thanks for this, have you considered debating another muslim apologist? i know last time went horribly but i would love to see a discussion/debate between you and Abdallah Al Andalusi for example
nah, he can't name 5 things without a creator with proof, and when he tries he will simply name things with a creator. Whereas I can name billions of things and show proof that do have a creator.
There is in built anesthesia. I wish nothing ever died though. we mammals especially have in built anesthesia particularly powerful when on the brink of death from blood loss and exhaustion the most common death for prey animals. I’d argue why did we need to evolve that at all? It only happens when you’ve cross the threshold of death anyway. Like without modern medicine at the point they kick in death is certain.
Alex, I'd be curious about your take on the research and hypothesis of Dr. Donald Hoffman. That we experience reality as a construct of space-time, which he says explains the difficulty in scientifically quantifying experience and consciousness as they exist outside that construct. I would say he would even make a great guest.
With the greatest compliment possible, I was thinking the American had that Golden Retriever energy. Watching at 1.25 speed, he seemed to be hopped up on gallons of Red Bull. But seriously, no shade whatsoever. Clearly a brilliant person with well-formed reasoning and critical thinking.
The S-rank is the highest grade in the Japanese school system; it comes from "shū" ("excellent", maybe?) and it is normally represented in English as "superb". It became popular in the West via scoring systems on Japanese arcade games, e.g. it's the highest performance you can get on Dance Dance Revolution
Anyone says an empty cult where this worst genretion has trapped and had to be judge by God for betrayed Gif for the nothing empty atheism gives to their lives? Lier as any Goddenier. What a cult!...
@@HENTAl69Anyone says an empty cult where this worst genretion has trapped and had to be judge by God for betrayed Gif for the nothing empty atheism gives to their lives? Lier as any Goddenier. What a cult!..
And the result of scoring 5-0 or more in the Inazuma Eleven games' competition routes... You probably have no idea what that means, do you? Never mind.
It's impressive that your hypothetical responses are some of the strongest arguments for god I have heard. Your ability to present the other side so genuinely and charitably is what I appreciate the most about this channel.
It's one of the things that pushed me further from religion: that atheists consistently gave me the theist position accurately while theists nearly never gave the atheist position accurately (or at best deceptively incomplete so as to be effectively inaccurate).
I love this guy's vocabulary and freedom of thought. The way his choice of words match up with his ideas and how simply he can explain concepts makes it clear he doesn't just say things he doesn't really understand just to sound smart. Seems like a very intellectually honest guy as well. Definitely gonna check out his channel.
Is it weird to admit that these Cosmic x Majesty videos are a sort of comfort video for me? While I'm sure Alex enjoys talking to his other guests, his conversations with Joe feel much closer to a friend banter as opposed to a debate or an interview. There's an aspect of informality here that I really appreciate.
I think you're missing the real point of the "universe big" argument. The point is to get you to question whether your belief in a God who built a world for humans is based on a cognitive bias. Suppose you were isolated tribe of a couple thousand who didn't know about the rest of the world, and you have a whole belief system that depends on a God who created the world for your isolated tribe. When you are made aware of the rest of the world, suddenly it seems less plausible that everything was made for you. You gradually realize that you only thought it was for you because you didn't know about everyone else. Similarly, as people become more aware of the scale of the universe, of other potential worlds with life, of other belief systems about God, of the number of animals in the world, the idea that everything was for you and your community's personal conception of God becomes less and less plausible. I grew up in a Jewish community. This might be mixing some arguments together, bu their idea that there is a God who has a special relationship with the Jewish people is embraced by 0.0001% of human beings who all happen to be Jews. Of course you should question whether that's based on a cognitive bias.
I also think that when someone says that “God created the universe with us in mind”, and you look at the actual universe, it’s like seeing a parent creating a room for a baby to live in, and then making 99,9999% of the room unlivable in a way that if the baby wandered there, they’d die instantly. I’ve seen parents struggle to make a safe and beautiful room, but this is quite the level of incompetence. At some point we might have to wonder if the room is really designed for the baby, or if we accidentally wandered in his tool shed instead and we were actually not even supposed to be here.
A male gamete is like 0.006cm and is meant to scale up to something that is like 175cm. Alex's argument that current planetary beings may be meant to inhabit spaces at an interstellar or intergalactic scale is plausible. Although it is quite an egocentric counter-argument to the big universe argument, it does retain the unlikely possibility that the big universe is meant for humanity.
its strange to me when people claim if god revealed himself, it would abolish free will. The original story of satan proclaims he was a whole angel, who knew god, was 2nd to god, was as close to god as you can get. and still chose to go against god. So if god revealed itself, the true sinners, those truly evil, will continue to be evil despite seeing god. the people who truly "just want to sin" will. and those who were non resistant non believers would be saved. simple.
