxiety and fear than we do! 😂
Have we fogotten the Imago Dei? Why the hell are Christians AND agnostics ignoring the fact that it is our job to help animals feel relaxed and safe? Our role is literally God's role with us. The only reason animals suffer is because we are not taking our job seriously. We came to fix a world of suffering, yet we make it worse.
Here are the arguments they said 1. The Fine-Tuning Argument (Collins) Premises: 1. The universe is governed by physical constants (e.g., gravity, nuclear forces) that are finely tuned for life. 2. The probability of these constants arising by chance is extraordinarily low. 3. A designer (God) best explains this fine-tuning. Conclusion: The fine-tuning of the universe suggests the existence of an intelligent creator. Alex’s Counterpoint: 1. Fine-tuning could be explained by natural mechanisms, like a multiverse. 2. If God is omnipotent, He should not be constrained by fine-tuning laws. 3. The existence of such constraints raises questions about God’s omnipotence. 2. The Problem of Evil (Alex) Premises: 1. If an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God exists, He would create a world without unnecessary suffering. 2. The natural world is filled with immense suffering (e.g., predation, natural disasters, animal pain). 3. This level of suffering is unnecessary and inconsistent with an all-good God. Conclusion: The problem of evil makes the existence of a benevolent, omnipotent God unlikely. Collins’ Response: 1. Suffering and death are natural consequences of an orderly universe governed by physical laws. 2. Evolution and natural processes, while imperfect, lead to greater goods like human existence and free will. 3. God’s ultimate plan may transcend human understanding of suffering. 3. The Resurrection (Collins) Premises: 1. Historical evidence, including the Gospels and early Christian martyrdom, supports Jesus’ resurrection. 2. Jesus’ resurrection is the best explanation for the rapid spread of Christianity. 3. If Jesus rose from the dead, this validates his divine claims and God’s existence. Conclusion: The resurrection is a compelling historical event supporting Christian theism. Alex’s Counterpoint: 1. Gospel accounts vary in detail, suggesting legendary development. 2. The earliest Gospel (Mark) lacks post-resurrection appearances in its original ending. 3. Natural explanations (e.g., hallucination, myth-making) are more plausible than a supernatural resurrection. 4. The Moral Argument (Collins) Premises: 1. Humans universally recognize moral values like good and evil. 2. These moral values cannot be fully explained by evolution or social constructs. 3. The existence of objective moral values suggests a moral lawgiver (God). Conclusion: The moral law points to the existence of a divine source. Alex’s Counterpoint: 1. Human morality can be explained as a product of evolutionary psychology and societal needs. 2. The Bible itself includes morally questionable passages (e.g., treatment of women, slavery). 3. Christianity fails to fully align with modern moral intuitions, undermining its claim to divine authority. 5. Revelation and Experience (Collins) Premises: 1. Personal experiences of God (e.g., prayer, moments of revelation) provide subjective but powerful evidence. 2. These experiences resonate with human longing for purpose and transcendence. 3. The universality of spiritual experiences suggests a higher power. Conclusion: Personal revelations and spiritual experiences provide a rational basis for belief in God. Alex’s Counterpoint: 1. Personal experiences can be explained by psychological and cultural factors. 2. They are subjective and do not provide evidence that can be universally evaluated. 3. Revelation is not sufficient to establish the truth of any particular religious claim.
I had to bail out at 42 minutes when, after several very well articulated explanations of the problem, Dr Francis just wasn’t getting it. Incredibly frustrating. Alex, if you’re reading this, thank you for not letting it go. You gave it everything you had.
I mean, Alex is asking redundant questions tbh- because if the laws of logic or if the mathematics were different on our universe, Alex would probably still be asking the same questions on why these particular laws in place. He’s asking a man on why a limitless Creator limited stuff with so much thought, there’s better things to question in that given time
@@Nutterbutter123 Exactly! Plus its not an interesting counter-argument at all. Both sides would have to go off their ideas and neither side would come close to the truth, because the answer is WE DONT KNOW! Secondly, if they were not fine tuned, Alex would surely come out and say the universe just formed merely out of chance as it was a probable outcome.
@@MrMorale96 seriously, and then the OP embarrassingly says “you gave it everything you had” as if these discussions and questions were to hardcore probe and deny a supreme deity specifically. They’re not even debating, it’s an honest discussion. But all in all, these mysteries can be argued for eons and it would still sprout believers, atheists, or those in between. Neither one of these gentlemen has expertise in the fields in that timeframe but pondering out loud, like you said, their ideas. One is philosophically questioning the spiritual aspect of limited scientific findings and the other is answering with his specific spiritual understanding mixed with his knowledge through his own trade. It’s a semi-interview with a moderator lol
@@Nutterbutter123 You are spot on. That is why I feel labelling such discussions 'debates' is very counter productive. People rarely change their fundemental views off debates anyway. On Alex, I am a big fan his but lately he has been skewing so much towards this hyper-skepticism that i feel is very disingenous. You can't just poke holes in everything and offer no alternative. Thats a cowards way out imo.
@@Nutterbutter123 I for one do not think you're spot on. Alex doesn't demand an answer for himself as to why these laws are in place, and he doesn't talk about it because he thinks it's interesting. His point is merely a response to the fine tuning argument raised by theists. The argument states that there's only one way a universe that allows for humans could've been built, and that that one way is so improbable that it points to a creator. Alex only means to question whether this probability is truly a good argument for a limitless creator, because it doesn't seem to make sense that a limitless creator would only have this one way available to them. "You gave it everything you had" refers to Alex' attempt to make Dr. Francis understand his point, which wasn't happening.
@@whiteShadow-yt9 Yes, and that is what reason and the scientific method attempt to undermine. Revealed religions such as Christianity are built on bias and establish it as dogma. So, when a Christian uses bias as a criticism against others, it is rich to say the least. The jackpot is when a fundamentalist Christian hurdles that accusation.
Francis contradicts himself on fine tuning. He says to get anything interesting it had to be "this way" 25:00, then at 32:40 says he doesn't think there's only one way to set it up to get something interesting.
Either way the fine tuning argument refutes God, because the fine tuning argument implies that the creator is subject to larger physical laws. Otherwise there would not be a need to fine tune anything.
If all conditions were adjusted together-gravity, electromagnetism, nuclear forces, etc.-the universe could be fine-tuned in a new way, potentially allowing for different kinds of "interesting" complexity. - chatgpt
@xnoreq until we can explain what came before the big bang, we have to assume that there's some higher order principles, a theory of everything maybe 🤔 I choose to put my faith in God, same thing. Same but different 😜
Emotion is a powerful influence. Dr Collins claims to 'know' the very nature of a very specific god. The hubris of believing that the creation of the universe was purposed toward the existence of Christian human beings is…. just what it seems.
That is not exactly what Christians believe. Humans need a universe to exist. God does not. In that way and other similar ways the universe is created for humans. But the telos of all things is glorify God. So ultimately the universe was not created for humans.
@@victor_2216 Purpose assumes consciousness. Since we humans are the only beings with this trait, it seems outright vain and primitive to make such a claim. I intend no sleight by saying it.
@@tadmorrison I believe I understand you. Allow me to display my Christian view with a quote: "in the case of the origin of the universe, it seems to me that the only way to explain how we can have a temporal effect, with a beginning, arise from an eternal cause, is if that cause is a personal agent, endowed with freedom of the will, and therefore able, spontaneously, to create a new effect in time. And thus, we are brought not simply to a first uncaused cause of the universe, but to its personal creator."
I think this is the main issue when atheists and theists argue about the existence of god. The two often speak in different paradigms. When Dr. Collins claims to “know of the existence of god” he’s speaking from a personal conviction rather than a universal one. If Dr. Collins’ life is transformed through the “revelation” of god, that has real life effects. It’s just an empirical as anything else. When you say “purposed toward the existence of Christian human beings” what do you mean? Many philosophies and religions believe in a purposeful existence. Do you mean to say that Christians believe that god only has purpose for Christians? Because that’s not true either. Christians believe that Christianity is a religion for all people. Which is why it spread. It’s a relationship with all of humanity rather than just Christians. If by “purpose” you mean to describe the intentional creation of god as opposed to an accidental creation of the universe, you’d also rely heavily on interpretational frameworks that reach beyond empirical evidence.
Just because you don’t understand it, doesn’t make it false. You cannot claim to be intellectually superior to something that you don’t understand. It’s impossible. It would be like someone talking extreme high level quantum mechanics, and me saying “I don’t understand so therefore I am smarter than you and you’re wrong”. It’s arrogant and foolish.
@@etaylor8028 You compare belief in quantum mechanics with beliefs in talking animals, curses, magic fruit, noahs ark, demon pigs, giants, virgin birth, walking on water, people levitating into the sky etc etc. Come on, you must be joking
@@etaylor8028 religion is nothing like quantum mechanics... The Bible is just a backwards old fantasy-fiction book with talking trees, talking animals, zombies, magic, 950 year old people, creation myths and flood myths. Christians need to ask themselves more questions and stop blindly assuming what is true based on their irrational "feels."
What makes me sad about these conversations, is just how agreeable Alex is about everything. He's such a genuinely curious person, and he's willing to honestly engage with whoever, about whatever. And he's trying harder than any person alive, so desperately, to force a conversation out of people that would burn him at the stake for heresy if they still could. These people are giving him _nothing_ to engage with, nothing to ponder over, because it's fundementally not about conversation for them. Seeing Alex trying so hard for literal years with people that are unwilling to even try, is like seeing Sisyphus picking up the stone again.
How are they unwilling to try when they are clearly engaging in the conversation? What you mean is that they are not saying things that you think they ought to or want them to.
@@rl7012 Francis is blatantly lying to Alex's face for hours before finally admitting at the end that his belief is rooted in blind faith and revelation. If he had started with that, I would have no problem with him, but Alex only arrived there because he dismantled so many of Francis's lies that he no longer could be bothered to keep track of them all. I couldn't do that to another person if I tried, I have too much respect for other people. But Francis can sit there and lie to a person like Alex, for hours, without a shred of humility or remorse.
You clearly have no idea how busy of a man Francis Collins is. The fact that he took time out of his day to have this conversation is incredible and should be a huge honor to Alex who is a RUclips personality asking hypothetical questions.
@@joshuaWEC You're not paying attention to the converstion if your takeaway is that Alex should be more grateful. Take the first argument he presents, the fine tuning argument. He delivers it, Alex educates him with an answer to it that's over 100 years old by now, he drops it immediately and admits had no bearing on his belief in the first place. Do note that the last part, him admitting it was all blind faith in the end, first came _AFTER_ Alex had to spent _HOURS_ of time dismantling fallacy after fallacy that Francis didn't believe in either. In what world should Alex be grateful for being lied to like this !?
I love Francis Collins; he is obviously a brilliant scientiist. Even Dawkins and Hitchens would agree. But in this case, he did not present his case well. This is an example of expecting experts in a certain field to be able to discuss in depth topics outside their field of expertise... Over all I loved this conversation, no sense of animosity or negativity from either Francis or Alex. Both exuding respect.
It's probably because he's a full grown adult who doesn't have time to sit and think about philosophical hypothetical. He's busy doing real work that matters like uncoding the human genome. What Alex does helps no one.
I don't think people watching comprehend the magnitude of advancements that were made in the field of Medicine because of Dr Collins and his genius. If a man far smarter and accomplished than every one of us watching this is able to let go of his ego to find truth, we should too and unfortunately this is way harder than it should be. The argument from Math is what pushed me away from atheism into the position of a deist, so far I'm studying classical theism. I don't really understand atheism from a rational point of view, I do understand agnosticism.
This discussion is a great example of how a person HONESTLY pursuing the TRUTH ( Alex ) displays integrity in his thought processes, as opposed to a person ( Francis Collins ) who has compromised his integrity by trying to fit and argue for a world view that works for his dishonest brain.
Look up Ad Hominem Fallacy. If you attack Collins by saying he’s just dishonest that’s a personal attack and is considered a concession of defeat by the judges in a formal debate. He clearly genuinely believes. Stop being a fan boy towards Alex. Alex actually admitted that he would eat his own cabin boy in a debate with Trent Horn. Which is beyond ironic given that Alex was a vegan. This speaks volumes regarding the moral bankruptcy of a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism, and in particular “emotivism“. Utilitarianism is self refuting. I accept your concession of defeat!
" dishonest brain -collins" Ooo so it would be just fair to said that - alex compromised his integrity by trying to fit and argue for a world wiew that works for his dishonest brain -as alex presented countless times do you like it ? prove me wrong 😅
If God exists couldn't he just settle this interiminable argument and save whole forests by placing a message on everyone's smart device saying 'It's ME, God. By way of proof check the milk in your fridge. I've just turned it into a bottle of 1992 Chianti'. Then I check my fridge and right enough there's the wine. Job done! I'm a believer!!
@@gatehanger1385 You’re actually claiming that something can be absolutely “TRUE” or “FALSE” just by way of “physical proof” in a blind, mindless, ultimately meaningless universe - yes? I mean, why OUGHT we do anything or believe anything in a pitiless, merciless, ultimately meaningless universe where we are all nothing more substantive than ultimately meaningless, hollow and soulless apes who share half their DNA with a potato and just “DANCE TO OUR DNA” - right? My search continues for an intellectually honest atheist who can give a cohesive, logically consistent, objective foundation HOW THEY KNOW ANYTHING AT ALL IS ULTIMATELY “TRUE” OR “FALSE”?? I’ll wait!! By sheer coincidence I’ve actually got two new brands of pen right here on my desk which i use for writing down ultimately meaningless and ultimately purposeless comments a [Darth Dawkins pen] and a [Cosmic Sceptic pen] they’ve got no POINT!! Interesting fact, “new atheism” that is fatalism and epistemological nihilism is exactly like the old atheism if the old atheism was bitten by two infected bats called Darth Dilahunty and Darth profoundly posh and pointless and got a over Zealous strain of RABIES!! I rest my case!!
I still wouldn't believe. By far the more likely scenario is I'm hallucinating or have suffered some kind of amnesia regarding what I've just purchased. Your scenario is still personal experience. Nothing empirical= nothing proven.
Why the Christian God among the thousands of gods that men have followed for centuries? I can understand acknowledging the possibility of a creator but how does someone come to the conclusion that the Christian God is correct and not just the current popular belief?
01:27 - "I don't think this is a message that just came out of my head!" Now Dr Collins' seems to be suggesting that he also has access to his unconscious and understands how thoughts are constructed at the level of the brain. This is beyond bizarre.
Nor does he give any credence or speculation on hallucination at this juncture. As a symptom of my ADHD (or as best as I can tell), I have auditory hallucinations at night while trying to fall asleep. They don’t at all appear to be coming from me, but what conclusion am I supposed to jump to? I suppose my rationalization is one of the copes Francis was talking about in relation to how I view the world. I should just trust that the voices are God and that God is very fucking weird in how he communicates to me.
Looking at religion parsimoniously, I have concluded that the most plausible explanation for religion is that it is a human phenomenon, arising from our psychological needs, desires, and concerns. Additionally, I believe that the religions which have endured and remain popular have been selected for, by human minds, based on the appeal of their promises. For instance, those that offer life after death and the absolution of sins (removal of guilt).
How about reading Ed Feser's Five Proofs of the Existence of God? Just because you're unwilling to spend money doesn't mean that you should not know the fullness of the truth. I'm just saying that I've seen a lot of recent debates spawn up regarding the Fine Tuning Argument when Natural Philosophy has solved the question of the Existence of God by proving (not empirically, but to be rationally certain) that there is a god. Whether you stay right there and be a philosophical theist or you follow one of the World Religions is the actual question we should be asking. And just to let you know, Alex has done kind of a response video to Ed Feser's First Proof, but though it's very intellectually stimulating (and for me even made the Argument itself more clearer), The Counsel of Trent channel here on RUclips has done an excellent rebuttal. The video from his channel might be the best way to check out the Argument (called the Argument from Motion, originally developed by Aristotle, a Greek Philosopher who had no personal motivation to prove God, but ended up doing so through his analysis of change or what he and other ancients called 'motion', not in the way we define motion today) parsimoniously as is your situation. God bless.
How about reading Ed Feser's Five Proofs of the Existence of God? Just because you're unwilling to spend money doesn't mean that you should not know the fullness of the truth. I'm just saying that I've seen a lot of recent debates spawn up regarding the Fine Tuning Argument when Natural Philosophy has solved the question of the Existence of God by proving (not empirically, but to be rationally certain) that there is a god. Whether you stay right there and be a philosophical theist or you follow one of the World Religions is the actual question we should be asking. And just to let you know, Alex has done kind of a response video to Ed Feser's First Proof, but though it's very intellectually stimulating (and for me even made the Argument itself more clearer), The Counsel of Trent channel here on RUclips has done an excellent rebuttal. The video from his channel might be the best way to check out the Argument (called the Argument from Motion, originally developed by Aristotle, a Greek Philosopher who had no personal motivation to prove God, but ended up doing so through his analysis of change or what he and other ancients called 'motion', not in the way we define motion today) parsimoniously as is your situation. God bless.
All the contrary...That fact that we believe there is such a thing as sin, gives us a sense of guilt when we commit it. Removing God/ belief in Him will then therefore, remove all guilt and let us "do as we please". In other words, there is no standard of morality therefore, who depicts what's right from wrong. We are clearly taught that sin is bad and therefore will create consequences when committed.
@@xpsm249 yes, the idea of sin is a tool, but not just for evil people to control other people, but also for religion to manipulate people to do things that help the society survive, and thus natural selection selected for this. Without these religions, we would be less effective lifeforms in the competition for natural selection. But you could go deeper. When you look at all these lifeforms evolving, doing their thing, and natural selection doing its thing, what is all of these systems doing together? Is it just random chaos? Or are they all going in a particular direction? I believe it is going in a particular direction and that is the concept of god. God is like the music between the notes, the consequence of the constants of the universe. Like the hidden meaning between the lines and sentences. I think as lifeforms evolved, and as human beings developed this ability to reason about our circumstances, we have hit upon this realisation and are trying to describe it, and religion is our attempts at this. Not accurate, but still our attempt over the years. The better we understand this meaning between the lines, the better our will is aligned in the world to survive natural selection. But this meaning is beyond our capability, since we are not really properly wired to understand it, but we just happened upon it as we were trying to survive. meh, this probably sounds gibberish to most people, whatever
@@xpsm249 I don't believe there is such a "thing" as sin. For me it's a word given to human actions that are regarded as detrimental to humanity, or something like that. It's not a word that accurately captures the gambit of negative human actions. Yes, most do experience a sense of guilt when they harm someone else or otherwise break social norms. This is because we are social creatures. We have empathy and are able to experience what the victim is experiencing vicariously. We also recognise that indulging in "sinful" activities may be detrimental to the perception of ourselves by others. The "who" who depicts right from wrong is all of us, via culture and our laws. You don't need a god to be moral. In fact, there are plenty of examples of types of "sinful" behaviour as I have defined it, that can only be committed by someone justifying their actions theologically that are not open to secular people.
Love to see Alex going into detail in his argument against fine tuning - I’ve been wanting to hear something like this from him in a while. Love how he kept pressing dr Collins on it. Very Interesting to watch dr Collins not addressing any of the challenges head on. All of those were yes or no questions.
Everyone here just wants to hear or reaffirm their belief based on what they themselves see reflected on these 2 people, instead of picking sides can we just appreciate 2 gentleman having a very nice deep discussion. The 2 people here believe something and there are just expressing their beliefs, go believe what ever you want.
It is so unfortunate that Alex was not provided an honest interlocuter in Francis Collin. How often does Francis say, "Oh, I see where you are going with that?" He rarely addresses Alex's question. Francis continues to attempt to stay one step ahead of Alex so that he doesn't have to provide honest answers to honest questions.
Why does the debate go directly to Christianity? Can we take it slow and prove the existence of Intelligent Design first in a scientific, philosophical, and logical flow. Because this alone is extremely debatable and complex enough to proceed to another religious arguments.
I really keep hoping Theists will put up a decent argument, but they never seem to have considered the rather obvious objections to their position. Mr O’Connor seems to grant way too much for the sake of argument. The existence of the universe we see is not at all an argument for Theism. Even if we had no explanation at all, that would not make the existence of a disembodied mind more likely. But in fact we have a number of physical hypotheses. We don’t know, and may never know which one of them if any is correct, but that isn’t evidence for a God belief that is incoherent and inconsistent.
Not to mention, many gods have been proposed over the millennia, why is the Christian god so special? I’d say if there is in fact, some “creator”, it has zero to do with Christianity
Wow I didn’t expect this. Interesting to frame it as a debate rather than a discussion given that Collins is not a debater but a scientist. Super cool that this exists
He didn't say anything besides it's feels like God is real. So ya no debate here at all. He literally didn't understand Alex when he asked him if god is all powerful like 10 times and continued to say god we restrained in creation but then says God is all powerful when he resurrected Jesus. He can't even get his own fairy tale right.
@@Zudovader I think with additional viewings you might find that Collins is actually saying some much more interesting things. He goes back to God's values. I think this is interesting. It might not be the case that God values things like efficiency, simplicity, or overt presence, as much as he values, a good story, order, creaturely participation, etc. This "what God values" approach undercuts many traditional objections. Let's also be charitable towards Collins being a scientist and not a philosopher. Not the most philosophically articulate, but still managed to communicate ideas well enough and some that were indeed very interesting.
@@blakerice7928 "god values things that...". We have not established that there is a god or even what the word god means and you start talking about what this god thing "values"... its called wishful thinking.
"To have a relationship with God, seek Him not with your mind, but with an open and humble heart. Focusing on human contradictions in spiritual writings distracts from the deeper truth they aim to reveal: the path to knowing and loving God."
And yet one needs to use the mind to assess the wisdom or lack thereof of what you encourage people to do in your statement. Separating the "heart" from the head is not possible nor is it advisable if you want to find truth. Wise mind is the integration of emotion (heart) and rationality (head). I think both are involved in our best thinking and keep each side in check. But rationality has to have veto power over emotion or we can too easily slide into self deception and wishful thinking.
I didn't delve into the subject, I didn't listen to what the scholars had to say, because when I read scripture I FEEL it resonates with me so it's true." Ladies and gentlemen, here is a SCIENTIST. Is this guy some kind of joke?
My problem with debates like this is “God” is too ambiguous a term to debate the existence of. People define it in a variety of ways. In order to establish whether it’s plausible that a god would exist, and in order to establish whether the idea of a god could help to explain the phenomena it’s proposed to explain, it’s necessary that we define what precisely we mean by the term “God.” Otherwise, there’s no way of showing who’s right or even who’s most likely right.
I would go even farther and confidently state that the concept of god is largely incoherent. There is no reliable evidence that a supernatural realm exists, nor that any intelligent being has ever existed outside of the physical. Even if you could somehow get past these hurdles, as Hitchens would say, you’d still have all your work in front of you to reason your way to the absurdities of Christianity.
@@AnthonyValcicYa, definitions of “God” can definitely get pretty ambiguous. Like in the case of when they define him as an “all knowing all powerful creator,” first, philosophers have long debated over what exactly it means to “know” something and this ambiguous term is all the more ambiguous when the thing that supposedly “knows” things doesn’t have a brain or sensory organs. And as for the all powerful part, what does that really even mean if he never actually does everything that he’s able to do and if he isn’t bound by physical laws and has no physical structure? It at least seems really open to interpretation, not to mention that it’s not the only definition of “god.”
@@AnthonyValcic God is a lot more coherent than a universe from nothing as atheists claim. Or their infinite regress theory. There has to be something eternal for existence to exist, yet atheists offer no evidence for their ridiculous views and demand tons of evidence from believers. How did the universe come to exist then if you all know so much? And how did life come to exist? Don't say abiogenesis as that has been thoroughly debunked.