There's also the option of knowing God exists but simply finding him unworthy of worship/obedience. Not out of a desire to 'sin' or be evil, but just like a disappointed child rejecting the authority of their parent.
Exactly, God supposedly showed himself to a bunch of different people, people who are revered by Christians. "If God showed himself to us it would limit our free will" implies that the freedom of Paul, Abraham, Job etc. was limited, which I've never seen anyone argue.
Not only did Judas Iscariot witness the power of Jesus, but was granted miraculous powers of god through Jesus (Luke 9:1-6), and yet he still had free will, choosing to betray Jesus.
@@jelledesmet7086 All the ancient philosophers who thought more deeply asserted this was an impossibility -- to not one the one you are a part of and who made you. Think deeper. You cannot not want that which to you belong.
I think the argument from the scale of the universe is typically a response to the fine tuning argument. Since clearly the majority of the observable universe is hostile to life as we know it, not fine tuned to support it.
There could have at least been a single galaxy, our own galaxy, teeming with intelligent lifeforms like in Star Wars and Star Trek. We don't even get that.
Yes I was surprised they didn’t consider this. This was precisely the way famous atheist Hitchens always used it. It’s a counter to thinking the universe is created for us or with us in mind .
@christsavesreadromans1096 We can't venture outside of our own solar system, let alone explore the rest if the galaxy, LET ALONE the rest of the universe. I don't see how it is "narcissistic" to want to be able to do more than we can do that way.
@christsavesreadromans1096 How/ why would this give god glory? He’s allegedly a being of pure perfection, lacking nothing. Why would he require giant empty space to feel better about himself? Also were you saying that God is the narcissistic one? You might not have been but it makes sense.
@@billwalton4571 why would Jesus choose disciples who *have* seen him to go forth and spread his gospel, rather than electing to moreso influence people who *haven’t* seen him?
@@JimBobJoeB0b cuz the apostles were specifically trained and taught by him specifically for this mission. cuz they were witnesses of his power, cuz they werent holy people at the beginning. if im not mistaken one of them was even a thief. and they all went thru drastic changes of behavior under him. they were also the first leaders of the church and people at the time followed them cuz they knew they met Jesus personally. tons of reasons why he chose them
One of my favorite comments was on a 20 hour video someone said they were just going to watch one more video before bed.😂 Now I wouldn't do a 20 hour video before bed but honestly I might watch this one.
Okay, but what do you mean by "arguments" and "for" and "atheism" and "tier list?." And it better not have anything to do with drugs or else I'm out of here
seeing two dudes on the same "side" lightly arguing and coming to disagreements sometimes but also conversing and relating well to one another is actually so fun and incredible. The respectful pushback you both offered without ever losing the friendship is such a novelty nowadays. Refreshing, informative, fun. Great fucking content my guy
The Problem of Evil is not an argument for Atheism, only an argument against specific religions that promote an omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent deity (usually monotheistic religions). It cannot be used against Hinduism or Buddhism for example, and surely any argument that cannot address the 3rd and 4th most popular religions in the world cannot be considered a good argument for Atheism. Perhaps it could possibly be ranked as an S tier argument against Christianity, Islam, and similar (debatable), but as an argument for Atheism I don't understand how it could possibly be ranked S. I would put it in D, if I was being generous.
I think you're being a bit contrarian. Pretty much everything in this video is based on a monotheistic god. Of the 5 major religions in the world, three have a very omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient god, i dont really understand hinduism but im pretty sure it has a bunch of gods, and buddism doesn't have any god(s). Obviously no argument is going to work against all 5, especially not every single other religion out there. The purpose of the problem of evil is clear, and for that purpose it is s tier. not much else to say.
Whenever Alex and Joe have a conversation, they seem to cover every box and are so easy to understand. It's so beneficial for anyone new to these arguments.
Hey Alex, I’m a Christian and absolutely love your videos. You should try and do an interview with Jeffery Louder or Sean McDowell. I think it would be very interesting seeing you and Jeffery talking about the argument’s in this video or just having a dialogue on atheism and theism.
There’s only one TINY little problem with what you wrote above, Sir.☝🏼 There has never been, nor will there ever be, even the SLIGHTEST shred of evidence for the existence of the Godhead, that is, a Supreme Person, or Deity.🤓 It is high time for humanity to awaken from all INANE superstitions such as the belief in a Personal God who created the Universe, would you not agree, Slave? 😩
Okay but I have a deep philosophical question for you, if your name is capturing Christianity and your worldview is against taking captives, then how do you reconcile the inherent contradiction in your name?