@@rl7012Nobody is claiming a universe came from nothing. There’s always been quantum processes. Every particle in existence has a corresponding quantum field and is an excitation of that field. We have some circumstantial evidence that spacetime is an emergent property of quantum entanglement. Fundamental quantum fields have always existed and always will. A quantum state with the lowest possible energy is a zero-point field. In that state there are still fluctuations. The early universe was purely quantum. In quantum physics events don’t have a cause, just a probability. The universe is messy. It is nonlinear, turbulent, and chaotic. It is dynamic. It spends its time in transient behavior on its way to somewhere else, not in mathematically neat equilibria. It self-organizes and evolves. It creates diversity, not uniformity. Most of the processes going on in the universe are essentially chaotic. The acceleration of charged particles, the creation of cosmic rays, the structure of magnetic fields, and nuclear reactions within stars. The universe is 99.999% hostile toward life. There is no evidence of design. The events in the universe are essentially random. This is because everything, being made from the same fundamental particles, are governed by quantum mechanical events. These events are determined by probability.
There are too many issues - the fact that religious and non-religious people seem to have different definitions of things such as "evidence" or "proof", for example. It always seems like an unproductive conversation in which the religious only end up exposing their own nonsensical rhetoric - something which I for one, at least, do not find a particularly satisfying payoff. As interesting as I personally find these religious topics, I would rather see different topics being discussed, or debated.
Confidently declaring what his god is interested in does not reflect a scientific thought but a post hoc justification for faith. Alex rocks the doc here.
Nope. Here is a man who grasps just what is required of a Being's intellect when it can understand what must happen to a caterpillar to be able to transform into a butterfly, and guide the code from other creatures, and add new code (orphan genes) and edit and add to the "massively parallel operating systems" necessary. You say "randomness +time+ proper environment=every life form." I say, "you have no idea what random processes can and cannot do." Learn what Colllins, and Anthony Flew understood which Alex and R. Dawkins are blind to seeing. Study the mathematics of probability theory, and how scientific research uses that theory to decide hypotheses. Then, understand about code, language, and information as relates to life on Earth. If you still cannot percieve the Mind behind creation, there is no hope for you gaining sight.
The multiverse "seems to require as much faith as a designer." Really? If we know for sure there is at least one of something, how unreasonable is it to think there might likely be more than one? We used to think there was only one planet, then that there was only one sun, etc. The history of human intuition is one of constantly underestimating the scope of reality by a staggering margin. At this point, our default position should be that anything that can happen once will happen again, and probably more times than we can grasp intuitively.
According to the general consensus of scholarship *(even critical Christian scholars),* YHWH was originally incorporated into the Canaanite pantheon as a son of the Canaanite high god El before inheriting the top spot in the pantheon and El's wife Athirat (Asherah) before religious reforms "divorced" them. El's pantheon in Ugarit (modern day Ras Shamra in Syria) is called the *Elohim,* literally the plural of El. Interestingly, the Biblical god is also referred to numerous times as Elohim. If you want to see if El is fictional, just read his mythology in the Ugaritic/Canaanite texts. "The mysterious Ugaritic text Shachar and Shalim tells how (perhaps near the beginning of all things) *El* came to shores of the sea and saw two women who bobbed up and down. *El* was sexually aroused and took the two with him, killed a bird by throwing a staff at it, and roasted it over a fire. He asked the women to tell him when the bird was fully cooked, and to then address him either as husband or as father, for he would thenceforward behave to them as they called him. They saluted him as husband. He then lay with them, and they gave birth to Shachar ("Dawn") and Shalim ("Dusk"). Again *El* lay with his wives and the wives gave birth to "the gracious gods", "cleavers of the sea", "children of the sea". The names of these wives are not explicitly provided, but some confusing rubrics at the beginning of the account mention the goddess *Athirat (Asherah),* who is otherwise *El's* chief wife, and the goddess Raḥmayyu ("the one of the womb"), otherwise unknown." *"First, a god named El predates the arrival of the Israelites into Syria-Palestine.* Biblical usage shows El was not just a generic noun, but often a proper name for Israel’s God (e.g., Gen 33:20: “El, the God of Israel”)." "I should add here that it is very clear from the grammar that the noun nachalah in v. 9 should be translated “inheritance.” *Yahweh receives Israel as his “inheritance” (nachalah), just as the other sons of El received their nations as their inheritance (nachal, v. 8).* With this verb, especially in the Hiphil, the object is always what is being given as an inheritance. Thus, Israel is given to Yahweh as his inheritance. ((Here I’m indebted to Dan McClellan.)) It would make no sense for Elyon to give himself an inheritance. Moreover, as I’ve argued elsewhere, it is not just the Gentile nations that are divided up according to the number of the *sons of El.* It is all of humankind, i.e., “the sons of Adam.” This clearly includes Israel. And the sons of Adam are not divided up according to the number of the *sons of El,* plus one (i.e., plus Elyon). They are divided up, according to the text, *solely* according to the number of the *sons of El.* *Thus, that Yahweh receives Israel as his inheritance makes Yahweh one of the sons of El mentioned in v. 8. Any other construal of the text would constitute its rewriting.* A Sumerian hymn speaks to the goddess: “Nanshe, your divine powers are not matched by any other divine powers.” *Does this mean that Nanshe was the high goddess, that there were no gods above her? No, it does not.* Nanshe was the daughter of Enki, the high god. *In Sumerian mythology, as with Ugaritic, Israelite, Babylonian, and others, in the ancient past, the high god (Enki, in this case) divided up the world and assigned his children certain domains.* Nanshe was given a limited domain (the modern Persian Gulf) and was tasked with maintaining social justice there. *This is exactly what we see in Deuteronomy 32 with Yahweh. Yahweh is given a limited domain (Israel) and is given authority over his people, to punish them, as well as to protect and defend them against foreign enemies.* That Yahweh, like Nanshe, is said to have incomparable divine power *does not* mean that he is not subordinate to the high god who gave him his domain. *It is also of note that Nanshe, like Baal, Yahweh, and so many other deities, evolved over time. Her domain increased, and she was promoted in the pantheon (although she never became the high goddess)."* *"The Most Heiser: Yahweh and Elyon in Psalm 82 and Deuteronomy 32 - Religion at the Margins"* based on the *majority scholarly consensus.* (Written by Thom Stark who is a Christian) *"Michael Heiser: A Unique Species? - Religion at the Margins"* (A second response to Michael Heiser) *"Excerpt from “Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan” by John Day - Lehi's Library."* *"The Table of Nations: The Geography of the World in Genesis 10"* - TheTorah.com (Excluding the short narrative on Nimrod (vv. 8-12), *which appears to be a later addition,* Genesis 10 contains *70* names of nations or cities, a number that was symbolic of totality. Similarly, the descendants of Jacob were *70* in number (Gen 46:37; Exod 1:5), *as were the sons of the supreme Canaanite god El, with whom YHWH became equated.)* *"Polytheism and Ancient Israel’s Canaanite Heritage. Part V | theyellowdart"* (Of course, much of this [i.e., that Israel worshiped El and Asherah alongside YHWH] is really to be expected given that recent syntheses of the *archaeological, cultural, and literary data* pertaining to the emergence of the nation of Israel in the Levant *show that most of the people who would eventually compose this group were originally Canaanite. As the Hebrew Bible notes, the Hebrew language itself is a Canaanite language, literally the “lip of Canaan” (שְׂפַת כְּנַעַן; Is. **19:18**), and so it cannot often be distinguished by modern scholars from other Canaanite inscriptions on purely linguistic grounds.)* *"Ugarit - New World Encyclopedia"* (Ugaritic religion centered on the chief god, Ilu or El, whose titles included "Father of mankind" and "Creator of the creation." The Court of El was referred to as the (plural) 'lhm or ***Elohim,*** a word ***later used by the biblical writers to describe the Hebrew deity*** and translated into English as "God," in the singular. El, which was ***also the name of the God of Abraham,*** was described as an aged deity with white hair, seated on a throne.) *"Mark Smith: Yahweh as El’s Son & Yahweh’s Ascendency - Lehi's Library"* (Mark Smith is a Catholic) *"God, Gods, and Sons (and Daughters) of God in the Hebrew Bible. Part III | theyellowdart"* *"02 | December | 2009 | Daniel O. McClellan - Psalm 82"* (Daniel McClellan is a Mormon) *"Elohim | Daniel O. McClellan"* (Refer to the article "Angels and Demons (and Michael Heiser)") *"God's Wife Edited Out of the Bible - Almost."* (Pay attention to whose wife Asherah (Athirat) is in the Ugaritic/Canaanite texts and how she became the wife of YHWH/Yahweh) *"Yahweh's Divorce from the Goddess Asherah in the Garden of Eden - Mythology Matters."* *"Asherah, God's Wife in Ancient Israel. Part IV - theyellowdart"* *"The Gates of Ishtar - El, was the original god of the bible."* *"The Gates of Ishtar - Anath in the Elephantine Papyri"* (In addition to Asherah (Athirat) being the consort of Yahweh, it appears some Israelites also viewed the Canaanite goddess Anat(h) as Yahweh's consort) *"Canaanite Religion - New World Encyclopedia"* (Refer to the section "Relationship to Biblical Religion") *"The Syncretization of Yahweh and El : reddit/AcademicBiblical"* (For a good summary of all of the above articles) Watch Professor Christine Hayes who lectures on the Hebrew Bible at Yale University. Watch lecture 2 from 40:40 to 41:50 minutes, lecture 7 from 30:00 minutes onwards, lecture 8 from 12:00 to 17:30 minutes and lecture 12 from 34:30 minutes onwards. Watch *"Pagan Origins of Judaism"* by Sigalius Myricantur and read the description in the video to see the scholarship the video is based on. Watch *"How Monotheism Evolved"* by Sigalius Myricantur and watch up to at least 21:40. Watch *"Atheism - A History of God (The Polytheistic Origins of Christianity and Judaism)"* (By a former theist) Watch *"The Origins of Yahweh"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica.
Nevertheless, the historical reconstruction that El was the chief god of the Israelites is not indebted only to the testimony of the (rather late) biblical witness of P. *Numerous biblical texts attest to the fact that the titles, functions, and the imagery associated with the Canaanite god El, as revealed by the Ugaritic texts and the Canaanite myth of Elkunirša, were assimilated into the profile of the deity YHWH.* According to the Ugaritic texts, El was known for his *wisdom* (e.g., KTU2 1.4.V.65[6]) and *great age* (’ab šnm, *“Father of Years,”* and drd, *“Ageless One,”* in KTU2 1.4.IV.24 and 1.10.III.6, respectively),[7] his *compassionate nature* (lţpn il dp’id, *“Kind El, the Compassionate One,”* e.g., KTU2 1.16.IV.9), his role as *father of the gods and humanity* (’ab ’adm, *“father of humanity,”* KTU2 1.14..III.47, and bny bnwt, *“creator of creatures,”* KTU2 1.17.I.24) and *creator of the cosmos.* [8] El was the *divine King* (e.g., KTU2 1.2.III.5-6) and the *head of the pantheon or divine council* (referred to variously as the dr ’il, *“circle of El/Family of El,”* KTU2 1.15.III.19; mpħrt bn ’il, *“the assembly of the sons of El,”* KTU2 1.65.3; bn ’il, *“the sons of El,”* KTU2 1.40.33, 41; pħr kbbm, *“assembly of the stars,”* KTU2 1.10.I.3-4; ‘dt ’ilm, *“assembly of the gods,”* KTU2 1.15.II.7; cf. KTU2 1.2.I; 1.3V; 1.4 IV-V) which met at the sacred mountain. *His consort was the goddess Athirat who bore him seventy sons* (šb‘m bn ’atrt, *“the seventy sons of Athirat,”* KTU2 1.4.VI.46). El was also known for his *divine patronage and blessing of progeny to humans* (as in the Epic of Kirta; see, for example, KTU2 1.14.III.46-51), for his *appearances to humans in dreams* (e.g., KTU2 1.14.I.35-37), as *being a healer* (KTU2 1.16.V-VI), and for his *dwelling at the sacred mountain* (e.g., KTU2 1.2.III.5-6) at the *sources of the mythical rivers* (KTU2 1.2.III.4; 1.3.V.6; 1.4.IV.20-22; 1.17.V.47-48) in a *tent* (KTU2 1.2.III.5; 1.3.V.8; 1.4.IV.24; 1.17.V.49; c.f. the Canaanite myth Elkunirša which *describes El’s abode as a tent[9]).[10]* *To underscore the fact that terminology and imagery originally used for the god El was adopted by the Israelites in their descriptions of YHWH,* the following brief summary might be placed in comparison to the discussion of El above: YHWH is an *aged, patriarchal deity* (Ps. 102:28; Job 36:26; Is. 40:28; Dan. 7.9-14, 22), *a father* (Deut. 32:6; Is. 63:16; 64:7; Jer. 3:4, 19; 31:9, etc.), *merciful and gracious* (Ex. 34:6; Jon. 4:2; Joel 2:13; Ps. 8615; 103:8; 145:8, etc.), *a divine patron who bestows the blessing of progeny upon Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,* often manifesting himself in *dreams or visions, a healer* (Gen. 20:17; Num. 12:13; 2 Kgs. 20:5, 8; Ps. 107:20, etc.), who *dwells in a tent* (Ps. 15:1; 27:6; 91:10; 132:3) *amidst the heavenly waters* (Ps. 47:5; 87; Is. 33: 20-22; Ez. 47:1-12, etc.), the *creator of the cosmos,* who is enthroned as *heavenly King* in the *divine council* (1 Kgs. 22:19; Is. 6:1-8; cf. Ps. 29:1-2; 82; 89: 5-8, etc.) on the *sacred mount of assembly* (e.g., Is. 14:13). Additionally, in much Israelite religious practice throughout the monarchic period, *YHWH had a divine consort, the goddess Asherah, the Hebrew equivalent of Ugaritic Athirat.[11]* (Originally the wife of El) *"When Jehovah Was Not the God of the Old Testament. Part II - theyellowdart"* Watch Professor Christine Hayes who lectures on the Hebrew Bible at Yale University. Watch lecture 2 from 40:40 to 41:50 minutes, lecture 7 from 30:00 minutes onwards, lecture 8 from 12:00 to 17:30 minutes and lecture 12 from 34:30 minutes onwards. Watch *"Pagan Origins of Judaism"* by Sigalius Myricantur and read the description in the video to see the scholarship the video is based on. Watch *"How Monotheism Evolved"* by Sigalius Myricantur and watch up to at least 21:40. ------------------------------------------------------------------ In addition, look up the below articles. *"Jews and Arabs Descended from Canaanites - Biblical Archaeology Society."* ("The study in Cell not only establishes that the ancient Israelites were ***descended from the Canaanites,*** but also establishes that the Canaanite people across the separate city-states of the southern Levant, and over a period of 1,500 years, were a genetically cohesive people.") *"The Canaanites weren't annihilated, they just 'moved' to Lebanon - The Times of Israel."* *"Ancient Canaanite religion explained* - everything.explained.today" *"Archeology of the Hebrew Bible - NOVA - PBS"* ("Many scholars now think that *most of the early Israelites were originally Canaanites, displaced Canaanites,* displaced from the lowlands, from the river valleys, displaced geographically and then displaced ideologically.") *"Origins of Judaism explained* - everything.explained.today" ("According to the current academic historical view, the origins of Judaism lie in the Bronze Age amidst polytheistic ancient Semitic religions, ***specifically evolving out of Ancient Canaanite polytheism,*** then co-existing with Babylonian religion, and syncretizing elements of Babylonian belief into the worship of Yahweh as reflected in the early prophetic books of the Hebrew Bible. (The Torah)". *Refer to the bibliography at the bottom of the page)* *"Canaanite languages - Britannica"* ("Group of Northern Central or Northwestern Semitic languages including ***Hebrew,*** Moabite, Phoenician, and Punic.") *"El - New World Encyclopedia"* (Refer to the section "El Outside the Bible" and the fact that *most of the early Israelites were originally indigenous or displaced Canaanites)* *"El (deity) explained* - everything.explained.today" (Refer to section "Ugarit and the Levant" and the fact that *most of the ancient Israelites were originally indigenous or displaced Canaanites* and see how Yahweh, later conflated with El (Yahweh-El(ohim)) is fictional) *"The Gods and Goddesses of Canaan - Essay - The Metropolitan Museum of Art - Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History"* *"Canaanite Phoenician Origin of the God of the Israelites."* *"The Phoenician (Canaanite) God Resheph in the Bible - Is That in the Bible?"* *"How the Jews Invented God and Made Him Great- Archaeology - Haaretz."* *"When the Jews believed in other gods - Archaeology - Haaretz"* *"The Invention of God - Maclean's"* *"How Did the Bible’s Editors Conceal Evidence of Israelite Polytheism - Evolution of God by Robert Wright."* *"A Theologically Revised Text: Deuteronomy 32:8-9 - Ancient Hebrew Poetry."* *"Biblical Contradiction #3: Which God is the Creator of the Heavens and Earth: Yahweh or El?"* - Dr Steven DiMattei *"Biblical Contradiction #27. Are Yahweh and El the Same God or Not?"* - Dr Steven DiMattei *"Biblical Contradiction **#294**, **#295**, **#296**. Which god liberated Israel from Egypt: Yahweh or El?"* - Dr Steven DiMattei *"Quartz Hill School of Theology - B425 Ugarit and the Bible."* *"The Origins of Yahweh and the Revived Kenite Hypothesis - Is That in the Bible?"* *"Yahweh, god of metallurgy - Fewer Lacunae."* *"Polytheistic Roots of Israelite Religion - Fewer Lacunae."* *"Yahweh was just an ancient Canaanite god. We have been deceived! - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"* *"Religious Studies: El, Yahweh and the Development of Monotheism in Ancient Israel."* *"Yhwh, God of Edom - Daniel O. McClellan."*
@@JRTIGER07Romans, including the entirety of chapter 1, was written to and for first century Christians in Rome. It has nothing to do with non believers then and now. Read more carefully.
@@epicofatrahasis3775 COPY AND PASTA ON MAGIC MUSHROOMS!! Sorry but listening to militant atheists unwittingly pontificating about metaphysical realities such as ultimate “TRUTH” and “VALUE” and copying and pasting from pseudo history whilst subscribing to the belief that we are all nothing more substantive than ULTIMATELY MEANINGLESS, ULTIMATELY DETERMINED, HOLLOW AND SOULLESS APES WHO SHARE HALF THEIR DNA WITH A POTATO IS PRICELESS!! Listening to strictly reductive materialists, atheists or philosophical naturalists pontificating about “CONTRADICTIONS” whilst subscribing to the belief that we are all nothing more substantive than ultimately meaningless, ultimately determined, hollow and soulless, overgrown amoebas with delusions of grandeur is as entertaining as watching someone trying to thrash the front of his car with the branch of a tree in order to BEAT IT INTO SUBMISSION! It's very Basil Fawlty like at times and very Monty Python like at times! But without the intended comedy value! CRINGE ATHEISM in full effect! Militant atheism is a walking ball of self contradiction and cognitive dissonance!!
The way Dr. Collins dismisses the multiverse and then presents a view of God that describes him exactly as a multiverse would, but with the added property of being a conscious mind with a will and an interest in us specifically. As if that's a better explanation????
Erm…it is a better explanation. Equally, all things are possible in an infinite multiverse where you have infinite time and chance and coincidence that can even create something as metaphysical as a conscious agent/freewill, that is rational and moral decision making itself - right? Even what is personal and ultimate/God is highly probable in a multiverse - yes? The multiverse is just atheistic fan fiction and is nothing more substantive than a fairytale for those afraid of the light.
@georgedoyle2487 the multiverse is effectively all science-fiction. It's theoretically interesting and vaguely plausible, and in many ways is on equal footing with any other claim of any vague or specific thing existing outside our universe. What I was pointing at is the way one model can make room for the other, but not vice-versa, because one makes more assumptions than the other. What I'm saying is that the christian god comes with way more assumptions than "there may be more of what's here but slightly different". That being said, I guess some believers would describe God in a way that somewhat mirrors that "more of the same" in regards to minds that perceive/impose things like value, beauty, morality... I just fundamentally reject the idea that minds are so deeply distinct from the rest of reality that they need to be given a special form that's responsible for reality existing. Matter precedes and forms minds, not the other way around. Be it magical projection, a deity, or any other system of belief that desperately wishes a mind was at the center of everything. The multiverse is a good theoretical tool to discuss the boundaries of reality and probability. God is a good theoretical tool to discuss morality and free will, but also a really effective tool at social homogeneity and indoctrination, for and against the better interests of people. They're two completely distinct spheres of metaphysics. With the exception that god beliefs usually want us to stop wondering about reality and start wondering about magic, flipping our view of cause and effect upside down at the cost of our sanity.
@ Sorry but the fact is that a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism basically says that [no ONE took no time to turn nothing into everything] - right? A belief that is actually synonymous with the belief in MAGIC at worst and at best it’s synonymous with the belief in secular myths and miracles - yes? Or even worse a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism basically says that [no ONE took forever to turn the accidental arrangement of the MAGICAL cosmic tea leaves at the bottom of the atheists morning cup of tea into everything] - yes? Sorry but I don’t need your “secular” myths nor your “secular” religion to ground metaphysics. That is to ground Truth and value and human dignity and respect. I don’t need your “secular” materialistic quasi religion to know what right and wrong is!! I wouldn’t have the arrogance to RIDICULE, GASLIGHT, OR LECTURE A BEREAVED MOTHER during a pandemic whose only consolation is the hope of being reunited with her child in some kind of afterlife!! The belief that [no ONE took forever to turn the accidental arrangement of the MAGICAL cosmic tea leaves at the bottom of the atheists morning cup of tea into everything] is synonymous with the belief in MAGIC - yes? I’m biased against beliefs that are synonymous with the belief in MAGIC!! I tend to doubt that they are rational!! Do you have actual evidence or not that MAGIC is real? I’ll wait!!
@@Nathouuuutheone According to the expert linguist and brilliant cognitive scientist Noam Chomsky… “There are only two ways of looking at eliminative materialism (the idea that all things reduce to solid substance). One is that it is total gibberish until someone tells us what matter is. Until someone tells us what eliminative materialism is there can’t be such a thing as eliminative materialism and no one can tell us what matter is”. (Noam Chomsky). The fact is that a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism, that is fatalism and epistemological nihilism is a question begging fallacy, an argument from ignorance and a special pleading fallacy of the highest degree!! The fact is that no one even knows what “MATTER” actually is and under relativism or moral subjectivism we are all clearly on equal footing at the very least!! This clearly leads to fatalism and epistemological nihilism and inevitably sui.tidal ideation if you are intellectually honest enough to live it out consistently!! Technically there’s no such thing as “hard core (scientific) materialism” as it’s not “scientific” in the sense of methodological naturalism!! Materialism is actually a philosophical position not a scientific position. It just sounds better if you arbitrarily add “scientific” to give this materialistic quasi religion more credibility. There’s a big difference between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism lol!! The clue is in the words “philosophical” and “metaphysical” naturalism!! An objection that will never be answered is how materialism is self enclosing and causally closed and can only describe what [is] not what [OUGHT] to be: The fact is that if one accepts only perceivable, empirical, measurable things as evidence, then any “measurable” and “quantifiable” sign of metaphysics you can show would simply just be interpreted as material right? Look up question begging fallacy and special pleading fallacy!! Moreover, nothing metaphysical and transcendental can ever be demonstrated to exist using materialism as your grounding metaphysical presupposition, rendering materialism unfalsifiable therefore an unscientific rigged game right? The irony is that empiricism itself is a metaphysical presupposition and a transcendental category and is a dogma. You can’t prove empiricism using empiricism. That is you can’t prove sensory data using sensory data - yes? Hence the famous essay by W. Quine [THE TWO DOGMAS OF EMPIRICISM] - right? The double irony is that quantum mechanics and in particular quantum superposition has actually demonstrated that classical materialism is dead!! According to Scientific American… “Atoms themselves can be further divided into smaller bits, and those into yet smaller ones, and so on, until what is left lacks shape and solidity altogether. At the bottom of the chain of “physical” reduction there are only elusive, phantasmal entities we label as “energy” and “fields”-abstract conceptual tools for describing nature, which themselves seem to lack any real, concrete essence.” (Scientific American).