I actually cant believe this came out the exact microsecond that i finished rewatching the arguments for god video. LIKE THE EXACT SECOND I FINISHED IT THIS JUST POPPED UP. God is real. Final verdict
For the religious confusion segment: It would cost God literally nothing to completely resolve ALL doctrinal dispites to every person, no matter how small. He is supposedly infinitely powerful. Better than resolving them all when asked, he could do it pre-emptively. Instead, he used fallible men to write a consfusing mess of a book in languages that would die shortly after with no way to verify any of its claims.
@christsavesreadromans1096you just lied it’s not obvious which religion is true because none of them have evidence that’s why it’s called a belief and not a science because science is fact belief is ideal
@christsavesreadromans1096 no matter which religion you say here, at least 2/3rds of all people are going to disagree with you, and that's without even going into denominations and specifics.
@christsavesreadromans1096 god you are exhausting but sure let’s talk about this I’m not an atheist because I don’t like god I’m an atheist because I don’t believe him any more real then shiva or Zeus there’s no solid evidence god is real and it is blatantly rude that you assume people chose different religions because they didn’t want to be ordered around when the Buddhist lifestyle is actually very difficult also the fact there were hundreds of religions before Christianity including Hinduism Buddhism the Norse pantheon the Greek pantheon the Egyptian pantheon etc. And you do realize the only reason Christianity has more “miracles” is because it has been around for a long time and is the most widespread religion correlation doesn’t imply causation and how many times was it really “miracles” a doctor saving your child isn’t a miracle from god it’s a miracle of the doctor a fireman saving your home isn’t a bless Jesus it’s a bless the fireman and you do realize people could lie about their “miracles” right
@christsavesreadromans1096 I don't think you have access to the knowledge of what everyone else thinks and their reasoning for not being convinced. Are you saying that all devout believers in all other religions secretly know that it's not true? Do you think they'd continue to waste their lives on it if it wasn't? We don't even know for sure that Jesus was a real person, certainly can't confirm any of his miracle claims. How do I tell that your denomination is the right one? What miracle claims (with evidence) confirm this?
@christsavesreadromans1096 again correlation doesn’t equal causation it is shown god doesn’t like false idols in the Bible so other religions having miracles proves you wrong
The stone paradox should be way higher up. They said that the argument doesn't make much sense because it's okay for god to not be able to do something impossible, because it just can't be done. And that's the exact point of the argument, because god is supposedly omnipotent, which means all-powerful. If you restrict god's abilities to only what's possible, what's your definition of possible? Why shouldn't a triangle with 4 sides be creatable? Because geometry and math says so. But isn't god supposed to transcend all that? If you restrict god's power to only what math and science allows, then the whole god argument crumbles since it will inevitably turn out that this so called God can't be anything other than a random Joe because anything else would be impossible. And that is certainly not omnipotent.
The stone paradox is *logical incoherence* . It should be last. Top debaters don't bring it up but to a normal person that don't philosophize often it seems to be very convincing. In case anyone still unconvincing, the clue is in the definition of omnipotence.
If ompipotence is being able to do only possible things, then this question is a logical incoherence. OTHERWISE, if GOD can do unlogical things ( some versions of christianity allow it ), then he CAN create that rock, and then he CAN lift it, he can do non-logical things. In both ways this argument is the worst ever.
Watched the entire thing and thoroughly enjoyed it, what a fantastic guest and conversation! Would absolutely love to see him on again to discuss more of the arguments he references.
Eh, he fell into the usual trap people arguing against the existence of God set for themselves. During the problem of evil, he had that fairly clever argument to get away from having to establish objective morality by saying he was only talking about suffering. The problem is, he's still saying suffering is bad and it is good to avoid suffering. But why? He then fell into hyperbole with "There are countless theories that establish objective morality without God." Really? Countless? Interestingly, applying the same standard applied later in the video, wouldn't the existence of numerous, sometimes contradicting theories of objective morality without God be evidence that a true theory likely doesn't exist?
@@angusmcculloch6653 He's literally about as close to a true agnostic as you can get (he regulairly says his credance for theism is somewhere between 40 and 60 percent). He's also a moral realist (believes in objective morality) however Alex (as I think is mentioned in this video) is an emotivist; so I think the reason he went the problem of suffering route is that while the two of them disagree on the existence of objective evil, they both disagree suffering is deeply unfavorable. As to grounding morality outside of God, within acedemic philosophy this is just as much a goal for the theist as it is the atheist as very few serious philosophers (again including theists) find divine command theory compelling (probably mostly due to the Euthyphro Dilemma). Moral epistomology is a masive subject (as eluded to by MoR when he said there are "countless arguments") and there's alot of arguements that attempt to ground or explain the existence of objective morality without God (MoR has a video that is like 2 hours long that introduces the biggest arguement in the field). I assure you he isn't exaggerating here, this is just a massive can of worms that would quickly fall well beyond the scope of this particular discussion. All things considered, Magesty of Reason is playing extremely fair and he doesn't believe in subjective morality as you seem to think he does. And again, hes literally as much a theist as he is an atheist so hes not favoring any atheist arguements because he favors their conclusion, but rather because he genuinely finds them convincing and well founded.
@@Isaac_L.. Thank you for this detailed, well-thought out response. I don't know that I ever said MoR *is* an atheist, because I didn't know. That's why I worded it as "people arguing against the existence of God" instead of "other atheists," because he was presenting arguments against the existence of God and fell into the same trap others do. I can see where that wording may have been too subtle and led to misunderstanding, so I should say I wasn't calling him *an atheist* and tried to phrase my post so that I didn't call him an atheist. Maybe I'm just being pedantic, but "countless" is an exaggeration. I would prefer "a lot", but I'll concede it's a podcast format, not a paper presentation. However, the main criticism still stands that he deflects defending objective morality, but suffering is bad. Why? That's not to say he personally believes it, but it's a trap that awaits anyone trying to make that argument and he walked into it as well. And, again, the multitude of conflicting theories of objective morality should be strong evidence that no true objective morality exists. That is simply using a same argument against theism--if God is real, there should not be multiple, conflicting accounts. That is a connection I wish they had made, as that makes for an interesting discussion. Thank you again for your serious and well-reasoned response.
@angusmcculloch6653 No problem. I'm glad I was able to help. I'm assuming that he would be more than happy to argue that suffering is bad in one way or another under either a subjective or objective moral framework. One way I suspect he would defend it is by using the psychophysiological response to suffering and stress widely observed across the animal kingdom. Not only did God create an environment/system that induces immense amounts of unnecessary suffering, but he placed creatures in that system that consistently feel immense negative emotion, active panic, and displeasure in proportion to that suffering. If God was all loving and for some reason or another (usually free will if you're a theist) it's essential for suffering to exist, it seems like God would have created the vast majority of creatures to have a very high psychological tolerance to suffering. In other words, a big part of the problem of suffering is the conscious response to suffering. If God was going to make a world with so much suffering, you would think that he would make creatures that broadly have a psychological indifference to suffering as opposed to what we widely observe. I'm sure that MoR would put it more eloquently than that but I'd be willing to bet that he would use an argument along those lines to defend that particular point. As to your other point, I don't think it follows that the existence of contradictory theories about either the content or grounding of morality (I'm not entirely sure which you were referring to here but it doesn't really matter) is good evidence against the existence of objective morality in general. Another big debate within philosophy is pertains to theories of time (externalism vs presentism), but clearly time demonstrably exists. So yeah, I don't think you can use the debate surrounding (especially the grounding of) morality as evidence that it doesn't exist. (Note: to be clear I'm not arguing for moral realism, as I've yet to be convinced by arguments for it; but this is something that's an active area of interest for me since my views deviate heavily from the majority in the field here) As to your other point about moral epistemology and God, I completely agree that it's a significant (and fascinating) problem for theism. If God exists, even if he isn't the source for morality, given omniscience he would know what is morally ideal. Therefore, you'd expect that one could learn about the nature and contents of morality through communion with God yet those who claim to do so routinely make moral claims that are at odds with others that also claim to commune with God (oftentimes these disagreements persist within, not just between, religions). That said, while this is a great piece of evidence against the moral argument or the truth of some individual religions, I don't think it's nearly as strong of evidence against theism in general as the problems of evil or hiddenness or even religious confusion are.
@@Isaac_L.. apolgies that it's taken me a few days to respond. 1. You are probably right that this how he would try to respond to suffering is bad, but the response still assumes someone needs to justify suffering's existence. Why, though? It's what's called in philosophy a vicious infinite regress. Why is suffering bad? Because it hurts. Why is pain bad? Because it's unpleasant. Why is unpleasantness bad? Here you end either in tautology: "Unpleasantness is bad, because it is no pleasing" or the vicious infinite regress continues (i.e. the truth of one statement depends on the truth of the previous statement and we never reach a foundational true statement). Either way, the argument simply doesn't hold. 2. I would agree, but people who argue against the existence of God have to apply this across the board. Either confusion where one might expect unanimity is evidence of a thing's nonexistence or it's not.
Hey Alex I know you likely won’t see this, however just wanted to say thank you for bringing rise to my atheism I used to be a bit unconfident in my belief or atleast didn’t know how to argue it, But your arguments as well as some others make me feel more heard and understood than my family, I genuinely want to thank you for your content and hope you have a “blessed” day lol, much love and appreciation from the Bible Belt of Florida
My favorite argument is to say: even if theism were true, one could never be justified in *believing* it is true. For whatever evidence or experience you might find convincing, you can never be sure that your experience *doesn't* actually have a natural cause. Imagine some guy appears in your room and claims to be god. Do you believe him? Why should you? How do you know he's not an advanced alien pretending to be a god? From your human perspective, you'd have no way to tell the difference.