Thank you for the video. It seems that Collins oscillates between two concepts in his argument: the "perfect plan of God" and the "binding nature of natural laws." If God had a perfect plan from the beginning, He could have designed the universe in a way that avoids unnecessary suffering without violating the natural laws He established. At the same time, it’s argued that God is bound by these natural laws and thus does not intervene, which raises questions about His omnipotence. This tension is never fully resolved and comes across as a way to sidestep difficult questions.
@tomriddle164 If God is bound by moral laws, this raises two significant issues: 1. God's omnipotence is called into question: If God is subject to moral laws, it implies that there is something external to and independent of Him that restricts His actions. This contradicts the classical understanding of omnipotence, where God is sovereign over all laws-whether moral, logical, or physical. 2. No objective moral standard from God: If moral laws exist independently of God, then He is not the source of morality. This means that those who argue for objective morality based on God's existence would have to explain where these moral laws come from and why they are binding-not just on us, but also on God Himself. This view creates significant theological and philosophical challenges for those who advocate that morality is grounded in God's nature or commands. What are your thoughts on this?
Universe without suffering means human beings without free will to decide the good or the bad.. Proved God existence, and no necessity of faith, gives the same results: humans with no free will
@@GuentherShadow Okay, looks like I was just careless with words, hence the apostrophe to avoid any explaining my position, lol, but here's how I'd explain God's position. Your first point that "God's omnipotence is called into question", agreed, but that's not what I was claiming, I understand the crucial nuances of the classical understanding of God's omnipotence. His omnipotence generally means He can do anything logically possible and consistent with His nature. In the bible, this is made clear in Hebrew 6:18, it says "It is impossible for God to lie", something He cannot to because it is contrary to His nature. "God is subject to moral laws, it implies that there is something external to and independent of Him that restricts His actions. " apologies, I should've used a different word to "bound" and probably didn't framed the position of God rightly in this way. God is not "subject/bound" to moral law, He is the source of moral law meaning it cannot be external or independent of Him, its an expression of His nature. Morality is an expression of His nature. Moral laws are not external to God according to theology, in the bible, this is again clearly outlined, God is described as Love, Just, Truth, all emanates from Him. So morality is not external to Him, it's intrinsic and thereby the implications you claim does not hold, they're based on a misunderstood/flawed premise because “subject to moral laws” does not imply externality or independence. Seems like the crux of the issue is why God does not intervene, I'd argue He did and is currently but alas, that delves into the "dreaded" faith territory. I disagree with you particularly on this "without violating the natural laws He established. At the same time, it’s argued that God is bound by these natural laws and thus does not intervene, which raises questions about His omnipotence." I'd argue that God is not subject to NATURAL laws, because, He can and does perform miracles and did intervene that much we Christians do believe. I mean, God became man, how much more intervening can you do? He literally became flesh, so, I think it's a matter of faith. I am curious as to these difficult questions you think Collins side-steps.
One answer: Freewill. . . If everyone abides to God's parameters no one would experience this dire consequence. Imagine, if a thief falls from 2nd floor because hes tryin to escape then bounces when he reached the floor because of physics. But its also the same floor that you want to walk on without bouncing. God has given man the freedom to decide but if he changes the laws of nature to reduce suffering then they are not really free. Imagine ordering in a restaurant that has a menu from a to z but when you select one dish the waiter will tell you there's only 3 available. So God permitted this universe with its laws for man to naturally learn from his mistake. That the same fire that could hurt him is a tool for cooking. If there's anything, God is really intelligent.
This is a great conversation but I am a bit blown away by how poor Francis Collins' epistemology was when he was atheist. He was an atheist for poor reasons and he's a Christian for poor reasons. When he was talking about the cosmological argument and then the fine tuning argument I was curious how he has never heard of these arguments before, which are so simply refuted. It's almost like Collins' is unaware of Douglas Adams' puddle analogy or even the argument from personal incredulity fallacy. It's really odd.
“Douglas Adam’s” You actually believe that Douglas Adam’s refuted fine tuning by reducing it to a straw man argument about an imaginary talking puddle? That’s just laughable!!
Sorry but atheistic, nihilistic fairytales about imaginary talking puddles are exactly that, nothing more substantive than imaginary stories about talking puddles and fallacies of false equivalence and straw man arguments and pseudo science. If the “IMAGINARY TALKING PUDDLE” argument was so Earth shattering it would have been submitted to a scientific Journal for peer review and the story ends there - right? But this isn’t the case because if it was true the father of string theory Leonard Susskind wouldn’t have bothered to invest all the limited time, energy and money they had on investigating string theory and fine tuning if imaginary talking puddles were such an Earth shattering defeater for the extraordinary evidence of a (Finely Tuned Universe). Let’s take the most basic laws of physics. It has been calculated that if the value of even one of the fundamental constants-the speed of light or the mass of an electron, for instance-had been to the slightest degree different, then no planet capable of permitting the evolution of human life could have formed. In Professor Susskinds own words…. “Without any explanation of nature's fine tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics.”
A strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism is a question begging fallacy, an argument from ignorance and a special pleading fallacy of the highest degree. According the prominent physicist Leonard Susskind, who’s actually coming from a non religious perspective, the present inability of physics to explain the fine tuning of the universe that is essential for life appears to leave an opening for a prime reality and infinite intelligence/God. Professor Susskind is actually the father of string theory and he emphatically states that.. “I have to say that if [string theory fails], as things stand now we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature's fine tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics. One might argue that the hope that a mathematically unique solution will emerge is as faith-based as [Intelligent Design].” - (Leonard Susskind the father of modern string theory) Similarly, according to the English physicist Paul Davies - a true scientific explanation…. “Is like a single well-aimed bullet. The idea of a multiverse replaces the rationally ordered real world with an infinitely complex charade and makes the whole idea of ‘explanation’ meaningless.” (Paul Davies). Moreover, according to the Oxford professor Richard Swinburne… “It is crazy to postulate a trillion (causally unconnected) universes to explain the features of one universe, when postulating one entity (God) will do the job.” (Richard Swinburne) Professor Swinburne goes on to highlight that…. “These universes would never be directly observable; we couldn’t even meaningfully say whether they existed ‘before’, ‘after’ or ‘alongside’ our own” (Richard Swinburne). Furthermore, the claim that someone is “WRONG” regarding their belief in a transcendental outlook or they are “WRONG” regarding their belief in a infinite intelligence, by the way, that’s a PHILOSOPHICAL claim, that’s a VALUE claim, that is a metaphysical presupposition and a transcendental category that can not be proven, justified or grounded using a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism that clearly excludes metaphysical realities - right? You are now in the domain of metaphysics!! And that’s our domain!! The only way to avoid being a metaphysician in a debate about ultimate “TRUTH” and “VALUE” is to say nothing!! So if you are a strictly reductive materialist, atheist or philosophical naturalist who constantly appeals to the prescriptive laws of logic and your so called “superior rational atheistic thinking” you now have an enormous explanatory gap and an enormous burden of proof!! “Philosophy always buries its undertakers." Indeed, you can't get away from philosophy. It's like logic. To deny it is to use it.” C. S. Lewis famously wrote!
@georgedoyle2487 - saying that the universe is fine tuned for human life is as laughable as the puddle analogy. The puddle analogy is ridiculous for a reason... it's a mockery of the fine tuning argument.
The music argument is weird because I listen to hardstyle, hard trance, frenchcore and uk hardcore and I experience the same kind of awe and beauty that feels "divine", but it would be as strange to assign that to contact with the bronze age god of the bible as a pizza. One incredibly moving uk hardcore track for example is called Oh, My Dishes by DJ Cotts where the lyrics are about dishwasher maintenance, but before it gets to that point, there's this absolutely euphoric buildup that almost brings people to tears, so they end up getting tricked by the author of this beautiful piece and end up laughing at the drop. It just seems to me like this is a property of music itself, and it's easier to believe it's more than that with something like classical music because it's easy to imagine a much more poetic narrative about beethoven transcribing something transcendent into the melody or whatever than a DJ that just pumps out silly euphoric rave music people listen to under the influence of stimulants and hallucinogens.
28:58 What a shameful and idiotic thing for a scientist to say "outside of time and outside of space". Does he not realize that it simply means never and nowhere?
It's also shameful that you don't realise that the English language and our brains find it difficult to explain something that may or may not exist in a way we understand
@@donnypillay1924 Sure. But as temporal and space enhabiting beings, it's simply impossible for us to imagine that something exists never and nowhere, but somehow is still something. That's impossible to take as truth except on faith alone.
@victor_2216 Mathematics and logic only work in the minds of humans. Once you are dead, they don't exist anymore. Can a dead man use mathematics and logic?
Eternity includes all times, past, present and future simultaneous. Also, time only exists because of movement, of change. In God there is not movement nor change, so there's no time. God is infinite, and has no limitations, he cannot be a body, because body does have a surface who limits it.
There was one thing which Francis Collins said which I had an issue with, it was at 36:38 when he said ''God chooses to have a world where he is constrained by the constants'' this defo makes little sense to me, but I get he has to come up with an explanation to fit his worldview.
I found it personally offensive when Dr. Collins claimed Alex finds certain Biblical passages not credible because Alex approaches the text as an unbeliever with cognitive bias. What about Bart Ehrman and those like him who lost their faith when faithfully, diligently, digging deeper? Also, as a fan of Nietzsche, maybe the most important, interesting, productive and healthy question isn't, "Does God exist?," but rather, "What should we do if He doesn't exist?" Perhaps the unhealthy procrastinating of this latter question by perpetuating the former question is what makes the New Atheist most appealing to me.
Any time someone proclaims to know what any specific god is/was thinking baffles me! It is like asking someone in America why a particular person in England designed their specific house the way they did if the person in America never met the person in England and has only heard of their possible existence.
I’m not sure you put much thought into this argument. Of course you can discern why a person would design something a certain way. Design is an intuitive expression of what works well. You can start listing the general things this house would have, a place to eat / prepare food, a place to sleep, a place to sit down, etc. Then you could move into the specifics, how tall are the walls, how many cabinets in the kitchen, location of power outlets, size and location of windows, etc. They would have designed their house to meet their needs working within the parameters for their particular limitations using a set of generalized design rules that guided the process. There are infinitely varying degrees of how this turns out in the end, but in general the process is the same.
@Mulli9anStew Do you get that if I were to claim that I know what someone else is thinking that I have never met in another country, or claim to know what their house looks like without ever seeing it, or make assumptions about them without ever talking to them is ridiculous??? It would take a really bad designer to design a universe that can easily be destroyed if anything changes the slightest bit within it. Any designer who put people on an Earth that has hurricanes, tornadoes, volcanoes, tsunamis, etc. was a horrible designer. Any designer who made very few places where a human can survive is a poor designer if its goal was to create humans. Any designer who made our bodies able to get easily injured, subject to illnesses, and made us so our breathing tube is next to our eating tube was an incompetent designer.
@@elainejohnson6955 for your first point, would it surprise you that the US government spent over 20 years developing a program to do just that? You can look up "remote viewing" if you want. I think your list of "flaws" as you describe them may seem horrible and faulty, but honestly are all of those things really holding us back as a species in the big picture? We seem to be progressing still, after who knows how long it's been since the "dawn of man".
The so-called 'Fine Tuning Argument' is silly. It clearly contradicts the claim of the all-powerful christian god because, as Collins says, gravity has to have a particular value for existence as we know it to be a thing. The 'Fine Tuning Argument', it seems to me, is the best theistic argument for a case against the existence of the abrahamic god.
@@donnypillay1924 Who said the universe created itself out of nothing? I certainly didn't. And I absolutely do not believe that. I believe that energy has always existed, and the universe emerged because of that energy. Why would you come to the conclusion that the universe has been fine tuned - and fine-tuned for life, as the apologists claim - when the overwhelming majority of it is deadly to life? No serious thinker would come to the conclusion that the universe has been 'fine-tuned for life', knowing what we do about the universe, because it isn't logical. Life fine-tunes to its surroundings - this is something we have witnessed here on Earth. There's simply no reason to believe the universe has been fine-tuned. I refer to this so-called argument as the 'fine-tuning brainfart', because the only thing this own-goal does is contradict the claim of the all-powerful christian god, and nothing else.
I think Collins gave an excellent account of himself, as an atheist, one of the most reasonable and intelligent opponents to my position I could have hoped to have heard from.
@@jackfrosterton4135 yes, especially with regards to his push-back of Alex's point about the supposed uselessness of art from an evolutionary point of view. It's a line I've heard him use for a while and it was nice to hear that corrected. There are other things too, but that was one example. I think that though it's clear Collins misunderstood certain parts like the "constraints" at first, he listened and heard what Alex had to say, after which he changed tack. For these reasons and more, I appreciated him as a reasonable and intelligent member of this debate, above many others.
@@TitanOfClashI don’t consider it a debate but rather a conversation. I thought both did quite well. However I think Alex’ arguments about suffering are weak. Life worth living requires suffering. Imagine being a parent that doesn’t let their children risk dangerous situations, they become twisted as adults. Why would God or anyone want a world without the capacity for suffering?
@@bryanutility9609 He addresses that point by saying he's not talking about removing all suffering for exactly that reason, but is for instance asking for an account of the extreme suffering of animals.
@ “Extreme suffering” has to be possible for the opposite to be possible. Wanting a world within arbitrary boundaries wouldn’t make sense, it’s like bowling but only with bumpers. The virtue of courage would be impossible.
Alex giving Francis the pass in calling belief a spectrum (it is not) was immediately a huge red flag in this conversation. I highly doubt Francis will tell one true thing this entire video, at least relating to his god and especially atheism and religion. and no pushback on the universe potentially being the uncaused cause is crazy!! That's like one of the most popular atheist arguments!! last edit lol: This was insufferable. Constantly pulling "i have faith so it has to be true" so many times and constantly ignoring that beauty is subjective was beyond annoying. even if he does think life (?) is beautiful that doesn't point to the existence of god! what else can this man make the argument for being "i think it's beautiful and i have faith in my presupposition so it must be true"... other than the scientific method that concludes a theory... even though the scientific method excludes faith as evidence... what the hell. how is this guy at all relevant?? i can get better rational for god from any of my 20 local churches. and not to mention that he just completely scoffs at cruel animal (and human!) death. the last point of Alex saying that the god question is pretty much an exclusively relevant question for atheists to explore is such a valid point that i'm afraid Francis is too stupid to understand.
What's the point having these supposed intellectual conversations when in the end the theist just says well nothing else makes sense to me and this one makes me feel good so I have to ignore all your objections and assume god has his reasons the end.
I have literally never seen a religious debate between an atheist or agnostic and any other religious worldview and had either party concede… So what do you want exactly?
the best way I can explain it as a former agnostic of 13 years who became a Christian after reading the Bible for myself, studying church history, studying manuscript evidence. When you choose to believe and put your faith in Christ, and really do your research, it's as though a veil is listed from your eyes and you see the truth. The scriptures speak of this perfectly in 1st Corinthians 1:18 “The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to those who are being saved it is the power of God”
It’s not necessarily the conclusion that is valuable. That’s why the entire conversation is recorded and posted on youtube. There is value in simply talking about these things, it gets people to think critically, it helps people form and shape their own opinions by hearing opinions they otherwise never would’ve heard. That’s the point. Some people want to hear differing viewpoints because they are concerned with learning, you seem to be concerned with the validation of your ego because your comment implies that you just want to listen to people spew the viewpoints you already believe.
Look. Either God can only do that which the laws of physics allow him to do, or God can “break”/circumvent/supersede the laws of physics to achieve his goals. If it’s the former, then God isn’t omnipotent. If it’s the latter, then physical constants aren’t relevant to the question of whether or not an “interesting” universe can exist, and the FTA’s premises are moot. I don’t know why Francis Collins can’t grasp this extremely simple, obvious point that Alex is making, but that’s the crux of the issue here.
It is not a simple point in the least. The very fact that these smart guys and other similar ones throughout history, believers and not believers, have put this issue in the table to try to understand, shows the complexity of the problem. There are very precise laws of physics that define this universe and the logic and evidence tells us that couldn't come out of nothing, but at the same time such original cause seems to be somehow bounded by them. This is something not trivial at all
@dataphilo - The question that I raised pertains to God’s purported “omnipotence”, and it is indeed a very simple question: Is God bound by the laws of physics, or can he break/circumvent them at will? It can’t be both, so which is it?
@NathanColvin It's tremendously simple: God is not bound by ANY laws - it truly is not difficult to work out. He established everything and can tinker and alter all He likes.This includes His ability to enter into Time at any point in history including the future of course, and be outside of it - and freeze frame as often as He wishes. Only those who put FULL faith and trust in Him will go to His New Kingdom - the New Earth - of eternal life. This world is all a test. Read the Bible. God Bless.
chat gpt sermed to agree with me and said... I completely understand your concern. The word "necessary" can indeed muddy the waters of such a deep philosophical discussion. Alex O'Connor (Cosmic Skeptic) is likely using the term "necessary" to argue that belief in God is not required to explain things like the universe, morality, or human existence. However, as you pointed out, the more accurate question may be about what is most probable given the available evidence, which is a more nuanced way of approaching the issue.
Haven't seen that part yet, but the obvious guess would be that Alex was talking about theoretical virtues. Simplicity, not introducing unnecessary entities makes a theory more virtuous.
chatgpt will always agree with you! It's a pushover. Rather ask it to disagree with you and see what it says, then make your own conclusion. ChatGPT itself is quite unreliable to give you proper analysis, especially when it thinks the question is personal to you. It is too nice to tell the truth if it thinks its offensive.
You can bully Chatgpt into any position given enough time. Alex has technically even showed this on his channel. Chatgpt is a tool not a truthsayer myguy.
I could listen to Alex all day long. What I'd love Alex to do is, rather than saying very similar things to lots of different people, to talk to the same person regularly to try to reach conclusions together over time.
Maybe it's because I'm getting older, but it has become nearly intolerable and dramatically sad to watch intelligent (in every other aspect) people defending a fairytale for people of the Stone Age with ostensibly sophisticated arguments.
@@johnpetkos5686 “Stone Age” Well said!! Me too!! It strikes me that a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism is a sort of Stone Age, peasant superstition of our age! Militant atheism is a walking ball of self contradiction and cognitive dissonance!! Moreover, Mr “COSMIC SCEPTIC” is actually a determinist so he doesn’t even believe in freewill - yes? That is he doesn’t even believe in rational decision making itself - right? As it’s all allegedly determined even consciousness - right? So even consciousness and rational decision making itself is “illusory”? That’s a self own on multiple levels and is beyond ironic - isn’t it? Which means that Mr “COSMIC SCEPTIC” is an enormous GRIFTER because he has actually built a career on the premise that atheists are “superior rational decision makers” - right? He’s built a career out of getting people to use their will to become an atheist like him because muh atheism is “SUPERIOR” - yes? But he doesn’t even believe that rational decision making, that is freewill is real! Which also means that he actually believes that Pdfiles and Grapists and murderers are NOT responsible or accountable for their own actions as freewill is “ILLUSORY” according to his “superior atheist rational decision making” - yes? It’s an house of cards!! CRINGE ATHEISM in full effect!!
@@men.276You say that like all Christians actually believe the same things. That's ridiculous. That's why there are so many denominations and sects within the Christian religion. They can't agree on doctrine, salvation, predestination etc. and will claim the moral high ground as those who have attained salvation and look down in pity at the other hapless Christians who believe the wrong thing. "Faith" is a broad term in that way. If non-believers actually saw some consistency in the behavior and beliefs of Christians, it might be compelling. But, it seems Christians all have their own idea of who God is and what he requires of us and they will fight needlessly with those that do not agree on their interpretation of what perceive as God's plan.
Dr. Collins’ spiritual experiences seem nothing more than the average mushroom trip in which our subconscious tells us things like “spend more time with your sister,” “start saving money,” etc.
What a sobering video to watch. For years I've heard what a great example Dr. Collins is of how faith and science need not be in conflict. And here he is making all of the same vacuous, fallacious arguments as every third-rate apologist. All the greatest hits are there: The Kalam, Fine-Tuning, etc. My favorite part is when Collins and Alex are discussing the resurrection, and the former chides the latter because his "prior is to be skeptical," as if "dead people sometimes come back to life" is the prior that's more likely to lead to an accurate conclusion.
I watched this carefully TWICE routing for the scientists to compel me to return to god. Ended up doubling down on agnosticism/athiest and seeing nothing but desperate biased towards “god” because “Feelings” and faulty logic and convenient justification. “It conveys a certain kind of compelling truth that I’m willing to take on board without being certain that it’s absolutely true” 🗑️
The thing about the fine-tuning argument is that it assumes we know enough about the fundamentals of physics to confidently claim that various physical constants are arbitrary and unrelated. It's entirely possible that things like electric and gravitational force constants simply arise in a predictable way from yet more fundamental principles we haven't discovered.
"The values of the fundamental physical constants are in a NARROW RANGE that is necessary to support carbon-based life. [s this because there are an infinite number of other universes with different constants, or are our universe's constants the result of chance, intelligent design (by a personal being such as the theist's "God"), or some other factor or process?" -> This is an unsolved physics problem.
@@jbangz2023 I'm sorry, what? Who are you quoting? And how do they know any of the physical constants we use are fundamental rather than the result of yet more fundamental physics we have yet to discover?
I wonder what it is about fine tuning putting limitations on god that a lot of theists simply can't seem to get. A fine tuning argument does not get you to an omnipotent creator who created everything. It only gets you to a being that plays with pre-existing levers and dials until they get the universe they prefer.
Your priors' isn’t a dismissal but a sort of recognition that all arguments start from assumptions. Addressing those assumptions first strengthens criticism. That of course if the assumptions are based on reason and logic .. if the priors are based on religious beliefs held as a direct result of say indoctrination, exposing the priors can make the criticism / arguments seem unreasonable, non coherent, even for the person saying them, because it's an exercise we so rarely do... this off course means that there's a discussion that follows saying "your priors", that addresses the priors, then moves on to the arguments/ criticism.. and not using "your priors" as a way to end further discussion
@@AkEl-Man The problem with Collins' use, to me, is that he would just mention "your priors" and move on. Discussing priors can be informative, but he seemed to be using it more as a thought stopping cliche. I would have been interested to hear what he thought the difference between his and Alex's priors were. For example, if "Jesus is God" one of his priors, or simply "the supernatural is possible"?
@@AshleyMooreAMS i totally agree, i think that talking about the priors would reveal that one of them has fantastical, fairy tale, hard to justify, irrational ones .. while the other one's would be based on reality and rationality.. I don't think i need to tell you which of these two is Collins
@@connorsaxton2920 Alex actually admitted that he would cannibalise and eat his cabin boy in a debate with Trent Horn. Which is beyond ironic given that Alex was a vegan. So Alex has definitely met more than his match numerous times. Militant atheism is a walking ball of self contradiction and cognitive dissonance!! Determinism, emotivism and utilitarianism are secular fairytales for those afraid of the LIGHT!
When the day of judgement comes or after he dies he will realise becuz as jesus teaches not to win on arguments for the flesh but rather win on the soul so who cares alex is winning a so called “argument” just in order to make his faith which is agnosticism strong debating everyone especially christians and the people r enjoying this becuz he have won an argument disproving the existence of God i m just like wow and none of these people have ever drop even a little bit of faith after debating him becuz u can never fully comprehend the absolute infinite nature of God so the intellectual beings like alex will use their own way of thinking to understand how and what God thinks or operates or is he real or not but u will fail miserably all the times becuz u r not humble and humility enough to understand and walk in the Lord’s way rather u r using ur own brain to think and analyze wheather god is real or not
I took the inverse path that Collins talks about: raised as a Catholic, I justified God's existence with the beauty of music. Then, after training as a computer scientist and considering the evidence and epistemological issues, I quickly became an agnostic atheist. Belief in God might depend on a state of mind, but it doesn't seem like a rational position.
Great discussion, great points from men (and some from the host as well). It’s certainly difficult to maintain a “beginner’s mind” (see Shunryu Suzuki) in discussions such as this. We all carry our filters whether we’re honest enough to admit it or not. It’s difficult, maybe impossible, to explain the impact Mahler Symphony 9, John Coltrane’s A LOVE SUPREME, Bob Dylan’s BRINGING IT ALL BACK HOME, or The Clash’s LONDON CALLING can have on a listener in a purely materialist context. I LOVED Alex’s story about sitting with his friend overlooking Corinth near the end. I am stealing that quote.