The implied consequences of theistic claims make absolute questions like "does God exist" or "did Jesus really rise from the dead" less useful than relative ones like "how can I know what God demands of me" or "is Jesus the only way to salvation." Sure, a man might have done extraordinary things about 2,000 years ago. If that man were the ultimate messenger of the Almighty, why are we only learning about His life through fragmentary texts rather than direct experience? Why can we safely discount anyone who claims to fulfill His destiny as most likely delusional?
In a similar vein I’ve thought about how perception depends on transduction (such as photons to nerve impulses), and how we verify the external stimuli exists versus a delusion created by the brain (such as phantom limb syndrome). If “feeling god’s presence” (such as through prayer) was actually the transduction of some spiritual stimuli, how would we differentiate it from talking to ourselves? In short, we can’t. This realization was the “final straw” for me to become an atheist.
thats interesting but to me its not so much that you could never have good reason to believe it its more that you wouldnt have good reason to claim you KNOW God exists with total certainty which the religious often do
@S.D.323 To believe a proposition is to be *convinced* that it is true. If we can argue that theistic belief is unjustified, then it would follow that dogmatic claims to knowledge are unjustified too. I honestly don't know what it would take to convince me that a god exists. No matter how spectacular the evidence, I couldn't rule out all naturalistic possibilities. What if there's an explanation in 10-dimensional physics? Unless you know *everything* about the natural universe, you can't be sure that a phenomenon *doesn't* have a natural cause. Therefore seeing something super-magical and crazy looking still wouldn't be evidence for anything supernatural.
@@S.D.323 it’s much worse than not achieving certainty. There’s no grounds for granting more than some minimal credence. All one would have is some perception parsimony should have one assume it’s a hallucination as the default.
The idea that God has to allow 'evil' (I much prefer to say "suffering", or "badness": to me, "evil" invokes the supernatural) so that there can be such things as bravery reminds me of the idea that God had to condemn us to being born with Original Sin so that He could give us the gift of salvation. It's like a parent's saying to a child "I had to give you a bloody nose so I could 'kiss it and make it better'."
@@scottm4975it’s almost as if you wouldn’t be able know his plan, yet can still make objective statements about the inherent suffering needed for us to evolve. Do you believe slavery is immoral, why or why not, and what passage in the Bible do you use to justify your opinion? My main point being, you already hold beliefs about morality that cannot be formed by simply reading the Bible, you pick and choose what passages to follow.
You said you weren’t going to address arguments against any particular religion, like Christianity, but I feel like many of these arguments are fundamentally addressing the claims of Abrahamic religion, and particularly Christianity. And fair enough, I suppose, because western philosophy has been conversant with Judeo/Christian/Islamic faiths for centuries. But many of these issues (like the problem of evil and divine hiddenness) almost don’t exist in Vedanta, Buddhist, and Jain philosophy because of the particular metaphysical claims they make. It seems to me that many of the arguments for atheism presented here begin to look quite different when approached from a global perspective.
Yup, the arguments are rife with assumptions about God that come mostly from the Abrahamic faiths. Such as the ideas of perfection, benevolence, omnipresence, and omniscience.
@@im_aleey Indeed. But even if you accept those notions, just adding the ideas of reincarnation and karma completely change what almost all of these arguments look like. What so speak of the concept of cyclical time and the well accepted idea of multiverses in eastern philosophy. I mean, the problem of evil just doesn't have the same bite if you accept that the soul is eternal and subject to the reactions of karma. There are consequences for almost all the other arguments in this video based on those two ideas alone.
@@im_aleeywhich is also why the religious confusion argument is so bad: it's equivocating the word "God" with any very powerful, supernatural being, when really what we want to know is whether a necessary, all powerful, all good God exists.
That last video is one of my favorites you’ve ever made. Really it’s one of my favorite videos on the topic of religion as a whole. I didn’t know if this sequel was going to happen, so the surprise of it is amazing
This is my top five guests I've ever heard on your program Alex. He has thought so deeply about each of these subjects beyond the depth that I thought and I am just loving the nuanced and depths I just want more of him thank you so much for introducing me to this new person!
2:08 Alex, with his immense vocabulary and amazing intellect could think of no better description of a tier list than "it's a big sort of box" 😂 Gotta love the man! Keep up the great content Alex!
Two of the smartest guys on RUclips. Thanks for the interview Alex. It would be awesome if you did an episode with Emerson Green, he’s amazingly intelligent too.
From a logical standpoint, there is no reason that a god must be omni- anything. Therefore, the PoE is an S-tier argument against any religion (like Christianity) that requires an omni- god, but is D-tier (C-tier at best) against deism/theism in general.
A non-omni god is just a very very strong human/creature, might as well be an alien with force powers and nothing more, by a certain point of view, such a creature has very few reasons to be called god and expecially there would be no reason to worship him.
@@TonyLambregts Because the term was not invented for the abrahamic god, look at the god of ovids creation myth, he is unknown and powerful but not omni in any way. Still he is the cause of everything but chaos and his kind(the other gods) in this myth
I disagree, as long as we're talking about creationism, because a creator of the universe logically should be omnipotent in regards to its creation, because it's necessarily all-powerful. Maybe you could argue that its control is somehow overtaken by development, or something, but it just seems clunky and certainly you would struggle to find any kind of theist that approaches the problem of evil this way.
@@luphoria Why should a creator of the universe be omnipotent? There is no logical reason why a being that can create a universe must be omnipotent. Being able to create a universe is pittance in comparison to what an omnipotent being can do. I can create a metal spring, but that doesn't mean I can control every individual atom in that spring.
Alex makes a great point about how people in Iran or other non Christian countries could be said to be more “Christian” than Christians in the west are in action and heart. He’s right.
Someone made a response to his debate with Jonathan Mclatchie, where he made that geographical argument a couple of years ago, saying essentially the same thing
It's one of a fee things that Jordan Peterson actually gets right. If us western Christians actually acted like what we believe , the world could be a magnificent place for all. Though from my perspective we , and those we know do our part
@@SeanathanCreek I wish we focused more on the 4 gospels in the west. I see a lot of Old Testament teaching. Which is fine but I rarely hear readings from the gospels. We don’t focus enough on Jesus life and his teachings from his mouth as written in the 4 gospels.
@Dgujg Agreed as some don't notice that it is greek-romsn literature and Mark was thrown in the dumpster by Luke and Mathew which considered each other to be wrong. John considered all to be totally wrong and made up his own story.
My favorite response to the argument from religious diversity is polytheism. "Of course there are differing opinions on god! There are multiple and they're all different!" This also works well with how historically most religious practices have been polytheist. Also, I think the issue of material causality is best responded to by just conceding and making God an emanator instead of a creator.
I can't help thinking of the kid who wrote in a paper for school that the Ancient Egyptians built pyramids and went on to explain that a pyramid is "a triangular cube".
Anyone says an empty cult where this worst genretion has trapped and had to be judge by God for betrayed Gif for the nothing empty atheism gives to their lives? Lier as any Goddenier. What a cult!...
After being close enough to God that the pain and suffering I went through was worse than when I was without God that I prayed to God to distance himself because I couldn’t handle his holiness I am thoroughly convinced that divine hiddenness is a blessing not only for the unbeliever but to the believer, everyone claims they want to be close to God but his holiness is so bright and pure I don’t think they realize what they’re asking. “But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.” Luke 12:48 “For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.” 1 Corinthians 13:12 KJV
@@japexican007 you prayed to God to distance himself. so.. presumably, EVERYONE in heaven will suffer just by being near god. so it's suffering in heaven and suffering in hell. I give you that it solves problem of evil.. it's just god being everywhere,causing unnecessary suffering. but now you have problem of good. how is anything good possible,when you have omnipresent god that causes suffering by proxy. maybe god is not omni in any way,it was just one of his lies,to threaten believers into submission. meh.
Divine hiddenness is checkmate imo, maybe not in disproving Gods existence, but certainly in proving that the creator of the universe doesn’t care about having a genuine relationship with me. The more philosophical arguments for or against Gods existence miss the point imo. If you resort to philosophical arguments to prove you have a girlfriend instead of just, idk, having her just show up, people are going to doubt the existence of said girlfriend, no matter how well reasoned your arguments are
I went off Sam Harris about five years ago - and he was the person who really introduced me to the IDW and thinking critically in the way that you do. I'm so glad to see you succeed because you really seem like the spiritual successor to the 4 horsemen of the IDW in the best way possible.
Do you mean physically see God? Because there are stories in the Bible of God literally appearing to and communicating with human beings, not to mention Jesus Christ being God in the form of a man Do you mean just observing God? Because honestly seeking God and not finding it is the basis for what is generally considered an A- or S-tier atheist argument in Divine Hiddenness Either way you meant it I don’t see what is unreasonable about expecting God to manifestly exist in any way that is actually detectable beyond feelings one gets sitting listening to worship songs or visions they get when on LSD
Seriously though. One of the best arguments against God is that He needs humans to make arguments for His existence. I think that's a subset of divine hiddenness though.