Yeah, Krauss reframed it by asking “how is there something rather than nothing?” We know something exists, and that refutes the concept of nothingness. “How” is in theory an answerable question, and scientists have posited reliable answers to an extent. The deeper the knowledge, the greater the unknowns. “Why” is a subjective philosophical question.
@@claytonshank6871there is the most ignorant and equally arrogant statement. The only humble answer that can suffice for a non believer is, ‘ I don’t know’
ive never understood this idea of a god outside of time & space & why people give this idea any credit. there is nothing that we know of that is outside of space & time & it seems silly to make an exception for this one case. the word supernatural is meaningless in my opinion because again it doesnt mean anything to be beyond the natural world. everything we know is contained within the natural world & there hasnt been one single person who can give evidence of a supernatural situation ever occurring
@@jaredmiller5109 The fact is that a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism relies on ultimately meaningless [determinism, chance, and randomness] like a “HOLY” trinity of magical chance, coincidence and wishful thinking! The strictly reductive materialist, atheist or philosophical naturalists blind devotion to the gods of materialism and automatism condemns their myths to hollowness!! The fact is that the power of the machine model of reality and the power of the automaton has proved so seductive that the very mention of metaphysical realities such as compassion, empathy, goodness and freewill, that is the mere mention of transcendental categories such as rational decision making itself and moral decision making itself are now arrogantly hand waved away as “ILLUSORY”? Consciousness and freewill is just an “ILLUSION” - right? Which is actually laughable and self refuting. Emergent properties are magically conjured up to fill the enormous explanatory gap between hydrogen, nitrogen, carbon, calcium and conscious decision makers - right? Equally, unexplained holes in physics are quickly swept under an increasingly rising carpet of dark energy, dark matter, virtual particles and decoherence etc. Phenomenal consciousness, panpsychism or panexperientialism, the collective consciousness, the prime reality/God or what ever term you prefer can tie up all of these loose ends that materialism completely fails to explain and point the way to a new theory of the cosmos rooted in MIND. That is rooted in common sense and rational decision making - yes? But I believe in the final analysis only Christ can ground all these things in something beautiful and tangible!!
@@jaredmiller5109 The fact is that all observations of functions and substances in the universe are kinds of experiences, that is mental states rather than the other way around. The fact is that a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism presupposes its own theoretical metaphysics. But its proponents expect us to believe that it is a given that this is the fundamental primitive for explaining the existence of all life and all conscious entities. Moreover, when our pride usurps metaphysics, that is when our pride usurps TRUTH and VALUE and OBJECTIVE MORALITY, we walk on the shifting sands of relativism, materialism, moral subjectivism and solipsism, a narcissistic and ego driven reality!!
@@jaredmiller5109 “The word supernatural is meaningless in my opinion” Oh the irony!! Look up appeal to incredulity fallacy. Your appeal to metaphysical realities and transcendental categories such as “MEANING” is a self own on multiple levels! By the way, you just totally and utterly refuted your self! Sorry but it’s all ultimately meaningless under a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism - yes? Are you for real? Your arbitrary subjective opinion regarding “MEANING” has no more truth value than leaves blowing in the wind in an ultimately meaningless, ultimately purposeless universe - right? Listening to militant atheists whining about how “MEANINGLESS” other peoples beliefs are whilst subscribing to the belief that we are all nothing more substantive than ULTIMATELY MEANINGLESS, ULTIMATELY DETERMINED, HOLLOW AND SOULLESS APES WHO SHARE HALF THEIR DNA WITH A POTATO IS PRICELESS!!
@@paulo.8899 “Exactly. Someone ask these Christians how long it took for God to create time.” Oh the irony!! Look up straw man argument and appeal ridicule fallacy. The irony, of course, is that a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism basically says that [no ONE took no time to turn nothing into everything] - right? A belief that is actually synonymous with the belief in MAGIC at worst and at best it’s synonymous with the belief in secular myths and miracles - yes? Or even worse a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism basically says that [no ONE took forever to turn the accidental arrangement of the MAGICAL cosmic tea leaves at the bottom of the atheists morning cup of tea into everything] - yes? Sorry but I don’t need your “secular” myths nor your “secular” religion to ground metaphysics. That is to ground Truth and value and human dignity and respect. I don’t need your “secular” materialistic quasi religion to know what right and wrong is!! I wouldn’t have the arrogance to RIDICULE, GASLIGHT, OR LECTURE A BEREAVED MOTHER during a pandemic whose only consolation is the hope of being reunited with her child in some kind of afterlife!! Sorry but the belief that [no ONE took forever to turn the accidental arrangement of the MAGICAL cosmic tea leaves at the bottom of the atheists morning cup of tea into everything] is synonymous with the belief in MAGIC - yes? I’m biased against beliefs that are synonymous with the belief in MAGIC!! I tend to doubt that they are rational!! Do you have actual evidence or not that MAGIC is real? I’ll wait!!
34:00 His argument is God wanted to make things interesting which is subjective. Let's grant him it's objectively interesting: Could it be more interesting? Yes. How would that be? The space is vastly large, it could have had less empty space and more life (If there is any other planet that has life of course). And if the God is interested in human life why not make better conditions in the first place supporting life?
@@NeoRelic-o8p “That old guy” “how unreasonable his beliefs are” Alex isn’t old? Why are you attacking Alex LOL? Sorry but “UNREASONABLE” according to who? or what absolute, universal, objective standard of measure exactly? “UNREASONABLE” according to the standard of an overgrown amoeba with delusions of grandeur? Or “UNREASONABLE” according to nothing more substantive than an ULTIMATELY MEANINGLESS, ULTIMATELY DETERMINED, HOLLOW AND SOULLESS APE WHO SHARES HALF THEIR DNA WITH A POTATO? Your world view, your absurdity, your “UNREASONABLE”, your ultimately meaningless hollow and soulless ape, your existential crisis and your epistemological crisis not the theists!! I mean, everyone has a right to believe what they want and everyone including theists have a right to find it totally ridiculous, totally fatalistic, totally nihilistic, and totally and utterly SELF refuting… I rest my case!!
I'm glad to see Christians are realizing Alex O'Connor is a seeker of facts and not truth. I quit following the majority of his debates a while back. I'm seeing 99% of the comments from atheists. I do like Dr. Collins and I love his book, The Language of God. He was very patient with Alex. Alex is clever, but Dr. Collins is wise and the beauty and peace he seems to have speaks volumes.
@@barriehoman3833you are spot on with the definition atheists give to truth. Atheists base their understanding of truth mainly on empirical evidence - knowledge gained almost exclusively to observation and experimentation. How incredibly limiting is your world. I guess there is no truth in love or beauty. You reduce it to just feelings. What a pity.
I only started studying Christianity myself about a year ago and I'm shocked at how lacking his answers were. He seems to be playing the part of a soft target for atheists to beat up on. I want to hear the absolute best arguments from both sides and this debate was a disappointment.
Disappointing, and a little pathetic, that even very highly educated people like Collins still have to fall back on the "it just feels right and makes me feel good" justification for their belief.
Maybe you are the same but just don’t know yourself as well. “Feelings” precede reason. There’s nothing wrong with his position, it’s honest & is justification enough for anything.
Some physicists have argued that quantum fields are fundamental and exist outside of space and time (that space and time themselves are in fact a consequence of quantum fields interacting, not that the quantum fields are embedded within space and time). I can certainly conceive of higher dimensional things that we - constrained to three dimensions - do not have access to. I’m an atheist, but I don’t think it’s logically incoherent to argue that god can both exist and also transcend what we know of as reality.
@@ericfan9149 Physicist Sean Carroll likes to point out that while we continue to think of "nothing" as the most fundamental state of being, perhaps "something" is the more correct answer -- i.e. that there always was and will be "something" and that there never was "nothing".
@ I think that’s a valid argument. People who argue “something can’t come from nothing” assume that absolute nothingness is the only possible preexisting condition.
@ The arguments are semantically difficult to propose because you end up having to use words like “always” which implies a duration of time. It’s possible there are things that exist independent of time, or that time itself is a causal byproduct of something more fundamental.
No one regardless of age or reputation seems to have any answers for Alex’s logic. A scientist who believes that someone came back from the dead lost credibility for me right there. A God that requires a human sacrifice? I don’t want him as a friend let alone a God.
Francis Collins: I like my feelz about god, don't bother me with the details. Alex O'Conner: Show me god. What is god? What purpose does god serve, etc.? There was no meeting in the middle in this conversation.
I would add to this that because my apprehension of the world is restricted by my ability to name things. Language is vital in the search for meani in general and because we have the word God, he exists. However, the fact that we have named God doesn't mean he exists, other than as a concept and something that marks where our knowledge ends.
It’s actually polytheism that believes in many gods, not pantheism. And I don’t think it would make sense for them to have that be the question actually because Dr. collins is a monotheist so neither of them is advocating for polytheism.
@@PatrickFlynn-ry6ojthere’s no reason why an atheist should accept the frame “god or no god” as monotheism is the only option just because it’s popular right now.
How am I 53 minutes into this debate and and Collins hasn’t brought up the concept of the “fallen world” in his arguments? Or the fact that Jesus, who is God incarnate, himself suffered a brutal death, just as the animals O’Connor keeps referring to? Pain and suffering clearly have a place in this world because of sin. The Bible addresses this. This fallen, corrupt state of the world’s existence is only temporary, and will one day be restored after Christ’s return. The explanation for the state of things as they are now isn’t just limited to God’s mind _before_ creation, but includes everything that happens on Earth throughout time, outside of which he operates and in consideration of which he created the world.
@@sulx6104 I'm paraphrasing Christ; take it up with him. The Bible also says that if you are earnestly seeking Him, He will let Himself be found by you. It also says God is not far off from each one of us and that anyone from anywhere is acceptable to God if they do what pleases Him. By the way, the intellectuals Christ was referring to were the ones being arrogant in his time, due to their vast learning in their schools.
The universe that we can observe is definitely NOT fine tuned! What a narrow perspective to think otherwise. I think people need to be more honest and just say “I think it’s scary not knowing so I would rather pretend”
@@2ButterdBiscuits "fine-tuned" assumes first of all that something intended the universe to be a certain way, which conveniently happens to benefit us in the narrow span of time humans have dominated the earth. Second, it suggests that this is the best possible version of the world and we are physically the best versions of ourselves that could exist. If you just look at a few of the flawed and supposed "design" of the human body it should be pretty clear that these assumptions are ludicrous. The idea of fine-tuning is nothing but a simple example observer bias that for some reason we are told we have to take seriously.
An interesting conversation to the say the least, as is always the case when the young, Alex O'Conner is involved. It never ceases to amaze me that religion can take such hold on even the most giftedly intelligent among us. When talking about his faith, Francis Collins is reduced to sounding utterly childish.
The fact is Alex could do a better job arguing for gods existence than 90 percent of the people he debates, he takes the question far more seriously than the people who claim to believe.
Well, most people he debate barely pass the threshold of using logical arguments, let alone sound ones!
Can I ask why you say: "the people claim to believe"? Everyone claims to believe in something. You seem to suggest that all atheists are lying about their lack of belief ...
That's an absurd claim. Please substantiate.
@@Sam-v8v9g either this is obviously false or Alex only dialogues with neophyte philosophers, which is also obviously false. Either way, you're wrong.
@@barry.anderberg
Knock out on count one 💤Alex and D'Nish d'Sooz was an abysmal outcome for D'Nishy.
It’s amazing how such an intelligent man like Sir Collins can be so intricate in his scientific methods, but resort to “it feels right” for his religious claims. Even admitting that he hasn’t really looked into the credibility of the New Testament. How do people switch like this?
Alex a very sharp highly educated intelligent man with 2 intelligent Christians I find well sided. seems like for what ever direction any one may feel free to choose . I couldn't find it interesting enough to dive right in to this delicate Debate for I couldn't feel to pay enough atention may be my loss . Just felt like any other religous living room discusion easy on the debate. New testament is about equel with the old as far as spiritual law. Jesus saying not a tid bit has changed old or new. a little confusing on one with no scientific back ground growing up because of religions strict rules. his new testament less credibility where I lost interest. I hear what your saying.
@@trafficjon400 huh?
I think most honest philosophers will end up at something like a basic intuition or "raw feel" when it comes to why they choose one hypothesis over another.
Because they want to believe.
@
agree.
his recent 'debate' with the father & son troupe was a complete shitshow.
quality is really going down, and alex resorts to the exact same retorts talking 'points' in every single video now.
there's more to the con of christianity than the tired old tropes.
collins is a tiger woods of science. he explained as much in is opening about how he was raised.
tiger would probably suck at most other sports about as much as i do.
in exactly the same way,
the fact that collins is 'intelligent' with with regards to SOME science, has no bearing on his ability to properly judge criteria for choosing - literally - to believe in one single brand of christianity, which is incredibly multi-varied as we all know.
as for me, anyone who depends on joseph campbell for ANYthing is already showing their lack of intelligence with regards to philosophy, religion & philosophy of religion.
he couldn't even truly nor completely grasp alex's point about the inherent limitations of a supposed 'all-powerful god'. the host realized this & decided to change the subject to the resurrection. neither the host nor alex just called a spade a spade & remarked about collins' completely wishful thinking + inability to grasp the point alex was making.
the point about sedatives in lions' teeth was interpreted by collins as god having to intervene in evolution when the point is that god shoulda set up the process of evolution in that way from the get go. can't believe that alex didn't push the point further.
collins is inept with these kinds of discussions.
I am starting to think that the real omnipresent being in this world is Alex O'Connor..
He's everywhere these days!! Love to see it
Thou shall bow! 😂🤣
An atheist gets a theology degree. Gee, any chance he thinks he can perturb theism? SO facile!
Guaranteed he can't traduce any of the following...it's actually science unlike their "origin of life" ruclips.net/video/fwrZ0lHHlVQ/видео.html
@@WayneLynch69 try another way !
Would it be shocking if Alex was the First replyer! lol
@WayneLynch69 ....so he just makes you grumpy and you can't point out a single thing he said incorrect...classic theist
Thank you Alex O’Connor for posing questions and sharing your thinking about such huge issues. Always intriguing and a pleasure to listen to.
It's frustrating when people say "yeah well you're coming at it with skepticism" and then write Alex off completely. Like his questions aren't even worth considering. They always talk about ego being in the way of finding God but can't put their own ego down and just hear him out!
It’s almost as if they’re suggesting you must approach it as if it’s true in order to discover that it’s true.
@@MrWishihadagibson I think most Christians ask others to approach it as if it MIGHT be true. It also seems that the majority of Atheists approach it with a bias that it is entirely false. Or that the chances are too low, and therefore one needs "extraordinary evidence."
@@MrWishihadagibsonthat's exactly what he does seem to be saying. Weird! I bet he doesn't approach other religions with that lack of scepticism
The accusation of skepticism is hardly the insult the Dr thinks it is.
@@MrWishihadagibsonyeah that’s how they all do it.
In these debates, I always find myself rooting for the theists, hoping they can effectively address Alex's skepticism. Unfortunately, they never seem to succeed. I had particularly high expectations for Dr. Collins, given his impressive credentials, but many who believe in God do so after yielding to their biases. Rather than overcoming them, they appear to accept their beliefs because it "feels" right. Pause and you can trace the exact moments when Dr. Collins's logic stops ends, where his impressive intellect ceases to fight against the possibility that God really might not exist. I find it puzzling why others aren't as persuaded by Ehrman's scholarship or the incisive thought experiments Alex presents. Religion truly is a fascinating phenomenon.
I understand your hesitancy with Francis Collins' take because he does seem to compartmentalize his science and religion/philosophy. But I very much thought Trent Horn and William Lance Craig ran circles around Alex(no disrespect to Alex, Craig has been debating this topic for longer than Alex has been alive). And although Ben Shapiro isn't the best theologian, I did think he handily beat Alex though there were a few good points Alex made from what I recall.
I’d love to see Alex debate Gary Habermas… they are both very “well versed” so to speak and can speak to ehrman’s scholarship as well
@@Daxcheese555 Are you brain damaged? Trent Horn continuously IGNORED Alex's questions and committed horrendous fallacies over and over again (while Alex has NEVER ONCE committed a fallacy because he catches himself and corrects it immediately) and I dont need to say anything at all about "Low Bar Bill".
I could possibly accept that you felt they just beat Alex by a small margin, but to claim they "ran circles" around him is just flat out mental delusion... you need to see a medical professional as this level of mental deficiency MUST be affecting other aspects of your life
@@Daxcheese555 Craig, Horn and Shapiro addressed Alex's skepticism? Very doubtful, otherwise, Alex would become a theist.
Thing about atheism is its fundamental flaw in evidence for faith. Nobody human living or dead has material empirical evidence for everything they believe, including a faith in ‘no faith’. The arrogance that ensues is a frustration that only those who experience it can properly appreciate.
Im sorry but the idea that human beings couldn't have lied and manipulated accounts of events thousands of years ago, it childish and absurd.
The desperation for meaning and purpose is so transparently pathetic.
The idea that magical miraculous occurrences were common , for some reason in biblical times, but for some reason stopped occurring, is also ridiculous.
@@brothercaptainxuul784
“Ridiculous”
Listening to militant atheists unwittingly pontificating about metaphysical realities such as ultimate “TRUTH” and preaching about what is and isn’t “RIDICULOUS” whilst subscribing to the belief that we are all nothing more substantive than ULTIMATELY MEANINGLESS, ULTIMATELY DETERMINED, HOLLOW AND SOULLESS APES WHO SHARE HALF THEIR DNA WITH A POTATO IS PRICELESS!!
Listening to strictly reductive materialists, atheists or philosophical naturalists pontificating about being “RIDICULOUS” whilst subscribing to the belief that we are all nothing more substantive than ultimately meaningless, ultimately determined, hollow and soulless, overgrown amoebas with delusions of grandeur is as entertaining as watching someone trying to thrash the front of his car with the branch of a tree in order to BEAT IT INTO SUBMISSION!
It's very Basil Fawlty like at times and very Monty Python like at times! But without the intended comedy value!
CRINGE ATHEISM in full effect!
Militant atheism is a walking ball of self contradiction and cognitive dissonance!!
It’s amazing that otherwise intelligent people can fall for that garbage, isn’t it? 😂
Ironic you have a war hammer 40k pfp with this opinion. Not a jab, just the irony of it is funny.
According to the Catholic Church, miracles are happening all the time and are being approved as miracles by scientists.
The reply that I don’t hear brought up enough when the apostle’s deaths or willingness to die for their beliefs comes up is the fact that this willingness to die for something we believe in seems to just be a fact about human psychology. People die for things that we judge untrue every day. Think of followers of the “big” cults like Jonestown or Waco, we don’t assume that their teachings were true simply because the followers were willing to die. It’s tragic, but it has nothing to do with the veracity.
I love how FC accused Alex of reading biblical accounts with skepticism and trying to find fault when he reads the same thing as a believer and looks for ways to make it fit into his magical thinking.
Yes, and it is not much of an accusation, because Alex's sceptic approach is more prone to finding truth, than Collin's backward gullibility ever will.
As a scientist, Collins truly is a disgrace.
skepticism is a bit of a misused term there too because it doesn't refer to being intent on finding fault with something no matter what that would be just as close minded as religious dogma
@@S.D.323it would not be, there is no such thing as too skeptical.
How do you think we improve phones, cars and other technology? By trying to find the faults and improving it that's why there's an IPhone 2 and now its 16.
Skepticism is the engine for human advancement idk y people use the term too skeptical in a bad way
And people accuse Muslims for being too trusting of the Qur'an.
@@melvinmokayamagori7743
Finding faults or better ways of improving. Faults present themselves, and hopefully, they can be remedied.
I don’t think the point of animal suffering can be brushed away so casually by Francis. If I chain my dog out in the hot sun and forget about it for days people would rightfully blame me for neglect. It’s my pet and I have a responsibility to take care of it.
Whose responsibility is the natural world? How well does god care for his creatures that he lovingly created? I could go save a deer trapped in a mud pit and spare it an horrific experience and I would be moved by pity to do so, but I’m supposed to believe that an all loving all powerful God watches on unmoved?
Why don’t we judge God by at least the same standard as humans and if we did God would be a callous psychopath.
Well articulated argument. I totally agree with you. Why would a loving God create his humans to be compassionate and rescue that dog in the heat, but at the same God just sit there and watch human starvation and suffering from famine existing in his planet he created for his humans.
"Why don't we judge God?" Because the molecules in our own body don't judge us. If you really take the position that a creator exists, then "He" is squarely outside the reality you and I operate in, and it doesn't make any sense for us to "judge" him. It makes just as little sense as to judge the universe as whole. Of course it does not matter whether you do or not, though. Many people DO judge God. And many people don't, and hold the position that he is righteous. In the end, none of it matters. If it is real, there is no possibility that a human mind would ever be able to comprehend it in the slightest. All we'd be able to hope for is to get a glipse of his being, and live according to his Word. Especially if it is true that He literally came down to earth, and lowered himself to our level. Do you frequently talk to ants? Should they not judge you for not giving them the best lives possible? No, you are indifferent. It's a bad comparison because we still live in the same realm. But you catch my drift.
"Look at the birds in the air. They don't plant or harvest or store food in barns, but your heavenly Father feeds them." When it is convenient, God is a loving being who takes care of all living beings, but when it comes to explain the constant suffering those animals go through suddenly God is not responsible for that anymore.
@@justzekebuildingasandcastl4265 Luckily you can just step out of life if you feel it's too much to bear and you don't believe in the afterlife. You can't both hold the position that it's unfair what's happening to you, AND hold the position that there is a God that's made you live. In the end, all we experience is a gift beyond compare. The alternative is to not have lived at all.
@@everythingiscoolio I didn't create ants, so that's a terrible analogy.
But if I did, and made an effort to take the form of an ant so I could "lower myself to their level", wouldn't it be even more reason to make sure I did everything possible to eliminate their suffering?
I was hoping for so much more from Collins than "I choose to believe what I hope might be true"
Yup, same. I was really disappointed. He basically uses grade school apologetics at best, I really expected more.
EXACTLY. He claims to have come to Jesus because the evidence essentially required him to do so, and yet he does nothing but say there's not enough evidence to really believe anything.
@@thenerktwinswhat’s some evidence that might be persuading to you?
@bryanutility9609 God knows exactly what evidence would convince me, but he refuses to provide it to me for some reason
@@thenerktwins so what id God gave you this evidence? What difference would it make?
"God is an artist", "God wants the Universe to be interesting", "God apparently is interested in nature following order". It's astonishing how many ad-hoc assumptions without any foundation a very intelligent man can make defend a believe. At least some theists are humble enough to admit that "The ways of the Lord are inscrutable" which is equally irrational but at least they don't come up with random assumptions about what a god wants.
agreed
Oh, religious people are deluded, by and large.
Scripture is inscrutable to those who don't reflect upon their lives. That's why many sages have said, "Know thyself."
What I find interesting is how human beings can tell you what a God thinks, likes, dislikes, did or didn’t do with certainty. Yet, not a single person in history has ever see or heard from any God of any sort
Well that’s not true
I mean people do give testimony of how they met god or how they heard his voice and suddenly decided to be believers. I assume you are trying to say if god exists than a floating figure in sky should come and tell it all which is something that has never happened and probably never will.
@@nachiketkamble2600 which is called Word become Flesh. AKA Jesus Christ Jeshua Ha’Mashiach. It’s well attested.
@@nachiketkamble2600 could the person be hallucinating or just imagining. How do you verify it was god but not his mental state?
God became man... He interacted with us on our level.
I've always found Alex substantially more thoughtful than most of his interlocutors, and this discussion is a perfect example of how the ability to thoroughly break down concepts is far more important than rote expertise. Collins might even be one of the most technically skilled men in his field, and yet when pressed on specific points of contention falls back to shaking his head and parroting bog standard apologetics as if Alex were the one missing the point. Let us never forget just how segmented the human mind truly is. A person can spend decades mastering a specific field to a level beyond nearly anyone else to ever live and still fall prey to very basic errors in areas of knowledge even slightly outside their bubble. The reason we should not weigh the opinions of Collins over any random schmoe on the topic is the same reason we shouldn't take the words of Dawkins as representative of atheism. When you can be shown to be correct, you are correct. When you can be shown to be incorrect, you are incorrect. No abbreviated prefix before a name gives any extra weight on a topic if that prefix wasn't earned directly learning about the topic in question. Intelligence is not evenly distributed in the human brain. The mere fact of having an area of expertise does not allow you to handle all areas expertly.
Every SINGLE last point Collins made boiled down to his faith FEELING right to him. That could have prevented the entire conversation, but it’s important that their feet are held to the fire (for a lack of a better term) until they’re forced to reconcile with the fact that their belief is more or less all about their feelings.
I keep expecting highly educated Christians to have something interesting to say about their beliefs. Sadly, I'm still waiting.
Try John Lennox
@RubioBoy85 what does he offer that's different than the gaslighting or gaps arguments everyone else uses?
No you don't. You are not listening for anything except what you want to hear.
@@fionaetienne1693 how in the fuck do you know what's going on in someone else's mind as they watch a video? The assumptions this takes is wild
Ooof @@RubioBoy85
Seems apparent to me that Dr. Francis Collins came to christianity from an emotional standpoint and not a logical one. He waves away his experiences as if they cannot possibly be explained by anything else and refuses to do any research into the fields of study (psychology perhaps) that would explain certain things.
It also strikes me at how long it took Alex to get him to understand his point on whether god could bring about the same interesting universe despite switching the value of gravity. If god is all powerful that should have been a yes.
Yet again another great performance by Alex. His patience, kindness, ability to listen, understand and explain complex ideas is admirable.
@@rl7012 What you are referring to are logical contradictions. Which they get into at some point in the conversation. Not the same type of question Alex was asking. Alex was attempting to show that the constants don't really matter as god would be able to bring about any sort of universe he wants with constants of any value if he is the creator of the physics that governs it. Definitely not a 'gotcha' question.
@@rl7012you should watch the whole video mate. They got into how God can’t make a square circle etc because that’s a logical contradiction. But he did create the constants and parameters that the universe abides by, so it’s more a question of whether or not he is constrained by those constants or if he can alter them which means that things could have been a different way.
Its illogical to think you evolved from rocks
@usernamediv I totally understand what Alex was trying to say which you have also clearly articulated, however what was Alex’s ultimate point with that? Yes, God could have made it to where there is no gravity at all, yet the world we know could still be the exact same if God so chose. What’s the point with this?
@@adamropp4757 People often use the constants argument in favor of a creator. I think Alex was attempting to illustrate that the constants argument doesn't necessarily do that very well.
If a god could in fact bring about a universe "where there is no gravity at all, yet the world we know could still be the exact same" than what would talking about constants add to the argument? God can alter any parameters, create a universe and its laws in any way it pleases.
Thats my take away from Alex and what I believe he was trying to get Dr. Collins to understand.
I really enjoyed the end of this conversation, when they started talking about beauty and music and art. It seemed like they both really understood each other, and it was cool that they both essentially started arguing for the opposing side for a second at the end. I think there would be more happiness in the world if more conversations were like this
Agreed. Francis Collins didn't steer me from my atheism at all, but I still found him likeable and appreciated the educated dialogue him and Alex had. I hope Alex invites him to his podcast!
By far one of the most heart-warming debates between an atheist and a christian... the honesty on both sides realy hits me.
Animals do not simply suffer fear and anxiety in the “acute moment” as Francis suggested, it is a constant factor in their lives, observe a bird feeding in your garden, it constantly looks around for predators, believe me critters know more about anxiety and fear than we do! 😂
Absolutely what I was thinking as he said that
Have we fogotten the Imago Dei? Why the hell are Christians AND agnostics ignoring the fact that it is our job to help animals feel relaxed and safe? Our role is literally God's role with us. The only reason animals suffer is because we are not taking our job seriously. We came to fix a world of suffering, yet we make it worse.
I thought so, too. Glad you caught that, and well said. It's pretty disrespectful to the experience of other sentient beings.
@@mpleandreanimals have been suffering for a long time and way before humans existed.
The Stanford biologist who wrote Zebras don’t get ulcers would agree with Francis
Here are the arguments they said
1. The Fine-Tuning Argument (Collins)
Premises:
1. The universe is governed by physical constants (e.g., gravity, nuclear forces) that are finely tuned for life.
2. The probability of these constants arising by chance is extraordinarily low.
3. A designer (God) best explains this fine-tuning.
Conclusion:
The fine-tuning of the universe suggests the existence of an intelligent creator.
Alex’s Counterpoint:
1. Fine-tuning could be explained by natural mechanisms, like a multiverse.
2. If God is omnipotent, He should not be constrained by fine-tuning laws.
3. The existence of such constraints raises questions about God’s omnipotence.
2. The Problem of Evil (Alex)
Premises:
1. If an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God exists, He would create a world without unnecessary suffering.
2. The natural world is filled with immense suffering (e.g., predation, natural disasters, animal pain).
3. This level of suffering is unnecessary and inconsistent with an all-good God.
Conclusion:
The problem of evil makes the existence of a benevolent, omnipotent God unlikely.
Collins’ Response:
1. Suffering and death are natural consequences of an orderly universe governed by physical laws.
2. Evolution and natural processes, while imperfect, lead to greater goods like human existence and free will.
3. God’s ultimate plan may transcend human understanding of suffering.
3. The Resurrection (Collins)
Premises:
1. Historical evidence, including the Gospels and early Christian martyrdom, supports Jesus’ resurrection.
2. Jesus’ resurrection is the best explanation for the rapid spread of Christianity.
3. If Jesus rose from the dead, this validates his divine claims and God’s existence.
Conclusion:
The resurrection is a compelling historical event supporting Christian theism.
Alex’s Counterpoint:
1. Gospel accounts vary in detail, suggesting legendary development.
2. The earliest Gospel (Mark) lacks post-resurrection appearances in its original ending.
3. Natural explanations (e.g., hallucination, myth-making) are more plausible than a supernatural resurrection.
4. The Moral Argument (Collins)
Premises:
1. Humans universally recognize moral values like good and evil.
2. These moral values cannot be fully explained by evolution or social constructs.
3. The existence of objective moral values suggests a moral lawgiver (God).
Conclusion:
The moral law points to the existence of a divine source.
Alex’s Counterpoint:
1. Human morality can be explained as a product of evolutionary psychology and societal needs.
2. The Bible itself includes morally questionable passages (e.g., treatment of women, slavery).
3. Christianity fails to fully align with modern moral intuitions, undermining its claim to divine authority.
5. Revelation and Experience (Collins)
Premises:
1. Personal experiences of God (e.g., prayer, moments of revelation) provide subjective but powerful evidence.
2. These experiences resonate with human longing for purpose and transcendence.
3. The universality of spiritual experiences suggests a higher power.
Conclusion:
Personal revelations and spiritual experiences provide a rational basis for belief in God.
Alex’s Counterpoint:
1. Personal experiences can be explained by psychological and cultural factors.
2. They are subjective and do not provide evidence that can be universally evaluated.
3. Revelation is not sufficient to establish the truth of any particular religious claim.
I had to bail out at 42 minutes when, after several very well articulated explanations of the problem, Dr Francis just wasn’t getting it. Incredibly frustrating. Alex, if you’re reading this, thank you for not letting it go. You gave it everything you had.
I mean, Alex is asking redundant questions tbh- because if the laws of logic or if the mathematics were different on our universe, Alex would probably still be asking the same questions on why these particular laws in place. He’s asking a man on why a limitless Creator limited stuff with so much thought, there’s better things to question in that given time
@@Nutterbutter123 Exactly! Plus its not an interesting counter-argument at all. Both sides would have to go off their ideas and neither side would come close to the truth, because the answer is WE DONT KNOW!
Secondly, if they were not fine tuned, Alex would surely come out and say the universe just formed merely out of chance as it was a probable outcome.
@@MrMorale96 seriously, and then the OP embarrassingly says “you gave it everything you had” as if these discussions and questions were to hardcore probe and deny a supreme deity specifically. They’re not even debating, it’s an honest discussion.
But all in all, these mysteries can be argued for eons and it would still sprout believers, atheists, or those in between. Neither one of these gentlemen has expertise in the fields in that timeframe but pondering out loud, like you said, their ideas. One is philosophically questioning the spiritual aspect of limited scientific findings and the other is answering with his specific spiritual understanding mixed with his knowledge through his own trade. It’s a semi-interview with a moderator lol
@@Nutterbutter123 You are spot on. That is why I feel labelling such discussions 'debates' is very counter productive. People rarely change their fundemental views off debates anyway.
On Alex, I am a big fan his but lately he has been skewing so much towards this hyper-skepticism that i feel is very disingenous. You can't just poke holes in everything and offer no alternative. Thats a cowards way out imo.
@@Nutterbutter123 I for one do not think you're spot on.
Alex doesn't demand an answer for himself as to why these laws are in place, and he doesn't talk about it because he thinks it's interesting. His point is merely a response to the fine tuning argument raised by theists. The argument states that there's only one way a universe that allows for humans could've been built, and that that one way is so improbable that it points to a creator. Alex only means to question whether this probability is truly a good argument for a limitless creator, because it doesn't seem to make sense that a limitless creator would only have this one way available to them.
"You gave it everything you had" refers to Alex' attempt to make Dr. Francis understand his point, which wasn't happening.
A Christian saying your coming at this with a bias is Gold
No one is without bias.
@@whiteShadow-yt9 Yes, and that is what reason and the scientific method attempt to undermine. Revealed religions such as Christianity are built on bias and establish it as dogma. So, when a Christian uses bias as a criticism against others, it is rich to say the least. The jackpot is when a fundamentalist Christian hurdles that accusation.
Your a fool if you think you are without bias.
@@munashemanamike4217 a bit extreme. But that's the gist of it.
you are a human being, you always have a bias. it is part in you.
Francis contradicts himself on fine tuning. He says to get anything interesting it had to be "this way" 25:00, then at 32:40 says he doesn't think there's only one way to set it up to get something interesting.
Either way the fine tuning argument refutes God, because the fine tuning argument implies that the creator is subject to larger physical laws. Otherwise there would not be a need to fine tune anything.
If all conditions were adjusted together-gravity, electromagnetism, nuclear forces, etc.-the universe could be fine-tuned in a new way, potentially allowing for different kinds of "interesting" complexity. - chatgpt
Humans don't know God. Full stop. Once you understand that then you can begin your journey
@@nathanbell6962 the fear of the Lord. I totally agree
@xnoreq until we can explain what came before the big bang, we have to assume that there's some higher order principles, a theory of everything maybe 🤔 I choose to put my faith in God, same thing. Same but different 😜
So great to have a conversation between Alex and Francis here. That’s for organizing this!
Emotion is a powerful influence. Dr Collins claims to 'know' the very nature of a very specific god.
The hubris of believing that the creation of the universe was purposed toward the existence of Christian human beings is…. just what it seems.
That is not exactly what Christians believe. Humans need a universe to exist. God does not. In that way and other similar ways the universe is created for humans. But the telos of all things is glorify God. So ultimately the universe was not created for humans.
Is it logically incoherent for love and faith in God to be the purpose of the universe?
@@victor_2216 Purpose assumes consciousness. Since we humans are the only beings with this trait, it seems outright vain and primitive to make such a claim. I intend no sleight by saying it.
@@tadmorrison I believe I understand you. Allow me to display my Christian view with a quote: "in the case of the origin of the universe, it seems to me that the only way to explain how we can have a temporal effect, with a beginning, arise from an eternal cause, is if that cause is a personal agent, endowed with freedom of the will, and therefore able, spontaneously, to create a new effect in time. And thus, we are brought not simply to a first uncaused cause of the universe, but to its personal creator."
I think this is the main issue when atheists and theists argue about the existence of god. The two often speak in different paradigms. When Dr. Collins claims to “know of the existence of god” he’s speaking from a personal conviction rather than a universal one. If Dr. Collins’ life is transformed through the “revelation” of god, that has real life effects. It’s just an empirical as anything else.
When you say “purposed toward the existence of Christian human beings” what do you mean? Many philosophies and religions believe in a purposeful existence. Do you mean to say that Christians believe that god only has purpose for Christians? Because that’s not true either. Christians believe that Christianity is a religion for all people. Which is why it spread. It’s a relationship with all of humanity rather than just Christians. If by “purpose” you mean to describe the intentional creation of god as opposed to an accidental creation of the universe, you’d also rely heavily on interpretational frameworks that reach beyond empirical evidence.
Dr Collin’s seems to throw all his critical thinking skills out the window when he discusses religion
Crazy isn’t it, clearly a super intelligent person and then the religious gibberish starts.
Just because you don’t understand it, doesn’t make it false. You cannot claim to be intellectually superior to something that you don’t understand. It’s impossible. It would be like someone talking extreme high level quantum mechanics, and me saying “I don’t understand so therefore I am smarter than you and you’re wrong”. It’s arrogant and foolish.
@@etaylor8028Just because you don't understand the unicorn horse or the flying spaghetti monster doesn't mean they are not real! :)
@@etaylor8028 You compare belief in quantum mechanics with beliefs in talking animals, curses, magic fruit, noahs ark, demon pigs, giants, virgin birth, walking on water, people levitating into the sky etc etc. Come on, you must be joking
@@etaylor8028 religion is nothing like quantum mechanics... The Bible is just a backwards old fantasy-fiction book with talking trees, talking animals, zombies, magic, 950 year old people, creation myths and flood myths. Christians need to ask themselves more questions and stop blindly assuming what is true based on their irrational "feels."
What makes me sad about these conversations, is just how agreeable Alex is about everything. He's such a genuinely curious person, and he's willing to honestly engage with whoever, about whatever.
And he's trying harder than any person alive, so desperately, to force a conversation out of people that would burn him at the stake for heresy if they still could. These people are giving him _nothing_ to engage with, nothing to ponder over, because it's fundementally not about conversation for them.
Seeing Alex trying so hard for literal years with people that are unwilling to even try, is like seeing Sisyphus picking up the stone again.
All these people are having friendly polite conversations actually. It’s people like you fantasizing about burning people at stake.
How are they unwilling to try when they are clearly engaging in the conversation? What you mean is that they are not saying things that you think they ought to or want them to.
@@rl7012 Francis is blatantly lying to Alex's face for hours before finally admitting at the end that his belief is rooted in blind faith and revelation. If he had started with that, I would have no problem with him, but Alex only arrived there because he dismantled so many of Francis's lies that he no longer could be bothered to keep track of them all.
I couldn't do that to another person if I tried, I have too much respect for other people. But Francis can sit there and lie to a person like Alex, for hours, without a shred of humility or remorse.
You clearly have no idea how busy of a man Francis Collins is. The fact that he took time out of his day to have this conversation is incredible and should be a huge honor to Alex who is a RUclips personality asking hypothetical questions.
@@joshuaWEC You're not paying attention to the converstion if your takeaway is that Alex should be more grateful.
Take the first argument he presents, the fine tuning argument. He delivers it, Alex educates him with an answer to it that's over 100 years old by now, he drops it immediately and admits had no bearing on his belief in the first place.
Do note that the last part, him admitting it was all blind faith in the end, first came _AFTER_ Alex had to spent _HOURS_ of time dismantling fallacy after fallacy that Francis didn't believe in either.
In what world should Alex be grateful for being lied to like this !?
I love Francis Collins; he is obviously a brilliant scientiist. Even Dawkins and Hitchens would agree. But in this case, he did not present his case well. This is an example of expecting experts in a certain field to be able to discuss in depth topics outside their field of expertise... Over all I loved this conversation, no sense of animosity or negativity from either Francis or Alex. Both exuding respect.
It's probably because he's a full grown adult who doesn't have time to sit and think about philosophical hypothetical. He's busy doing real work that matters like uncoding the human genome. What Alex does helps no one.
I don't think people watching comprehend the magnitude of advancements that were made in the field of Medicine because of Dr Collins and his genius. If a man far smarter and accomplished than every one of us watching this is able to let go of his ego to find truth, we should too and unfortunately this is way harder than it should be. The argument from Math is what pushed me away from atheism into the position of a deist, so far I'm studying classical theism. I don't really understand atheism from a rational point of view, I do understand agnosticism.
This discussion is a great example of how a person HONESTLY pursuing the TRUTH ( Alex ) displays integrity in his thought processes, as opposed to a person ( Francis Collins ) who has compromised his integrity by trying to fit and argue for a world view that works for his dishonest brain.
Look up Ad Hominem Fallacy. If you attack Collins by saying he’s just dishonest that’s a personal attack and is considered a concession of defeat by the judges in a formal debate. He clearly genuinely believes. Stop being a fan boy towards Alex.
Alex actually admitted that he would eat his own cabin boy in a debate with Trent Horn. Which is beyond ironic given that Alex was a vegan. This speaks volumes regarding the moral bankruptcy of a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism, and in particular “emotivism“. Utilitarianism is self refuting.
I accept your concession of defeat!
👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
@@georgedoyle2487 Eating cabin boys is not a feature of theism, nor is it a feature of atheism.
" dishonest brain -collins"
Ooo
so it would be just fair to said
that - alex compromised his integrity by trying to fit and argue for a world wiew that works for his dishonest brain -as alex presented countless times
do you like it ?
prove me wrong 😅
@@georgedoyle2487what a dumb argument. Sorry, it just is. What you see is Alex being honest. Something no apologist is.
If God exists couldn't he just settle this interiminable argument and save whole forests by placing a message on everyone's smart device saying 'It's ME, God. By way of proof check the milk in your fridge. I've just turned it into a bottle of 1992 Chianti'. Then I check my fridge and right enough there's the wine. Job done! I'm a believer!!
@@gatehanger1385
You’re actually claiming that something can be absolutely “TRUE” or “FALSE” just by way of “physical proof” in a blind, mindless, ultimately meaningless universe - yes?
I mean, why OUGHT we do anything or believe anything in a pitiless, merciless, ultimately meaningless universe where we are all nothing more substantive than ultimately meaningless, hollow and soulless apes who share half their DNA with a potato and just “DANCE TO OUR DNA” - right?
My search continues for an intellectually honest atheist who can give a cohesive, logically consistent, objective foundation HOW THEY KNOW ANYTHING AT ALL IS ULTIMATELY “TRUE” OR “FALSE”?? I’ll wait!!
By sheer coincidence I’ve actually got two new brands of pen right here on my desk which i use for writing down ultimately meaningless and ultimately purposeless comments a [Darth Dawkins pen] and a [Cosmic Sceptic pen] they’ve got no POINT!!
Interesting fact, “new atheism” that is fatalism and epistemological nihilism is exactly like the old atheism if the old atheism was bitten by two infected bats called Darth Dilahunty and Darth profoundly posh and pointless and got a over Zealous strain of RABIES!!
I rest my case!!
If there were an omnipotent loving god, it wouldn’t be Chianti, it would be first growth Bordeaux. 😉
I still wouldn't believe. By far the more likely scenario is I'm hallucinating or have suffered some kind of amnesia regarding what I've just purchased. Your scenario is still personal experience. Nothing empirical= nothing proven.
@@darrenleelayton6052 I did say 'on everyone's device' , so everyone has the experience, including Dawkins, Atkins, Harris, etc... 😁
Yeah he could but he expects men to be smarter than that and he wants to weed out scoffers like yourself who are not fit for the kingdom of heaven.
Why the Christian God among the thousands of gods that men have followed for centuries?
I can understand acknowledging the possibility of a creator but how does someone come to the conclusion that the Christian God is correct and not just the current popular belief?
I asked my Mom that question once.
She grounded me for a week and I had to read the Bible the whole time...
@@Webfra14grounded u for the existential crisis she had to deal with after😂
2:58: "...intellectual heavyweights, like Jordan Peterson..." 🤣😂🤣 (Apologies. I couldn't help laughing hysterically.)
He is a metaphysical word salad heavyweight. Respect where it is due.
you couldn’t debate with him for 5 seconds reasonably , without the internet majority of you are cooked
@@avindaelevated3896 That's true. I'd be laughing too hard to debate.
@@ImmaPatato-l5o "Word salad" you call sentences that you simply cannot understand.
@@mpleandre Yeah, that's it. He's not an epic bullshitter. Noooo. He's just too deep for us. 🤣😂
01:27 - "I don't think this is a message that just came out of my head!" Now Dr Collins' seems to be suggesting that he also has access to his unconscious and understands how thoughts are constructed at the level of the brain. This is beyond bizarre.
Nor does he give any credence or speculation on hallucination at this juncture.
As a symptom of my ADHD (or as best as I can tell), I have auditory hallucinations at night while trying to fall asleep. They don’t at all appear to be coming from me, but what conclusion am I supposed to jump to? I suppose my rationalization is one of the copes Francis was talking about in relation to how I view the world. I should just trust that the voices are God and that God is very fucking weird in how he communicates to me.
@ghoulish6125 - Spot on. His level of self-awareness is really poor.
Looking at religion parsimoniously, I have concluded that the most plausible explanation for religion is that it is a human phenomenon, arising from our psychological needs, desires, and concerns. Additionally, I believe that the religions which have endured and remain popular have been selected for, by human minds, based on the appeal of their promises. For instance, those that offer life after death and the absolution of sins (removal of guilt).
How about reading Ed Feser's Five Proofs of the Existence of God? Just because you're unwilling to spend money doesn't mean that you should not know the fullness of the truth.
I'm just saying that I've seen a lot of recent debates spawn up regarding the Fine Tuning Argument when Natural Philosophy has solved the question of the Existence of God by proving (not empirically, but to be rationally certain) that there is a god. Whether you stay right there and be a philosophical theist or you follow one of the World Religions is the actual question we should be asking. And just to let you know, Alex has done kind of a response video to Ed Feser's First Proof, but though it's very intellectually stimulating (and for me even made the Argument itself more clearer), The Counsel of Trent channel here on RUclips has done an excellent rebuttal. The video from his channel might be the best way to check out the Argument (called the Argument from Motion, originally developed by Aristotle, a Greek Philosopher who had no personal motivation to prove God, but ended up doing so through his analysis of change or what he and other ancients called 'motion', not in the way we define motion today) parsimoniously as is your situation.
God bless.
How about reading Ed Feser's Five Proofs of the Existence of God? Just because you're unwilling to spend money doesn't mean that you should not know the fullness of the truth.
I'm just saying that I've seen a lot of recent debates spawn up regarding the Fine Tuning Argument when Natural Philosophy has solved the question of the Existence of God by proving (not empirically, but to be rationally certain) that there is a god. Whether you stay right there and be a philosophical theist or you follow one of the World Religions is the actual question we should be asking. And just to let you know, Alex has done kind of a response video to Ed Feser's First Proof, but though it's very intellectually stimulating (and for me even made the Argument itself more clearer), The Counsel of Trent channel here on RUclips has done an excellent rebuttal. The video from his channel might be the best way to check out the Argument (called the Argument from Motion, originally developed by Aristotle, a Greek Philosopher who had no personal motivation to prove God, but ended up doing so through his analysis of change or what he and other ancients called 'motion', not in the way we define motion today) parsimoniously as is your situation.
God bless.
All the contrary...That fact that we believe there is such a thing as sin, gives us a sense of guilt when we commit it. Removing God/ belief in Him will then therefore, remove all guilt and let us "do as we please". In other words, there is no standard of morality therefore, who depicts what's right from wrong. We are clearly taught that sin is bad and therefore will create consequences when committed.