@@therongjr I was thinking more along the lines, if a triomni god exists, he wouldn’t allow people like D’Souza, Craig, Powell, Hamm, Winger, and so many others, speak for him. D’Souza’s recent performance surely deconverted as many Christians as Hitchens ever did.
let this be a reminder to any theist who needs to hear it: Alex may be a very respectful and reasonable person, but he is still an atheist, and his opinions on god have not changed significantly over the years. I've seen some people struggling to reconcile these two facts and claiming that Alex is certainly about to convert to Christianity. This does not seem to be likely at the moment. So I ask you to please change your perspective on the matter accordingly: either Alex isn't as thoughtful and reasonable as you thought, or it is possible to be both of those things and still be an atheist. I for one hope that you'll choose the latter. I don't know if that should significantly alter your religious beliefs, but I do think it should change your beliefs about atheists, and atheism in general. Because Alex is not an outlier, and I'm getting kinda tired of him being portrayed as one. This is what atheism can and often does look like.
I agree with your main point, although i think the underlying problem is that a solid 60-70% of both atheists and christians online haven't a shred of the manners the likes of Alex. It paints both sides in a bad light
@@daanmollema6366 I pay no mind to those poeple on both sides, I don't think spending energy in engaging with them is productive for anyone. My issue is mainly with religious people who do have those manners amongst their peers, and just choose to not use them with atheists, because they seem to believe that an atheist can't share them. I'm not claiming they're a majority or anything, it's just a group of people who does exist and has a relevant presence in *my* experience in these spaces. That's why I said that mine is a reminder "to those who need it". You may very well be a theist who doesn't
@@gffkdcjwt this is my alt account by the way. RUclips prevents me from posting that comment from my main one. That comment was also supposed to have a dot at the end, but if I put it there it gets deleted. Yeah, I really have no idea why. It's quite annoying but at this point I'm used to it. If someone else here has experience with youtube constantly deleting their comments, their help would be greatly appreciated.
@@gffkdcjwtI think it’s wise to be *careful* spending energy on such folks, but it’s not always fruitless. Some of us exreligious folk lost faith *in part because* of people spending their energy to converse with us about that stuff, despite our stubbornness.
What's the deal with a triangle with 4 sides? A triangle is simply defined as a planar object with 3 sides. Ir it has 4 it is DEFINED as a quadrilateral. A 4-sided triangle isn't a contradiction. It's an incorrect use of language.
I enjoy the content, but one common pitfall I find throughout the videos I've seen is that there's an implicit assumption that rather than taking the position of an "atheist," you and your guests speak more broadly from an "anti-Christian" stance rather than going through the mental gymnastics of accepting the possibility of a non-benevolent/nonomniscient/nonomnipotent god or gods. Maybe you'd argue a being that wasn't omnipotent shouldn't be considered a god, but I think you end up giving too much stock to specifically Christian (or Abrahamic, if you prefer,) arguments
On the stone paradox: Alex said omnipotence is the ability to do what's possible. As if what's possible exists outside of and independent of God. Isn't God the maker or originator of the possible and impossible? Is God then bound by what he made impossible or does this impossibility exist independently of him?
Moreover most christians and pastors like Turek on WLC don't put any restrictions on omnipotence whatsoever, so it's more than fair to use the same rules
I think God could be omnipotent in it's own realm but not in the universe. If the universe is fine-tuned, there can be no physical interference at all. It's constrained by it's own Laws and Constants.
Just watched the whole thing basically in one sitting. Would love to see more collabs like this with Joe, be they about atheist arguments, theist arguments or any other topic in philosophy!
I would love to see this trend continue, and perhaps you both could create a theodicy tier list ranking the best theistic defenses against the problem of evil.
Material Causality for me is probably "C Tier". And this is me using my smooth brain and basic knowledge, so I'm sure there's a lot of holes in what I'm about to say. The argument that we don't see the breakdown of physics in any other location outside of the Big bang is just fundamentally untrue. We actually see such breakdowns happening in black holes. We also see those types of breakdowns at really small levels. And the idea that we don't have a unified theory of everything, for lack of a better phrase, means that the universe has already provided material evidence for strange and weird circumstances. No, they don't perfectly replicate the conditions of the early universe, however, the information that we have of the universe makes it perfectly plausible, and highly likely in my uneducated opinion, that there is a perfectly material basis for the cause of the beginning of universe. So I actually think this argument holds a lot more weight, even without the Kalam cosmological argument as A parallel for it. I think it would do perfectly well for agnostic.
For divine hiddenness, theists reply to me that God was so obvious, then we'd have no free will, and God wants us to freely choose to believe in him. As for why some people are born into other religions, they argue that people are judged based on their circumstances and by how much effort they've put into their search for God, so it is still fair. Not convincing to me, but just wanted to note those arguments.
@@idkwhatnonamemyself1951 Yes, and those that see God and choose not to worship him would rightly be called fools. So what difference does it make if God shows himself or doesn’t? People will still reject believing in him either way, but that doesn’t make them right it just makes them foolish.