@@xpsm249 yes, the idea of sin is a tool, but not just for evil people to control other people, but also for religion to manipulate people to do things that help the society survive, and thus natural selection selected for this. Without these religions, we would be less effective lifeforms in the competition for natural selection. But you could go deeper. When you look at all these lifeforms evolving, doing their thing, and natural selection doing its thing, what is all of these systems doing together? Is it just random chaos? Or are they all going in a particular direction? I believe it is going in a particular direction and that is the concept of god. God is like the music between the notes, the consequence of the constants of the universe. Like the hidden meaning between the lines and sentences. I think as lifeforms evolved, and as human beings developed this ability to reason about our circumstances, we have hit upon this realisation and are trying to describe it, and religion is our attempts at this. Not accurate, but still our attempt over the years. The better we understand this meaning between the lines, the better our will is aligned in the world to survive natural selection. But this meaning is beyond our capability, since we are not really properly wired to understand it, but we just happened upon it as we were trying to survive. meh, this probably sounds gibberish to most people, whatever
@@xpsm249 I don't believe there is such a "thing" as sin. For me it's a word given to human actions that are regarded as detrimental to humanity, or something like that. It's not a word that accurately captures the gambit of negative human actions. Yes, most do experience a sense of guilt when they harm someone else or otherwise break social norms. This is because we are social creatures. We have empathy and are able to experience what the victim is experiencing vicariously. We also recognise that indulging in "sinful" activities may be detrimental to the perception of ourselves by others.
The "who" who depicts right from wrong is all of us, via culture and our laws.
You don't need a god to be moral. In fact, there are plenty of examples of types of "sinful" behaviour as I have defined it, that can only be committed by someone justifying their actions theologically that are not open to secular people.
Love to see Alex going into detail in his argument against fine tuning - I’ve been wanting to hear something like this from him in a while. Love how he kept pressing dr Collins on it. Very Interesting to watch dr Collins not addressing any of the challenges head on. All of those were yes or no questions.
The atheist origin myth is the Big Bang & perfect physics is a miracle basically. I’m fine with that. Doesn’t justify claims of history.
Everyone here just wants to hear or reaffirm their belief based on what they themselves see reflected on these 2 people, instead of picking sides can we just appreciate 2 gentleman having a very nice deep discussion. The 2 people here believe something and there are just expressing their beliefs, go believe what ever you want.
Love seeing Alex back to debate.
Had he ever been away?
It was definitely a conversation, not a debate. Alex in debate-mode is a totally different beast.
It is so unfortunate that Alex was not provided an honest interlocuter in Francis Collin. How often does Francis say, "Oh, I see where you are going with that?" He rarely addresses Alex's question. Francis continues to attempt to stay one step ahead of Alex so that he doesn't have to provide honest answers to honest questions.
Thanks!
This was a beautiful conversation, thank you for sharing!!
Why does the debate go directly to Christianity? Can we take it slow and prove the existence of Intelligent Design first in a scientific, philosophical, and logical flow. Because this alone is extremely debatable and complex enough to proceed to another religious arguments.
Because the guest is Christian, not a deist.
Doesn’t the debate go actually into fine-tuning and the problem of evil, and NOT directly into Christianity?
Another logistical inconsistency here is the inconsideration of other religions too (Hinduism, for example)
@@sanjit_misra they aren't experts on Hinduism I'm sure you could find those debates somewhere
intelligent design is intellectually bankrupt.
I really keep hoping Theists will put up a decent argument, but they never seem to have considered the rather obvious objections to their position. Mr O’Connor seems to grant way too much for the sake of argument. The existence of the universe we see is not at all an argument for Theism. Even if we had no explanation at all, that would not make the existence of a disembodied mind more likely. But in fact we have a number of physical hypotheses. We don’t know, and may never know which one of them if any is correct, but that isn’t evidence for a God belief that is incoherent and inconsistent.
Not to mention, many gods have been proposed over the millennia, why is the Christian god so special? I’d say if there is in fact, some “creator”, it has zero to do with Christianity
Wow I didn’t expect this. Interesting to frame it as a debate rather than a discussion given that Collins is not a debater but a scientist. Super cool that this exists
@@bradokamurait is sad that you don't realise how stipid uour comment is!
He didn't say anything besides it's feels like God is real. So ya no debate here at all. He literally didn't understand Alex when he asked him if god is all powerful like 10 times and continued to say god we restrained in creation but then says God is all powerful when he resurrected Jesus. He can't even get his own fairy tale right.
@@Zudovader I think with additional viewings you might find that Collins is actually saying some much more interesting things. He goes back to God's values. I think this is interesting. It might not be the case that God values things like efficiency, simplicity, or overt presence, as much as he values, a good story, order, creaturely participation, etc. This "what God values" approach undercuts many traditional objections. Let's also be charitable towards Collins being a scientist and not a philosopher. Not the most philosophically articulate, but still managed to communicate ideas well enough and some that were indeed very interesting.
“He is not part of this creation” but He definitely has a penis and that’s how I KNOW God is a he.
@@blakerice7928 "god values things that...". We have not established that there is a god or even what the word god means and you start talking about what this god thing "values"... its called wishful thinking.
"To have a relationship with God, seek Him not with your mind, but with an open and humble heart. Focusing on human contradictions in spiritual writings distracts from the deeper truth they aim to reveal: the path to knowing and loving God."
And yet one needs to use the mind to assess the wisdom or lack thereof of what you encourage people to do in your statement. Separating the "heart" from the head is not possible nor is it advisable if you want to find truth. Wise mind is the integration of emotion (heart) and rationality (head). I think both are involved in our best thinking and keep each side in check. But rationality has to have veto power over emotion or we can too easily slide into self deception and wishful thinking.
I didn't delve into the subject, I didn't listen to what the scholars had to say, because when I read scripture I FEEL it resonates with me so it's true."
Ladies and gentlemen, here is a SCIENTIST.
Is this guy some kind of joke?
Atheists look for facts instead of truth
@@Shawn-nq7du Right? Self-deception is much better...
My problem with debates like this is “God” is too ambiguous a term to debate the existence of. People define it in a variety of ways. In order to establish whether it’s plausible that a god would exist, and in order to establish whether the idea of a god could help to explain the phenomena it’s proposed to explain, it’s necessary that we define what precisely we mean by the term “God.” Otherwise, there’s no way of showing who’s right or even who’s most likely right.
I would go even farther and confidently state that the concept of god is largely incoherent. There is no reliable evidence that a supernatural realm exists, nor that any intelligent being has ever existed outside of the physical. Even if you could somehow get past these hurdles, as Hitchens would say, you’d still have all your work in front of you to reason your way to the absurdities of Christianity.
@@AnthonyValcicYa, definitions of “God” can definitely get pretty ambiguous. Like in the case of when they define him as an “all knowing all powerful creator,” first, philosophers have long debated over what exactly it means to “know” something and this ambiguous term is all the more ambiguous when the thing that supposedly “knows” things doesn’t have a brain or sensory organs. And as for the all powerful part, what does that really even mean if he never actually does everything that he’s able to do and if he isn’t bound by physical laws and has no physical structure? It at least seems really open to interpretation, not to mention that it’s not the only definition of “god.”
@@AnthonyValcic God is a lot more coherent than a universe from nothing as atheists claim. Or their infinite regress theory. There has to be something eternal for existence to exist, yet atheists offer no evidence for their ridiculous views and demand tons of evidence from believers. How did the universe come to exist then if you all know so much? And how did life come to exist? Don't say abiogenesis as that has been thoroughly debunked.
@@rl7012Nobody is claiming a universe came from nothing. There’s always been quantum processes. Every particle in existence has a corresponding quantum field and is an excitation of that field. We have some circumstantial evidence that spacetime is an emergent property of quantum entanglement. Fundamental quantum fields have always existed and always will. A quantum state with the lowest possible energy is a zero-point field. In that state there are still fluctuations.
The early universe was purely quantum. In quantum physics events don’t have a cause, just a probability. The universe is messy. It is nonlinear, turbulent, and chaotic. It is dynamic. It spends its time in transient behavior on its way to somewhere else, not in mathematically neat equilibria. It self-organizes and evolves. It creates diversity, not uniformity. Most of the processes going on in the universe are essentially chaotic. The acceleration of charged particles, the creation of cosmic rays, the structure of magnetic fields, and nuclear reactions within stars. The universe is 99.999% hostile toward life. There is no evidence of design. The events in the universe are essentially random. This is because everything, being made from the same fundamental particles, are governed by quantum mechanical events. These events are determined by probability.
There are too many issues - the fact that religious and non-religious people seem to have different definitions of things such as "evidence" or "proof", for example. It always seems like an unproductive conversation in which the religious only end up exposing their own nonsensical rhetoric - something which I for one, at least, do not find a particularly satisfying payoff.
As interesting as I personally find these religious topics, I would rather see different topics being discussed, or debated.
Confidently declaring what his god is interested in does not reflect a scientific thought but a post hoc justification for faith. Alex rocks the doc here.
Nope. Here is a man who grasps just what is required of a Being's intellect when it can understand what must happen to a caterpillar to be able to transform into a butterfly, and guide the code from other creatures, and add new code (orphan genes) and edit and add to the "massively parallel operating systems" necessary.
You say "randomness +time+ proper environment=every life form."
I say, "you have no idea what random processes can and cannot do."
Learn what Colllins, and Anthony Flew understood which Alex and R. Dawkins are blind to seeing.
Study the mathematics of probability theory, and how scientific research uses that theory to decide hypotheses.
Then, understand about code, language, and information as relates to life on Earth.
If you still cannot percieve the Mind behind creation, there is no hope for you gaining sight.
Whrn you observe patterns you can predict with extremely high certainty many many other predictions which do logically follow.
The multiverse "seems to require as much faith as a designer." Really? If we know for sure there is at least one of something, how unreasonable is it to think there might likely be more than one? We used to think there was only one planet, then that there was only one sun, etc. The history of human intuition is one of constantly underestimating the scope of reality by a staggering margin. At this point, our default position should be that anything that can happen once will happen again, and probably more times than we can grasp intuitively.
According to the general consensus of scholarship *(even critical Christian scholars),* YHWH was originally incorporated into the Canaanite pantheon as a son of the Canaanite high god El before inheriting the top spot in the pantheon and El's wife Athirat (Asherah) before religious reforms "divorced" them. El's pantheon in Ugarit (modern day Ras Shamra in Syria) is called the *Elohim,* literally the plural of El. Interestingly, the Biblical god is also referred to numerous times as Elohim. If you want to see if El is fictional, just read his mythology in the Ugaritic/Canaanite texts.
"The mysterious Ugaritic text Shachar and Shalim tells how (perhaps near the beginning of all things) *El* came to shores of the sea and saw two women who bobbed up and down. *El* was sexually aroused and took the two with him, killed a bird by throwing a staff at it, and roasted it over a fire. He asked the women to tell him when the bird was fully cooked, and to then address him either as husband or as father, for he would thenceforward behave to them as they called him. They saluted him as husband. He then lay with them, and they gave birth to Shachar ("Dawn") and Shalim ("Dusk"). Again *El* lay with his wives and the wives gave birth to "the gracious gods", "cleavers of the sea", "children of the sea". The names of these wives are not explicitly provided, but some confusing rubrics at the beginning of the account mention the goddess *Athirat (Asherah),* who is otherwise *El's* chief wife, and the goddess Raḥmayyu ("the one of the womb"), otherwise unknown."
*"First, a god named El predates the arrival of the Israelites into Syria-Palestine.* Biblical usage shows El was not just a generic noun, but often a proper name for Israel’s God (e.g., Gen 33:20: “El, the God of Israel”)."
"I should add here that it is very clear from the grammar that the noun nachalah in v. 9 should be translated “inheritance.” *Yahweh receives Israel as his “inheritance” (nachalah), just as the other sons of El received their nations as their inheritance (nachal, v. 8).* With this verb, especially in the Hiphil, the object is always what is being given as an inheritance. Thus, Israel is given to Yahweh as his inheritance. ((Here I’m indebted to Dan McClellan.)) It would make no sense for Elyon to give himself an inheritance. Moreover, as I’ve argued elsewhere, it is not just the Gentile nations that are divided up according to the number of the *sons of El.* It is all of humankind, i.e., “the sons of Adam.” This clearly includes Israel. And the sons of Adam are not divided up according to the number of the *sons of El,* plus one (i.e., plus Elyon). They are divided up, according to the text, *solely* according to the number of the *sons of El.* *Thus, that Yahweh receives Israel as his inheritance makes Yahweh one of the sons of El mentioned in v. 8. Any other construal of the text would constitute its rewriting.*
A Sumerian hymn speaks to the goddess: “Nanshe, your divine powers are not matched by any other divine powers.” *Does this mean that Nanshe was the high goddess, that there were no gods above her? No, it does not.* Nanshe was the daughter of Enki, the high god. *In Sumerian mythology, as with Ugaritic, Israelite, Babylonian, and others, in the ancient past, the high god (Enki, in this case) divided up the world and assigned his children certain domains.* Nanshe was given a limited domain (the modern Persian Gulf) and was tasked with maintaining social justice there. *This is exactly what we see in Deuteronomy 32 with Yahweh. Yahweh is given a limited domain (Israel) and is given authority over his people, to punish them, as well as to protect and defend them against foreign enemies.* That Yahweh, like Nanshe, is said to have incomparable divine power *does not* mean that he is not subordinate to the high god who gave him his domain. *It is also of note that Nanshe, like Baal, Yahweh, and so many other deities, evolved over time. Her domain increased, and she was promoted in the pantheon (although she never became the high goddess)."*
*"The Most Heiser: Yahweh and Elyon in Psalm 82 and Deuteronomy 32 - Religion at the Margins"* based on the *majority scholarly consensus.*
(Written by Thom Stark who is a Christian)
*"Michael Heiser: A Unique Species? - Religion at the Margins"*
(A second response to Michael Heiser)
*"Excerpt from “Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan” by John Day - Lehi's Library."*
*"The Table of Nations: The Geography of the World in Genesis 10"* - TheTorah.com
(Excluding the short narrative on Nimrod (vv. 8-12), *which appears to be a later addition,* Genesis 10 contains *70* names of nations or cities, a number that was symbolic of totality. Similarly, the descendants of Jacob were *70* in number (Gen 46:37; Exod 1:5), *as were the sons of the supreme Canaanite god El, with whom YHWH became equated.)*
*"Polytheism and Ancient Israel’s Canaanite Heritage. Part V | theyellowdart"*
(Of course, much of this [i.e., that Israel worshiped El and Asherah alongside YHWH] is really to be expected given that recent syntheses of the *archaeological, cultural, and literary data* pertaining to the emergence of the nation of Israel in the Levant *show that most of the people who would eventually compose this group were originally Canaanite. As the Hebrew Bible notes, the Hebrew language itself is a Canaanite language, literally the “lip of Canaan” (שְׂפַת כְּנַעַן; Is. **19:18**), and so it cannot often be distinguished by modern scholars from other Canaanite inscriptions on purely linguistic grounds.)*
*"Ugarit - New World Encyclopedia"*
(Ugaritic religion centered on the chief god, Ilu or El, whose titles included "Father of mankind" and "Creator of the creation." The Court of El was referred to as the (plural) 'lhm or ***Elohim,*** a word ***later used by the biblical writers to describe the Hebrew deity*** and translated into English as "God," in the singular.
El, which was ***also the name of the God of Abraham,*** was described as an aged deity with white hair, seated on a throne.)
*"Mark Smith: Yahweh as El’s Son & Yahweh’s Ascendency - Lehi's Library"*
(Mark Smith is a Catholic)
*"God, Gods, and Sons (and Daughters) of God in the Hebrew Bible. Part III | theyellowdart"*
*"02 | December | 2009 | Daniel O. McClellan - Psalm 82"*
(Daniel McClellan is a Mormon)
*"Elohim | Daniel O. McClellan"*
(Refer to the article "Angels and Demons (and Michael Heiser)")
*"God's Wife Edited Out of the Bible - Almost."*
(Pay attention to whose wife Asherah (Athirat) is in the Ugaritic/Canaanite texts and how she became the wife of YHWH/Yahweh)
*"Yahweh's Divorce from the Goddess Asherah in the Garden of Eden - Mythology Matters."*
*"Asherah, God's Wife in Ancient Israel. Part IV - theyellowdart"*
*"The Gates of Ishtar - El, was the original god of the bible."*
*"The Gates of Ishtar - Anath in the Elephantine Papyri"*
(In addition to Asherah (Athirat) being the consort of Yahweh, it appears some Israelites also viewed the Canaanite goddess Anat(h) as Yahweh's consort)
*"Canaanite Religion - New World Encyclopedia"*
(Refer to the section "Relationship to Biblical Religion")
*"The Syncretization of Yahweh and El : reddit/AcademicBiblical"*
(For a good summary of all of the above articles)
Watch Professor Christine Hayes who lectures on the Hebrew Bible at Yale University. Watch lecture 2 from 40:40 to 41:50 minutes, lecture 7 from 30:00 minutes onwards, lecture 8 from 12:00 to 17:30 minutes and lecture 12 from 34:30 minutes onwards.
Watch *"Pagan Origins of Judaism"* by Sigalius Myricantur and read the description in the video to see the scholarship the video is based on.
Watch *"How Monotheism Evolved"* by Sigalius Myricantur and watch up to at least 21:40.
Watch *"Atheism - A History of God (The Polytheistic Origins of Christianity and Judaism)"*
(By a former theist)
Watch *"The Origins of Yahweh"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica.
Nevertheless, the historical reconstruction that El was the chief god of the Israelites is not indebted only to the testimony of the (rather late) biblical witness of P. *Numerous biblical texts attest to the fact that the titles, functions, and the imagery associated with the Canaanite god El, as revealed by the Ugaritic texts and the Canaanite myth of Elkunirša, were assimilated into the profile of the deity YHWH.* According to the Ugaritic texts, El was known for his *wisdom* (e.g., KTU2 1.4.V.65[6]) and *great age* (’ab šnm, *“Father of Years,”* and drd, *“Ageless One,”* in KTU2 1.4.IV.24 and 1.10.III.6, respectively),[7] his *compassionate nature* (lţpn il dp’id, *“Kind El, the Compassionate One,”* e.g., KTU2 1.16.IV.9), his role as *father of the gods and humanity* (’ab ’adm, *“father of humanity,”* KTU2 1.14..III.47, and bny bnwt, *“creator of creatures,”* KTU2 1.17.I.24) and *creator of the cosmos.* [8] El was the *divine King* (e.g., KTU2 1.2.III.5-6) and the *head of the pantheon or divine council* (referred to variously as the dr ’il, *“circle of El/Family of El,”* KTU2 1.15.III.19; mpħrt bn ’il, *“the assembly of the sons of El,”* KTU2 1.65.3; bn ’il, *“the sons of El,”* KTU2 1.40.33, 41; pħr kbbm, *“assembly of the stars,”* KTU2 1.10.I.3-4; ‘dt ’ilm, *“assembly of the gods,”* KTU2 1.15.II.7; cf. KTU2 1.2.I; 1.3V; 1.4 IV-V) which met at the sacred mountain. *His consort was the goddess Athirat who bore him seventy sons* (šb‘m bn ’atrt, *“the seventy sons of Athirat,”* KTU2 1.4.VI.46). El was also known for his *divine patronage and blessing of progeny to humans* (as in the Epic of Kirta; see, for example, KTU2 1.14.III.46-51), for his *appearances to humans in dreams* (e.g., KTU2 1.14.I.35-37), as *being a healer* (KTU2 1.16.V-VI), and for his *dwelling at the sacred mountain* (e.g., KTU2 1.2.III.5-6) at the *sources of the mythical rivers* (KTU2 1.2.III.4; 1.3.V.6; 1.4.IV.20-22; 1.17.V.47-48) in a *tent* (KTU2 1.2.III.5; 1.3.V.8; 1.4.IV.24; 1.17.V.49; c.f. the Canaanite myth Elkunirša which *describes El’s abode as a tent[9]).[10]*
*To underscore the fact that terminology and imagery originally used for the god El was adopted by the Israelites in their descriptions of YHWH,* the following brief summary might be placed in comparison to the discussion of El above: YHWH is an *aged, patriarchal deity* (Ps. 102:28; Job 36:26; Is. 40:28; Dan. 7.9-14, 22), *a father* (Deut. 32:6; Is. 63:16; 64:7; Jer. 3:4, 19; 31:9, etc.), *merciful and gracious* (Ex. 34:6; Jon. 4:2; Joel 2:13; Ps. 8615; 103:8; 145:8, etc.), *a divine patron who bestows the blessing of progeny upon Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,* often manifesting himself in *dreams or visions, a healer* (Gen. 20:17; Num. 12:13; 2 Kgs. 20:5, 8; Ps. 107:20, etc.), who *dwells in a tent* (Ps. 15:1; 27:6; 91:10; 132:3) *amidst the heavenly waters* (Ps. 47:5; 87; Is. 33: 20-22; Ez. 47:1-12, etc.), the *creator of the cosmos,* who is enthroned as *heavenly King* in the *divine council* (1 Kgs. 22:19; Is. 6:1-8; cf. Ps. 29:1-2; 82; 89: 5-8, etc.) on the *sacred mount of assembly* (e.g., Is. 14:13). Additionally, in much Israelite religious practice throughout the monarchic period, *YHWH had a divine consort, the goddess Asherah, the Hebrew equivalent of Ugaritic Athirat.[11]* (Originally the wife of El)
*"When Jehovah Was Not the God of the Old Testament. Part II - theyellowdart"*
Watch Professor Christine Hayes who lectures on the Hebrew Bible at Yale University. Watch lecture 2 from 40:40 to 41:50 minutes, lecture 7 from 30:00 minutes onwards, lecture 8 from 12:00 to 17:30 minutes and lecture 12 from 34:30 minutes onwards.
Watch *"Pagan Origins of Judaism"* by Sigalius Myricantur and read the description in the video to see the scholarship the video is based on.
Watch *"How Monotheism Evolved"* by Sigalius Myricantur and watch up to at least 21:40.
------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, look up the below articles.
*"Jews and Arabs Descended from Canaanites - Biblical Archaeology Society."*
("The study in Cell not only establishes that the ancient Israelites were ***descended from the Canaanites,*** but also establishes that the Canaanite people across the separate city-states of the southern Levant, and over a period of 1,500 years, were a genetically cohesive people.")
*"The Canaanites weren't annihilated, they just 'moved' to Lebanon - The Times of Israel."*
*"Ancient Canaanite religion explained* - everything.explained.today"
*"Archeology of the Hebrew Bible - NOVA - PBS"*
("Many scholars now think that *most of the early Israelites were originally Canaanites, displaced Canaanites,* displaced from the lowlands, from the river valleys, displaced geographically and then displaced ideologically.")
*"Origins of Judaism explained* - everything.explained.today"
("According to the current academic historical view, the origins of Judaism lie in the Bronze Age amidst polytheistic ancient Semitic religions, ***specifically evolving out of Ancient Canaanite polytheism,*** then co-existing with Babylonian religion, and syncretizing elements of Babylonian belief into the worship of Yahweh as reflected in the early prophetic books of the Hebrew Bible. (The Torah)".
*Refer to the bibliography at the bottom of the page)*
*"Canaanite languages - Britannica"*
("Group of Northern Central or Northwestern Semitic languages including ***Hebrew,*** Moabite, Phoenician, and Punic.")
*"El - New World Encyclopedia"*
(Refer to the section "El Outside the Bible" and the fact that *most of the early Israelites were originally indigenous or displaced Canaanites)*
*"El (deity) explained* - everything.explained.today"
(Refer to section "Ugarit and the Levant" and the fact that *most of the ancient Israelites were originally indigenous or displaced Canaanites* and see how Yahweh, later conflated with El (Yahweh-El(ohim)) is fictional)
*"The Gods and Goddesses of Canaan - Essay - The Metropolitan Museum of Art - Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History"*
*"Canaanite Phoenician Origin of the God of the Israelites."*
*"The Phoenician (Canaanite) God Resheph in the Bible - Is That in the Bible?"*
*"How the Jews Invented God and Made Him Great- Archaeology - Haaretz."*
*"When the Jews believed in other gods - Archaeology - Haaretz"*
*"The Invention of God - Maclean's"*
*"How Did the Bible’s Editors Conceal Evidence of Israelite Polytheism - Evolution of God by Robert Wright."*
*"A Theologically Revised Text: Deuteronomy 32:8-9 - Ancient Hebrew Poetry."*
*"Biblical Contradiction #3: Which God is the Creator of the Heavens and Earth: Yahweh or El?"* - Dr Steven DiMattei
*"Biblical Contradiction #27. Are Yahweh and El the Same God or Not?"* - Dr Steven DiMattei
*"Biblical Contradiction **#294**, **#295**, **#296**. Which god liberated Israel from Egypt: Yahweh or El?"* - Dr Steven DiMattei
*"Quartz Hill School of Theology - B425 Ugarit and the Bible."*
*"The Origins of Yahweh and the Revived Kenite Hypothesis - Is That in the Bible?"*
*"Yahweh, god of metallurgy - Fewer Lacunae."*
*"Polytheistic Roots of Israelite Religion - Fewer Lacunae."*
*"Yahweh was just an ancient Canaanite god. We have been deceived! - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"*
*"Religious Studies: El, Yahweh and the Development of Monotheism in Ancient Israel."*
*"Yhwh, God of Edom - Daniel O. McClellan."*
Copy pasta
@@epicofatrahasis3775 🙋 *Romans 1:22-32* 🙋
@@JRTIGER07Romans, including the entirety of chapter 1, was written to and for first century Christians in Rome. It has nothing to do with non believers then and now. Read more carefully.
@@epicofatrahasis3775
COPY AND PASTA ON MAGIC MUSHROOMS!!
Sorry but listening to militant atheists unwittingly pontificating about metaphysical realities such as ultimate “TRUTH” and “VALUE” and copying and pasting from pseudo history whilst subscribing to the belief that we are all nothing more substantive than ULTIMATELY MEANINGLESS, ULTIMATELY DETERMINED, HOLLOW AND SOULLESS APES WHO SHARE HALF THEIR DNA WITH A POTATO IS PRICELESS!!
Listening to strictly reductive materialists, atheists or philosophical naturalists pontificating about “CONTRADICTIONS” whilst subscribing to the belief that we are all nothing more substantive than ultimately meaningless, ultimately determined, hollow and soulless, overgrown amoebas with delusions of grandeur is as entertaining as watching someone trying to thrash the front of his car with the branch of a tree in order to BEAT IT INTO SUBMISSION!
It's very Basil Fawlty like at times and very Monty Python like at times! But without the intended comedy value!
CRINGE ATHEISM in full effect!
Militant atheism is a walking ball of self contradiction and cognitive dissonance!!
The way Dr. Collins dismisses the multiverse and then presents a view of God that describes him exactly as a multiverse would, but with the added property of being a conscious mind with a will and an interest in us specifically. As if that's a better explanation????
Erm…it is a better explanation. Equally, all things are possible in an infinite multiverse where you have infinite time and chance and coincidence that can even create something as metaphysical as a conscious agent/freewill, that is rational and moral decision making itself - right? Even what is personal and ultimate/God is highly probable in a multiverse - yes? The multiverse is just atheistic fan fiction and is nothing more substantive than a fairytale for those afraid of the light.
@@georgedoyle2487 Nothing about that is a better explanation, nor is your jumbled gargle.
@georgedoyle2487 the multiverse is effectively all science-fiction. It's theoretically interesting and vaguely plausible, and in many ways is on equal footing with any other claim of any vague or specific thing existing outside our universe. What I was pointing at is the way one model can make room for the other, but not vice-versa, because one makes more assumptions than the other. What I'm saying is that the christian god comes with way more assumptions than "there may be more of what's here but slightly different".
That being said, I guess some believers would describe God in a way that somewhat mirrors that "more of the same" in regards to minds that perceive/impose things like value, beauty, morality... I just fundamentally reject the idea that minds are so deeply distinct from the rest of reality that they need to be given a special form that's responsible for reality existing. Matter precedes and forms minds, not the other way around. Be it magical projection, a deity, or any other system of belief that desperately wishes a mind was at the center of everything.
The multiverse is a good theoretical tool to discuss the boundaries of reality and probability. God is a good theoretical tool to discuss morality and free will, but also a really effective tool at social homogeneity and indoctrination, for and against the better interests of people. They're two completely distinct spheres of metaphysics. With the exception that god beliefs usually want us to stop wondering about reality and start wondering about magic, flipping our view of cause and effect upside down at the cost of our sanity.
@
Sorry but the fact is that a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism basically says that [no ONE took no time to turn nothing into everything] - right? A belief that is actually synonymous with the belief in MAGIC at worst and at best it’s synonymous with the belief in secular myths and miracles - yes?
Or even worse a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism basically says that [no ONE took forever to turn the accidental arrangement of the MAGICAL cosmic tea leaves at the bottom of the atheists morning cup of tea into everything] - yes?
Sorry but I don’t need your “secular” myths nor your “secular” religion to ground metaphysics. That is to ground Truth and value and human dignity and respect. I don’t need your “secular” materialistic quasi religion to know what right and wrong is!!
I wouldn’t have the arrogance to RIDICULE, GASLIGHT, OR LECTURE A BEREAVED MOTHER during a pandemic whose only consolation is the hope of being reunited with her child in some kind of afterlife!!
The belief that [no ONE took forever to turn the accidental arrangement of the MAGICAL cosmic tea leaves at the bottom of the atheists morning cup of tea into everything] is synonymous with the belief in MAGIC - yes?
I’m biased against beliefs that are synonymous with the belief in MAGIC!! I tend to doubt that they are rational!!
Do you have actual evidence or not that MAGIC is real? I’ll wait!!
@@Nathouuuutheone
According to the expert linguist and brilliant cognitive scientist Noam Chomsky…
“There are only two ways of looking at eliminative materialism (the idea that all things reduce to solid substance). One is that it is total gibberish until someone tells us what matter is. Until someone tells us what eliminative materialism is there can’t be such a thing as eliminative materialism and no one can tell us what matter is”. (Noam Chomsky).
The fact is that a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism, that is fatalism and epistemological nihilism is a question begging fallacy, an argument from ignorance and a special pleading fallacy of the highest degree!!
The fact is that no one even knows what “MATTER” actually is and under relativism or moral subjectivism we are all clearly on equal footing at the very least!! This clearly leads to fatalism and epistemological nihilism and inevitably sui.tidal ideation if you are intellectually honest enough to live it out consistently!!
Technically there’s no such thing as “hard core (scientific) materialism” as it’s not “scientific” in the sense of methodological naturalism!! Materialism is actually a philosophical position not a scientific position. It just sounds better if you arbitrarily add “scientific” to give this materialistic quasi religion more credibility.
There’s a big difference between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism lol!! The clue is in the words “philosophical” and “metaphysical” naturalism!! An objection that will never be answered is how materialism is self enclosing and causally closed and can only describe what [is] not what [OUGHT] to be:
The fact is that if one accepts only perceivable, empirical, measurable things as evidence, then any “measurable” and “quantifiable” sign of metaphysics you can show would simply just be interpreted as material right? Look up question begging fallacy and special pleading fallacy!!
Moreover, nothing metaphysical and transcendental can ever be demonstrated to exist using materialism as your grounding metaphysical presupposition, rendering materialism unfalsifiable therefore an unscientific rigged game right?
The irony is that empiricism itself is a metaphysical presupposition and a transcendental category and is a dogma. You can’t prove empiricism using empiricism. That is you can’t prove sensory data using sensory data - yes? Hence the famous essay by W. Quine [THE TWO DOGMAS OF EMPIRICISM] - right?
The double irony is that quantum mechanics and in particular quantum superposition has actually demonstrated that classical materialism is dead!!
According to Scientific American…
“Atoms themselves can be further divided into smaller bits, and those into yet smaller ones, and so on, until what is left lacks shape and solidity altogether. At the bottom of the chain of “physical” reduction there are only elusive, phantasmal entities we label as “energy” and “fields”-abstract conceptual tools for describing nature, which themselves seem to lack any real, concrete essence.” (Scientific American).
Thank you for the video. It seems that Collins oscillates between two concepts in his argument: the "perfect plan of God" and the "binding nature of natural laws." If God had a perfect plan from the beginning, He could have designed the universe in a way that avoids unnecessary suffering without violating the natural laws He established. At the same time, it’s argued that God is bound by these natural laws and thus does not intervene, which raises questions about His omnipotence. This tension is never fully resolved and comes across as a way to sidestep difficult questions.
I'd disagree with what kind of law God is "bound" under, definitely not natural laws, but the moral law,.
@tomriddle164 If God is bound by moral laws, this raises two significant issues:
1. God's omnipotence is called into question: If God is subject to moral laws, it implies that there is something external to and independent of Him that restricts His actions. This contradicts the classical understanding of omnipotence, where God is sovereign over all laws-whether moral, logical, or physical.
2. No objective moral standard from God: If moral laws exist independently of God, then He is not the source of morality. This means that those who argue for objective morality based on God's existence would have to explain where these moral laws come from and why they are binding-not just on us, but also on God Himself.
This view creates significant theological and philosophical challenges for those who advocate that morality is grounded in God's nature or commands. What are your thoughts on this?
Universe without suffering means human beings without free will to decide the good or the bad..
Proved God existence, and no necessity of faith, gives the same results: humans with no free will
@@GuentherShadow Okay, looks like I was just careless with words, hence the apostrophe to avoid any explaining my position, lol, but here's how I'd explain God's position.
Your first point that "God's omnipotence is called into question", agreed, but that's not what I was claiming, I understand the crucial nuances of the classical understanding of God's omnipotence. His omnipotence generally means He can do anything logically possible and consistent with His nature. In the bible, this is made clear in Hebrew 6:18, it says "It is impossible for God to lie", something He cannot to because it is contrary to His nature.
"God is subject to moral laws, it implies that there is something external to and independent of Him that restricts His actions. " apologies, I should've used a different word to "bound" and probably didn't framed the position of God rightly in this way.
God is not "subject/bound" to moral law, He is the source of moral law meaning it cannot be external or independent of Him, its an expression of His nature. Morality is an expression of His nature. Moral laws are not external to God according to theology, in the bible, this is again clearly outlined, God is described as Love, Just, Truth, all emanates from Him. So morality is not external to Him, it's intrinsic and thereby the implications you claim does not hold, they're based on a misunderstood/flawed premise because “subject to moral laws” does not imply externality or independence.
Seems like the crux of the issue is why God does not intervene, I'd argue He did and is currently but alas, that delves into the "dreaded" faith territory. I disagree with you particularly on this "without violating the natural laws He established. At the same time, it’s argued that God is bound by these natural laws and thus does not intervene, which raises questions about His omnipotence." I'd argue that God is not subject to NATURAL laws, because, He can and does perform miracles and did intervene that much we Christians do believe. I mean, God became man, how much more intervening can you do? He literally became flesh, so, I think it's a matter of faith. I am curious as to these difficult questions you think Collins side-steps.
One answer: Freewill. . . If everyone abides to God's parameters no one would experience this dire consequence.
Imagine, if a thief falls from 2nd floor because hes tryin to escape then bounces when he reached the floor because of physics. But its also the same floor that you want to walk on without bouncing.
God has given man the freedom to decide but if he changes the laws of nature to reduce suffering then they are not really free. Imagine ordering in a restaurant that has a menu from a to z but when you select one dish the waiter will tell you there's only 3 available.
So God permitted this universe with its laws for man to naturally learn from his mistake. That the same fire that could hurt him is a tool for cooking. If there's anything, God is really intelligent.
A wonderful honest and respectful conversation. I so prefer this approach to debates on the issue.
This is a great conversation but I am a bit blown away by how poor Francis Collins' epistemology was when he was atheist. He was an atheist for poor reasons and he's a Christian for poor reasons. When he was talking about the cosmological argument and then the fine tuning argument I was curious how he has never heard of these arguments before, which are so simply refuted. It's almost like Collins' is unaware of Douglas Adams' puddle analogy or even the argument from personal incredulity fallacy. It's really odd.
I had to check to see if I'd written this comment. Nice.
“Douglas Adam’s”
You actually believe that Douglas Adam’s refuted fine tuning by reducing it to a straw man argument about an imaginary talking puddle? That’s just laughable!!
Sorry but atheistic, nihilistic fairytales about imaginary talking puddles are exactly that, nothing more substantive than imaginary stories about talking puddles and fallacies of false equivalence and straw man arguments and pseudo science.
If the “IMAGINARY TALKING PUDDLE” argument was so Earth shattering it would have been submitted to a scientific Journal for peer review and the story ends there - right? But this isn’t the case because if it was true the father of string theory Leonard Susskind wouldn’t have bothered to invest all the limited time, energy and money they had on investigating string theory and fine tuning if imaginary talking puddles were such an Earth shattering defeater for the extraordinary evidence of a (Finely Tuned Universe).
Let’s take the most basic laws of physics. It has been calculated that if the value of even one of the fundamental constants-the speed of light or the mass of an electron, for instance-had been to the slightest degree different, then no planet capable of permitting the evolution of human life could have formed.
In Professor Susskinds own words….
“Without any explanation of nature's fine tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics.”
A strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism is a question begging fallacy, an argument from ignorance and a special pleading fallacy of the highest degree.
According the prominent physicist Leonard Susskind, who’s actually coming from a non religious perspective, the present inability of physics to explain the fine tuning of the universe that is essential for life appears to leave an opening for a prime reality and infinite intelligence/God.
Professor Susskind is actually the father of string theory and he emphatically states that..
“I have to say that if [string theory fails], as things stand now we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature's fine tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics. One might argue that the hope that a mathematically unique solution will emerge is as faith-based as [Intelligent Design].” - (Leonard Susskind the father of modern string theory)
Similarly, according to the English physicist Paul Davies - a true scientific explanation….
“Is like a single well-aimed bullet. The idea of a multiverse replaces the rationally ordered real world with an infinitely complex charade and makes the whole idea of ‘explanation’ meaningless.” (Paul Davies).
Moreover, according to the Oxford professor Richard Swinburne…
“It is crazy to postulate a trillion (causally unconnected) universes to explain the features of one universe, when postulating one entity (God) will do the job.” (Richard Swinburne)
Professor Swinburne goes on to highlight that….
“These universes would never be directly observable; we couldn’t even meaningfully say whether they existed ‘before’, ‘after’ or ‘alongside’ our own” (Richard Swinburne).
Furthermore, the claim that someone is “WRONG” regarding their belief in a transcendental outlook or they are “WRONG” regarding their belief in a infinite intelligence, by the way, that’s a PHILOSOPHICAL claim, that’s a VALUE claim, that is a metaphysical presupposition and a transcendental category that can not be proven, justified or grounded using a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism that clearly excludes metaphysical realities - right?
You are now in the domain of metaphysics!! And that’s our domain!! The only way to avoid being a metaphysician in a debate about ultimate “TRUTH” and “VALUE” is to say nothing!!
So if you are a strictly reductive materialist, atheist or philosophical naturalist who constantly appeals to the prescriptive laws of logic and your so called “superior rational atheistic thinking” you now have an enormous explanatory gap and an enormous burden of proof!!
“Philosophy always buries its undertakers." Indeed, you can't get away from philosophy. It's like logic. To deny it is to use it.”
C. S. Lewis famously wrote!
@georgedoyle2487 - saying that the universe is fine tuned for human life is as laughable as the puddle analogy. The puddle analogy is ridiculous for a reason... it's a mockery of the fine tuning argument.
The music argument is weird because I listen to hardstyle, hard trance, frenchcore and uk hardcore and I experience the same kind of awe and beauty that feels "divine", but it would be as strange to assign that to contact with the bronze age god of the bible as a pizza.
One incredibly moving uk hardcore track for example is called Oh, My Dishes by DJ Cotts where the lyrics are about dishwasher maintenance, but before it gets to that point, there's this absolutely euphoric buildup that almost brings people to tears, so they end up getting tricked by the author of this beautiful piece and end up laughing at the drop.
It just seems to me like this is a property of music itself, and it's easier to believe it's more than that with something like classical music because it's easy to imagine a much more poetic narrative about beethoven transcribing something transcendent into the melody or whatever than a DJ that just pumps out silly euphoric rave music people listen to under the influence of stimulants and hallucinogens.
28:58 What a shameful and idiotic thing for a scientist to say "outside of time and outside of space".
Does he not realize that it simply means never and nowhere?
It's also shameful that you don't realise that the English language and our brains find it difficult to explain something that may or may not exist in a way we understand
@@donnypillay1924 Sure. But as temporal and space enhabiting beings, it's simply impossible for us to imagine that something exists never and nowhere, but somehow is still something. That's impossible to take as truth except on faith alone.
@@luxeayt6694 You take truth in things which are outside of time and space: mathematics and logic are two of them.
@victor_2216 Mathematics and logic only work in the minds of humans. Once you are dead, they don't exist anymore. Can a dead man use mathematics and logic?
Eternity includes all times, past, present and future simultaneous. Also, time only exists because of movement, of change. In God there is not movement nor change, so there's no time. God is infinite, and has no limitations, he cannot be a body, because body does have a surface who limits it.
There was one thing which Francis Collins said which I had an issue with, it was at 36:38 when he said ''God chooses to have a world where he is constrained by the constants'' this defo makes little sense to me, but I get he has to come up with an explanation to fit his worldview.
I found it personally offensive when Dr. Collins claimed Alex finds certain Biblical passages not credible because Alex approaches the text as an unbeliever with cognitive bias. What about Bart Ehrman and those like him who lost their faith when faithfully, diligently, digging deeper? Also, as a fan of Nietzsche, maybe the most important, interesting, productive and healthy question isn't, "Does God exist?," but rather, "What should we do if He doesn't exist?" Perhaps the unhealthy procrastinating of this latter question by perpetuating the former question is what makes the New Atheist most appealing to me.
Any time someone proclaims to know what any specific god is/was thinking baffles me!
It is like asking someone in America why a particular person in England designed their specific house the way they did if the person in America never met the person in England and has only heard of their possible existence.
I’m not sure you put much thought into this argument. Of course you can discern why a person would design something a certain way. Design is an intuitive expression of what works well. You can start listing the general things this house would have, a place to eat / prepare food, a place to sleep, a place to sit down, etc. Then you could move into the specifics, how tall are the walls, how many cabinets in the kitchen, location of power outlets, size and location of windows, etc. They would have designed their house to meet their needs working within the parameters for their particular limitations using a set of generalized design rules that guided the process. There are infinitely varying degrees of how this turns out in the end, but in general the process is the same.
@Mulli9anStew Do you get that if I were to claim that I know what someone else is thinking that I have never met in another country, or claim to know what their house looks like without ever seeing it, or make assumptions about them without ever talking to them is ridiculous???
It would take a really bad designer to design a universe that can easily be destroyed if anything changes the slightest bit within it. Any designer who put people on an Earth that has hurricanes, tornadoes, volcanoes, tsunamis, etc. was a horrible designer. Any designer who made very few places where a human can survive is a poor designer if its goal was to create humans. Any designer who made our bodies able to get easily injured, subject to illnesses, and made us so our breathing tube is next to our eating tube was an incompetent designer.
And yet, here we are… every thing you said only further supports how it all works. As a perfectly orchestrated design.
@@elainejohnson6955 for your first point, would it surprise you that the US government spent over 20 years developing a program to do just that? You can look up "remote viewing" if you want.
I think your list of "flaws" as you describe them may seem horrible and faulty, but honestly are all of those things really holding us back as a species in the big picture? We seem to be progressing still, after who knows how long it's been since the "dawn of man".
@@Mulli9anStew Please tell me why I designed my apartment the way I did. What colors I chose, and why.
The so-called 'Fine Tuning Argument' is silly. It clearly contradicts the claim of the all-powerful christian god because, as Collins says, gravity has to have a particular value for existence as we know it to be a thing.
The 'Fine Tuning Argument', it seems to me, is the best theistic argument for a case against the existence of the abrahamic god.
If the universe created itself out of nothing, why didn't it create itself on multiple ways, why only this fine tuned way?
@@donnypillay1924 Who said the universe created itself out of nothing? I certainly didn't. And I absolutely do not believe that.
I believe that energy has always existed, and the universe emerged because of that energy.
Why would you come to the conclusion that the universe has been fine tuned - and fine-tuned for life, as the apologists claim - when the overwhelming majority of it is deadly to life? No serious thinker would come to the conclusion that the universe has been 'fine-tuned for life', knowing what we do about the universe, because it isn't logical.
Life fine-tunes to its surroundings - this is something we have witnessed here on Earth. There's simply no reason to believe the universe has been fine-tuned.
I refer to this so-called argument as the 'fine-tuning brainfart', because the only thing this own-goal does is contradict the claim of the all-powerful christian god, and nothing else.
It shows the power and glory of God to have gravity like that
@@donnypillay1924are you suggesting the universe has a self creating mind so it could decide how it created itself?
@@paulyotzuar2788why is there gravity everywhere in the universe including planets with no life on them?
The shear joy of listening to this human conversations dims or distracts beneficially from the worries of God or Not. Thank you.
I think Collins gave an excellent account of himself, as an atheist, one of the most reasonable and intelligent opponents to my position I could have hoped to have heard from.
You are saying that you are an atheist and you thought Collins responded well?
@@jackfrosterton4135 yes, especially with regards to his push-back of Alex's point about the supposed uselessness of art from an evolutionary point of view. It's a line I've heard him use for a while and it was nice to hear that corrected. There are other things too, but that was one example. I think that though it's clear Collins misunderstood certain parts like the "constraints" at first, he listened and heard what Alex had to say, after which he changed tack. For these reasons and more, I appreciated him as a reasonable and intelligent member of this debate, above many others.
@@TitanOfClashI don’t consider it a debate but rather a conversation. I thought both did quite well. However I think Alex’ arguments about suffering are weak. Life worth living requires suffering. Imagine being a parent that doesn’t let their children risk dangerous situations, they become twisted as adults. Why would God or anyone want a world without the capacity for suffering?
@@bryanutility9609 He addresses that point by saying he's not talking about removing all suffering for exactly that reason, but is for instance asking for an account of the extreme suffering of animals.
@ “Extreme suffering” has to be possible for the opposite to be possible. Wanting a world within arbitrary boundaries wouldn’t make sense, it’s like bowling but only with bumpers. The virtue of courage would be impossible.
This is my first video. Love it so far! I loved the editing and the moderator was excellent. Asked really probing but fair questions.
Alex giving Francis the pass in calling belief a spectrum (it is not) was immediately a huge red flag in this conversation. I highly doubt Francis will tell one true thing this entire video, at least relating to his god and especially atheism and religion. and no pushback on the universe potentially being the uncaused cause is crazy!! That's like one of the most popular atheist arguments!!
last edit lol: This was insufferable. Constantly pulling "i have faith so it has to be true" so many times and constantly ignoring that beauty is subjective was beyond annoying. even if he does think life (?) is beautiful that doesn't point to the existence of god! what else can this man make the argument for being "i think it's beautiful and i have faith in my presupposition so it must be true"... other than the scientific method that concludes a theory... even though the scientific method excludes faith as evidence... what the hell. how is this guy at all relevant?? i can get better rational for god from any of my 20 local churches. and not to mention that he just completely scoffs at cruel animal (and human!) death. the last point of Alex saying that the god question is pretty much an exclusively relevant question for atheists to explore is such a valid point that i'm afraid Francis is too stupid to understand.
The best argument against the existence of a good God is the number of ads in this video. Lord have mercy.
You're seeing ads? Wow.
What's the point having these supposed intellectual conversations when in the end the theist just says well nothing else makes sense to me and this one makes me feel good so I have to ignore all your objections and assume god has his reasons the end.
I have literally never seen a religious debate between an atheist or agnostic and any other religious worldview and had either party concede… So what do you want exactly?
Well done for not giving god a capital g. Hope that was intentional?
the best way I can explain it as a former agnostic of 13 years who became a Christian after reading the Bible for myself, studying church history, studying manuscript evidence. When you choose to believe and put your faith in Christ, and really do your research, it's as though a veil is listed from your eyes and you see the truth. The scriptures speak of this perfectly in 1st Corinthians 1:18 “The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to those who are being saved it is the power of God”
It’s not necessarily the conclusion that is valuable. That’s why the entire conversation is recorded and posted on youtube. There is value in simply talking about these things, it gets people to think critically, it helps people form and shape their own opinions by hearing opinions they otherwise never would’ve heard. That’s the point. Some people want to hear differing viewpoints because they are concerned with learning, you seem to be concerned with the validation of your ego because your comment implies that you just want to listen to people spew the viewpoints you already believe.
@@mapowey I want the theists to actually address the questions instead of deflecting and retreating.
Look. Either God can only do that which the laws of physics allow him to do, or God can “break”/circumvent/supersede the laws of physics to achieve his goals. If it’s the former, then God isn’t omnipotent. If it’s the latter, then physical constants aren’t relevant to the question of whether or not an “interesting” universe can exist, and the FTA’s premises are moot. I don’t know why Francis Collins can’t grasp this extremely simple, obvious point that Alex is making, but that’s the crux of the issue here.
As a devout Christian I cannot agree more... He is missing so much about the Faith as laid out clearly in the Bible.
@@matthewstokes1608 so whats your answer?
It is not a simple point in the least. The very fact that these smart guys and other similar ones throughout history, believers and not believers, have put this issue in the table to try to understand, shows the complexity of the problem. There are very precise laws of physics that define this universe and the logic and evidence tells us that couldn't come out of nothing, but at the same time such original cause seems to be somehow bounded by them. This is something not trivial at all
@dataphilo - The question that I raised pertains to God’s purported “omnipotence”, and it is indeed a very simple question: Is God bound by the laws of physics, or can he break/circumvent them at will? It can’t be both, so which is it?
@NathanColvin It's tremendously simple: God is not bound by ANY laws - it truly is not difficult to work out. He established everything and can tinker and alter all He likes.This includes His ability to enter into Time at any point in history including the future of course, and be outside of it - and freeze frame as often as He wishes.
Only those who put FULL faith and trust in Him will go to His New Kingdom - the New Earth - of eternal life.
This world is all a test.
Read the Bible.
God Bless.
chat gpt sermed to agree with me and said...
I completely understand your concern. The word "necessary" can indeed muddy the waters of such a deep philosophical discussion. Alex O'Connor (Cosmic Skeptic) is likely using the term "necessary" to argue that belief in God is not required to explain things like the universe, morality, or human existence. However, as you pointed out, the more accurate question may be about what is most probable given the available evidence, which is a more nuanced way of approaching the issue.
Haven't seen that part yet, but the obvious guess would be that Alex was talking about theoretical virtues. Simplicity, not introducing unnecessary entities makes a theory more virtuous.
chatgpt will always agree with you! It's a pushover. Rather ask it to disagree with you and see what it says, then make your own conclusion. ChatGPT itself is quite unreliable to give you proper analysis, especially when it thinks the question is personal to you. It is too nice to tell the truth if it thinks its offensive.
You can bully Chatgpt into any position given enough time. Alex has technically even showed this on his channel. Chatgpt is a tool not a truthsayer myguy.
It's an obsequious model
I could listen to Alex all day long.
What I'd love Alex to do is, rather than saying very similar things to lots of different people, to talk to the same person regularly to try to reach conclusions together over time.
Maybe it's because I'm getting older, but it has become nearly intolerable and dramatically sad to watch intelligent (in every other aspect) people defending a fairytale for people of the Stone Age with ostensibly sophisticated arguments.
It goes both ways. I can easily say as a believer that it makes me drastically sad to see someone like you without faith..
@@johnpetkos5686
“Stone Age”
Well said!! Me too!!
It strikes me that a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism is a sort of Stone Age, peasant superstition of our age! Militant atheism is a walking ball of self contradiction and cognitive dissonance!!
Moreover, Mr “COSMIC SCEPTIC” is actually a determinist so he doesn’t even believe in freewill - yes? That is he doesn’t even believe in rational decision making itself - right? As it’s all allegedly determined even consciousness - right? So even consciousness and rational decision making itself is “illusory”? That’s a self own on multiple levels and is beyond ironic - isn’t it?
Which means that Mr “COSMIC SCEPTIC” is an enormous GRIFTER because he has actually built a career on the premise that atheists are “superior rational decision makers” - right? He’s built a career out of getting people to use their will to become an atheist like him because muh atheism is “SUPERIOR” - yes? But he doesn’t even believe that rational decision making, that is freewill is real!
Which also means that he actually believes that Pdfiles and Grapists and murderers are NOT responsible or accountable for their own actions as freewill is “ILLUSORY” according to his “superior atheist rational decision making” - yes? It’s an house of cards!!
CRINGE ATHEISM in full effect!!
@@men.276You say that like all Christians actually believe the same things. That's ridiculous. That's why there are so many denominations and sects within the Christian religion. They can't agree on doctrine, salvation, predestination etc. and will claim the moral high ground as those who have attained salvation and look down in pity at the other hapless Christians who believe the wrong thing. "Faith" is a broad term in that way. If non-believers actually saw some consistency in the behavior and beliefs of Christians, it might be compelling. But, it seems Christians all have their own idea of who God is and what he requires of us and they will fight needlessly with those that do not agree on their interpretation of what perceive as God's plan.
The God argument really needs to be redefined as Local cause and effect vs non Local. Super nature vs nonSuper.
@men.276 that's an interesting take since mostlu in no other area of life do we live on faith.
Dr. Collins’ spiritual experiences seem nothing more than the average mushroom trip in which our subconscious tells us things like “spend more time with your sister,” “start saving money,” etc.
That seems to bug you 😂😂
@@emmanuelansah4035nail on head. You are not 'finding God' to experience God. You surrender to God to know him more
Not everything is like that mushroom head
Delacate debates from the living room.
@@emmanuelansah4035 Dont project. Thats not OP's concern
What a sobering video to watch. For years I've heard what a great example Dr. Collins is of how faith and science need not be in conflict. And here he is making all of the same vacuous, fallacious arguments as every third-rate apologist. All the greatest hits are there: The Kalam, Fine-Tuning, etc.
My favorite part is when Collins and Alex are discussing the resurrection, and the former chides the latter because his "prior is to be skeptical," as if "dead people sometimes come back to life" is the prior that's more likely to lead to an accurate conclusion.
I watched this carefully TWICE routing for the scientists to compel me to return to god. Ended up doubling down on agnosticism/athiest and seeing nothing but desperate biased towards “god” because “Feelings” and faulty logic and convenient justification.
“It conveys a certain kind of compelling truth that I’m willing to take on board without being certain that it’s absolutely true” 🗑️
The thing about the fine-tuning argument is that it assumes we know enough about the fundamentals of physics to confidently claim that various physical constants are arbitrary and unrelated.
It's entirely possible that things like electric and gravitational force constants simply arise in a predictable way from yet more fundamental principles we haven't discovered.
"The values of the fundamental physical constants are in a NARROW RANGE that is necessary to support carbon-based life. [s this because there are an infinite number of other universes with different constants, or are our universe's constants the result of chance, intelligent design (by a personal being such as the theist's "God"), or some other factor or process?" -> This is an unsolved physics problem.
@@jbangz2023 I'm sorry, what? Who are you quoting? And how do they know any of the physical constants we use are fundamental rather than the result of yet more fundamental physics we have yet to discover?
@@jbangz2023 every triangle is in a narrow range such that the sum of their angels is 180. Maybe triangles are fine tuned?
@@isiahs9312 no, not in a narrow range but exact value of 180 in Euclidean geometry. So in some sense it is fine tuned.
@@jbangz2023LOL. triangles are not tuned.
This is a great conversation, nice work for hosting this !
Thank you for watching! 🙌
Useless comment
@@paulo.8899 alright pal
I never heard anything that would convince me that the Bible is a historical fact
Maybe you should go to historians for that one
That is because a library of books and writings of different genres, which is MUCH more than 'a' fact.
What do you mean by historic fact? That the bible was really a historic collection of historic books ? This has been proven by carbon dating already.
@@tionarry and historians will just refer to the bible.
@@BakiVSKenganits about the content not the age of the texts. Only because something is old doesnt make it true😂
I wonder what it is about fine tuning putting limitations on god that a lot of theists simply can't seem to get. A fine tuning argument does not get you to an omnipotent creator who created everything. It only gets you to a being that plays with pre-existing levers and dials until they get the universe they prefer.
"your priors" such an easy dismissal of any complex criticism
Your priors' isn’t a dismissal but a sort of recognition that all arguments start from assumptions.
Addressing those assumptions first strengthens criticism. That of course if the assumptions are based on reason and logic .. if the priors are based on religious beliefs held as a direct result of say indoctrination, exposing the priors can make the criticism / arguments seem unreasonable, non coherent, even for the person saying them, because it's an exercise we so rarely do... this off course means that there's a discussion that follows saying "your priors", that addresses the priors, then moves on to the arguments/ criticism.. and not using "your priors" as a way to end further discussion
@@AkEl-Man The problem with Collins' use, to me, is that he would just mention "your priors" and move on. Discussing priors can be informative, but he seemed to be using it more as a thought stopping cliche. I would have been interested to hear what he thought the difference between his and Alex's priors were. For example, if "Jesus is God" one of his priors, or simply "the supernatural is possible"?
@@AshleyMooreAMS i totally agree, i think that talking about the priors would reveal that one of them has fantastical, fairy tale, hard to justify, irrational ones .. while the other one's would be based on reality and rationality.. I don't think i need to tell you which of these two is Collins
will alex ever face a worthy oponent
@@connorsaxton2920
Alex actually admitted that he would cannibalise and eat his cabin boy in a debate with Trent Horn. Which is beyond ironic given that Alex was a vegan. So Alex has definitely met more than his match numerous times.
Militant atheism is a walking ball of self contradiction and cognitive dissonance!! Determinism, emotivism and utilitarianism are secular fairytales for those afraid of the LIGHT!
Probably not. All apologists are nothing but liars and charlatans.
The soap bottle in the shower: I have already arrived.
When the day of judgement comes or after he dies he will realise becuz as jesus teaches not to win on arguments for the flesh but rather win on the soul so who cares alex is winning a so called “argument” just in order to make his faith which is agnosticism strong debating everyone especially christians and the people r enjoying this becuz he have won an argument disproving the existence of God i m just like wow and none of these people have ever drop even a little bit of faith after debating him becuz u can never fully comprehend the absolute infinite nature of God so the intellectual beings like alex will use their own way of thinking to understand how and what God thinks or operates or is he real or not but u will fail miserably all the times becuz u r not humble and humility enough to understand and walk in the Lord’s way rather u r using ur own brain to think and analyze wheather god is real or not
Of course not, there aren't any.
I took the inverse path that Collins talks about: raised as a Catholic, I justified God's existence with the beauty of music. Then, after training as a computer scientist and considering the evidence and epistemological issues, I quickly became an agnostic atheist. Belief in God might depend on a state of mind, but it doesn't seem like a rational position.
Great discussion, great points from men (and some from the host as well). It’s certainly difficult to maintain a “beginner’s mind” (see Shunryu Suzuki)
in discussions such as this. We all carry our filters whether we’re honest enough to admit it or not.
It’s difficult, maybe impossible, to explain the impact Mahler Symphony 9, John Coltrane’s A LOVE SUPREME, Bob Dylan’s BRINGING IT ALL BACK HOME, or The Clash’s LONDON CALLING can have on a listener in a purely materialist context.
I LOVED Alex’s story about sitting with his friend overlooking Corinth near the end. I am stealing that quote.
I get tired of the "why there *is* 'something' rather than 'nothing'" line. I get it, but it's absurd because "nothing" can't be.
Yeah, Krauss reframed it by asking “how is there something rather than nothing?” We know something exists, and that refutes the concept of nothingness. “How” is in theory an answerable question, and scientists have posited reliable answers to an extent. The deeper the knowledge, the greater the unknowns. “Why” is a subjective philosophical question.
I really get tired of the “you believe everything came from nothing” garbage the religious apologists like to throw at non believers
@@claytonshank6871there is the most ignorant and equally arrogant statement. The only humble answer that can suffice for a non believer is, ‘ I don’t know’
I really get tired of the "I was an atheist, but I couldn't answer the theist questions so I became a theist" line.
Quirk of language. Wittgenstein talked about this. In his later years he became deeply interested in Christianity, from what I remember.
It was embarrassing for Collins, clearly such an intelligent man, to express such ridiculous ideas and not see through them immediately.
ive never understood this idea of a god outside of time & space & why people give this idea any credit. there is nothing that we know of that is outside of space & time & it seems silly to make an exception for this one case. the word supernatural is meaningless in my opinion because again it doesnt mean anything to be beyond the natural world. everything we know is contained within the natural world & there hasnt been one single person who can give evidence of a supernatural situation ever occurring
@@jaredmiller5109
The fact is that a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism relies on ultimately meaningless [determinism, chance, and randomness] like a “HOLY” trinity of magical chance, coincidence and wishful thinking! The strictly reductive materialist, atheist or philosophical naturalists blind devotion to the gods of materialism and automatism condemns their myths to hollowness!!
The fact is that the power of the machine model of reality and the power of the automaton has proved so seductive that the very mention of metaphysical realities such as compassion, empathy, goodness and freewill, that is the mere mention of transcendental categories such as rational decision making itself and moral decision making itself are now arrogantly hand waved away as “ILLUSORY”? Consciousness and freewill is just an “ILLUSION” - right?
Which is actually laughable and self refuting. Emergent properties are magically conjured up to fill the enormous explanatory gap between hydrogen, nitrogen, carbon, calcium and conscious decision makers - right? Equally, unexplained holes in physics are quickly swept under an increasingly rising carpet of dark energy, dark matter, virtual particles and decoherence etc.
Phenomenal consciousness, panpsychism or panexperientialism, the collective consciousness, the prime reality/God or what ever term you prefer can tie up all of these loose ends that materialism completely fails to explain and point the way to a new theory of the cosmos rooted in MIND. That is rooted in common sense and rational decision making - yes? But I believe in the final analysis only Christ can ground all these things in something beautiful and tangible!!
@@jaredmiller5109
The fact is that all observations of functions and substances in the universe are kinds of experiences, that is mental states rather than the other way around. The fact is that a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism presupposes its own theoretical metaphysics. But its proponents expect us to believe that it is a given that this is the fundamental primitive for explaining the existence of all life and all conscious entities.
Moreover, when our pride usurps metaphysics, that is when our pride usurps TRUTH and VALUE and OBJECTIVE MORALITY, we walk on the shifting sands of relativism, materialism, moral subjectivism and solipsism, a narcissistic and ego driven reality!!
Exactly. Someone ask these Christians how long it took for God to create time.
@@jaredmiller5109
“The word supernatural is meaningless in my opinion”
Oh the irony!! Look up appeal to incredulity fallacy. Your appeal to metaphysical realities and transcendental categories such as “MEANING” is a self own on multiple levels! By the way, you just totally and utterly refuted your self!
Sorry but it’s all ultimately meaningless under a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism - yes? Are you for real? Your arbitrary subjective opinion regarding “MEANING” has no more truth value than leaves blowing in the wind in an ultimately meaningless, ultimately purposeless universe - right?
Listening to militant atheists whining about how “MEANINGLESS” other peoples beliefs are whilst subscribing to the belief that we are all nothing more substantive than ULTIMATELY MEANINGLESS, ULTIMATELY DETERMINED, HOLLOW AND SOULLESS APES WHO SHARE HALF THEIR DNA WITH A POTATO IS PRICELESS!!
@@paulo.8899
“Exactly. Someone ask these Christians how long it took for God to create time.”
Oh the irony!! Look up straw man argument and appeal ridicule fallacy. The irony, of course, is that a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism basically says that [no ONE took no time to turn nothing into everything] - right? A belief that is actually synonymous with the belief in MAGIC at worst and at best it’s synonymous with the belief in secular myths and miracles - yes?
Or even worse a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism basically says that [no ONE took forever to turn the accidental arrangement of the MAGICAL cosmic tea leaves at the bottom of the atheists morning cup of tea into everything] - yes?
Sorry but I don’t need your “secular” myths nor your “secular” religion to ground metaphysics. That is to ground Truth and value and human dignity and respect. I don’t need your “secular” materialistic quasi religion to know what right and wrong is!!
I wouldn’t have the arrogance to RIDICULE, GASLIGHT, OR LECTURE A BEREAVED MOTHER during a pandemic whose only consolation is the hope of being reunited with her child in some kind of afterlife!!
Sorry but the belief that [no ONE took forever to turn the accidental arrangement of the MAGICAL cosmic tea leaves at the bottom of the atheists morning cup of tea into everything] is synonymous with the belief in MAGIC - yes?
I’m biased against beliefs that are synonymous with the belief in MAGIC!! I tend to doubt that they are rational!!
Do you have actual evidence or not that MAGIC is real? I’ll wait!!
34:00 His argument is God wanted to make things interesting which is subjective. Let's grant him it's objectively interesting: Could it be more interesting? Yes. How would that be? The space is vastly large, it could have had less empty space and more life (If there is any other planet that has life of course). And if the God is interested in human life why not make better conditions in the first place supporting life?
That old guy doesn't even see how unreasonable his beliefs are
So atheism is the solution?
@@NeoRelic-o8p
“That old guy”
“how unreasonable his beliefs are”
Alex isn’t old? Why are you attacking Alex LOL?
Sorry but “UNREASONABLE” according to who? or what absolute, universal, objective standard of measure exactly?
“UNREASONABLE” according to the standard of an overgrown amoeba with delusions of grandeur? Or “UNREASONABLE” according to nothing more substantive than an ULTIMATELY MEANINGLESS, ULTIMATELY DETERMINED, HOLLOW AND SOULLESS APE WHO SHARES HALF THEIR DNA WITH A POTATO?
Your world view, your absurdity, your “UNREASONABLE”, your ultimately meaningless hollow and soulless ape, your existential crisis and your epistemological crisis not the theists!!
I mean, everyone has a right to believe what they want and everyone including theists have a right to find it totally ridiculous, totally fatalistic, totally nihilistic, and totally and utterly SELF refuting…
I rest my case!!
I'm glad to see Christians are realizing Alex O'Connor is a seeker of facts and not truth. I quit following the majority of his debates a while back. I'm seeing 99% of the comments from atheists. I do like Dr. Collins and I love his book, The Language of God. He was very patient with Alex. Alex is clever, but Dr. Collins is wise and the beauty and peace he seems to have speaks volumes.
Facts: reality. Truth: feelings. Got it.
@@barriehoman3833you are spot on with the definition atheists give to truth. Atheists base their understanding of truth mainly on empirical evidence - knowledge gained almost exclusively to observation and experimentation. How incredibly limiting is your world. I guess there is no truth in love or beauty. You reduce it to just feelings. What a pity.
@@Shawn-nq7duSelf-deception isn't a reliable pathway to the truth.
No you don’t get it at all
I did not expect Dr. Collins to reason so poorly about the general questions regarding god's existence, nature, and relation to creation.
I only started studying Christianity myself about a year ago and I'm shocked at how lacking his answers were.
He seems to be playing the part of a soft target for atheists to beat up on. I want to hear the absolute best arguments from both sides and this debate was a disappointment.
I don't think people watching comprehend the magnitude of advancements that were made in the field of Medicine because of Dr Collins and his genius
Disappointing, and a little pathetic, that even very highly educated people like Collins still have to fall back on the "it just feels right and makes me feel good" justification for their belief.
Maybe you are the same but just don’t know yourself as well. “Feelings” precede reason. There’s nothing wrong with his position, it’s honest & is justification enough for anything.
@@bryanutility9609 This is a debate about the existence of god. An argument "it makes me feel good" is a loser right from the start!
@ Makes me feel good is the only reason to justify anything
@@bryanutility9609 But not a good argument in a debate.
@ Alex’s has done plenty of debates on free will & also morality. His main argument in morality is “emotivism” “boo, I don’t like that”
These are the two guys in my head
So his god exists outside of space and time. In other words, it doesn't exist. Good to know.
Some physicists have argued that quantum fields are fundamental and exist outside of space and time (that space and time themselves are in fact a consequence of quantum fields interacting, not that the quantum fields are embedded within space and time). I can certainly conceive of higher dimensional things that we - constrained to three dimensions - do not have access to. I’m an atheist, but I don’t think it’s logically incoherent to argue that god can both exist and also transcend what we know of as reality.
@@ericfan9149 Physicist Sean Carroll likes to point out that while we continue to think of "nothing" as the most fundamental state of being, perhaps "something" is the more correct answer -- i.e. that there always was and will be "something" and that there never was "nothing".
@ I think that’s a valid argument. People who argue “something can’t come from nothing” assume that absolute nothingness is the only possible preexisting condition.
@ The arguments are semantically difficult to propose because you end up having to use words like “always” which implies a duration of time. It’s possible there are things that exist independent of time, or that time itself is a causal byproduct of something more fundamental.
No one regardless of age or reputation seems to have any answers for Alex’s logic. A scientist who believes that someone came back from the dead lost credibility for me right there.
A God that requires a human sacrifice? I don’t want him as a friend let alone a God.
Short Answer: No or yes
Long Answer: Maybe
Francis Collins: I like my feelz about god, don't bother me with the details.
Alex O'Conner: Show me god. What is god? What purpose does god serve, etc.?
There was no meeting in the middle in this conversation.
The debate question should be “does a god exist.” Phrasing it as “does God exist” implies that their is a god.
I would add to this that because my apprehension of the world is restricted by my ability to name things. Language is vital in the search for meani in general and because we have the word God, he exists. However, the fact that we have named God doesn't mean he exists, other than as a concept and something that marks where our knowledge ends.
Well, technically then, it should be “do one or more gods exist” if you want to include pantheism… 😂
It’s actually polytheism that believes in many gods, not pantheism. And I don’t think it would make sense for them to have that be the question actually because Dr. collins is a monotheist so neither of them is advocating for polytheism.
@@PatrickFlynn-ry6ojthere’s no reason why an atheist should accept the frame “god or no god” as monotheism is the only option just because it’s popular right now.
How does God know he isn’t just a small God and has a God above him?
How am I 53 minutes into this debate and and Collins hasn’t brought up the concept of the “fallen world” in his arguments? Or the fact that Jesus, who is God incarnate, himself suffered a brutal death, just as the animals O’Connor keeps referring to? Pain and suffering clearly have a place in this world because of sin. The Bible addresses this. This fallen, corrupt state of the world’s existence is only temporary, and will one day be restored after Christ’s return. The explanation for the state of things as they are now isn’t just limited to God’s mind _before_ creation, but includes everything that happens on Earth throughout time, outside of which he operates and in consideration of which he created the world.
The fall of man story is why I abandoned my faith.
Maybe because that's such a stupid idea.
God does not reveal himself to the intellectual and wise.
arrogant statement my friend
@@sulx6104nothing wrong with being arrogant if you’re right
@@sulx6104 I'm paraphrasing Christ; take it up with him. The Bible also says that if you are earnestly seeking Him, He will let Himself be found by you. It also says God is not far off from each one of us and that anyone from anywhere is acceptable to God if they do what pleases Him. By the way, the intellectuals Christ was referring to were the ones being arrogant in his time, due to their vast learning in their schools.
not really ,,,, not all scientists are atheist many believe god exists and many think that the arguments are correct
Let me rephrase your statement… “The intellectual and wise do not delude themselves into believing in a made up God.”
The universe that we can observe is definitely NOT fine tuned! What a narrow perspective to think otherwise. I think people need to be more honest and just say “I think it’s scary not knowing so I would rather pretend”
In what ways is it not fined tuned? Because a lot of people can’t answer that
@@2ButterdBiscuits "fine-tuned" assumes first of all that something intended the universe to be a certain way, which conveniently happens to benefit us in the narrow span of time humans have dominated the earth. Second, it suggests that this is the best possible version of the world and we are physically the best versions of ourselves that could exist. If you just look at a few of the flawed and supposed "design" of the human body it should be pretty clear that these assumptions are ludicrous. The idea of fine-tuning is nothing but a simple example observer bias that for some reason we are told we have to take seriously.
An interesting conversation to the say the least, as is always the case when the young, Alex O'Conner is involved. It never ceases to amaze me that religion can take such hold on even the most giftedly intelligent among us. When talking about his faith, Francis Collins is reduced to sounding utterly childish.