@@alexanderh2345 If an omnipotent and omniscient god existed and it's existence was profoundly evident, then the problem of evil seems to be a fairly good reason not to worship that god.
@@ethanbottomley-mason8447 Then the Problem of Evil has just defeated the Divine Hiddenness premise of "non-resistant non-belief". To say that the problem of evil is a good reason to not worship that god is by definition, a "resistant non-belief". Ironically, the two biggest arguments for theistic scepticism has just cannibalized themselves. We are complicated creatures with varying thoughts and conflicting emotions. We can barely be honest with our own beliefs, let alone declare that we have "non-resistant non-belief".
Is being either a democrat or republican based on choice? How does one become a flat earther vs a round earther, surely they have chosen to accept certain things as truth The same goes with accepting or rejecting God wouldn’t you say? What’s the difference between a believer and a non-believer as you see it? What about when one goes from one camp or the other, are they choosing to accept new beliefs in order to form a totally different conclusion from where they first began?
@@japexican007 The evidence I have come across and the way I was raised leads me to be a democrat or republic. You for example, whichever you are, right this moment, could you choose to be the other right now? You could vote the other but wouuld you really believe in those values? No, because you can't choose different values like that. I could pretent to believe in god, I could even try and believe by for example reading certain literature, but after that, deep down I will still either believe or not and there's nothing I can do about it. If I was indocrinated in a flat earth cult, I would prob believe in a flat earth. Not out of choice. And hopefully if I spoke to the right people and read the right books I would change that oppinion. I can choose to do those things but whether it will change my opinion or not is out of my hands. :)
@christsavesreadromans1096 I would LOVE to believe in a god, an afterlife or even ghosts. Unfortunately I can't choose what I believe in :) Also, I thought Christians were meant to be nice btw, calling non believers dumb doesn't come across too kind
Arguments for atheism: Prove theism. Until you do it’s not real by default. Anything else is just debunking nonsense. It’s not an argument it’s just pointing out why the claim being made, whatever the point or argument is, is not sufficient to prove theism to any reasonable evidentiary standard.
actually that's a very bad argument whenever a theist would argue that a scientific theory is wrong (theory of evolution for example), then god... that's not working at all so the reverse doesn't work either: the lack of proof or evidence for god doesn't make atheism stand and hold. science does though. science is the most reliable way to get knowledge. god isn't a scientific field of study, therefore science doesn't care about god, so do we.
Joe and Alex surely have a great character development since their last collaboration Now Alex is much more calm and composed, and Joe, more excited Happy to see You guys collab again😊
The first one is a logical impossibility. I use this one as my first point whenever someone challenges. And I say “god can’t be all knowing, all powerful and all good.” And then say “why do kids need to die of starvation or cancer? Or die prematurely at all? If I was an all good and powerful god this seems like an easy correction over your current god that would make me by your definition a better god…”
God didnt create evil. evil is a direct result, direct byproduct of our sins. our own free will. the story of adam and eve explains how sin entered the world through human disobedience. its our creation. not his. and he doesnt eliminate it cuz it tests our faith in him, God wants us to choose him willingly. he gave us free will to be able to decide by ourselves to believe in him. i would recommend you to read the book of Job. it actually addresses your question.
@@ricardorivera7549 nope. It’s an excuse for an obvious impossible fix as there’s no god. Plain and simple. Good luck with your excuses and also living in reality
@@LaneBatman-c2v always found it sad how atheist always gotta be so aggressive and petty with comments such as “good luck with reality” “u live in a fairy tale”. Idk if that is what makes u feel better hope u fill that hole w something else more productive.
@@LaneBatman-c2v the fact i literally referred u to an entire book in the bible dedicated to ur question and just dismissed it shows u dont really care for dialogue or argument. Prolly just resentment
I'm disappointed that *none* of these are arguments against the existence of *_A_* deity; they are arguments against _specific_ interpretations of a _specific_ deity...Hence, they are strong justification against _religion,_ but *not* against _theism._ Based on the consensual usage of the term (as evidenced by multiple dictionaries and how they derive the definitions that they provide), and divorced from _religious_ context *_A_* "god" is simply an entity capable of effects beyond established laws of nature and that we cannot scientifically explain.
It is impossible to Argue against an undefined God. Without the definition given by Religions, a God’s form and capabilities and character are all completely mutable to situation at hand and thus cannot be argued against. For example, how could you use the Argument Of Evil if we don’t take God being good as a Prerequisite?
I suppose I’m confused what the arguments you were hoping for look like. Don’t you kind of have to assume an interpretation in order to evaluate the arguments? They seem to have taken a sufficiently broad interpretation so as to cover their bases but narrow enough that it still pertains to most popular interpretations
@JoeshWave "It is impossibe to argue against an undefined god." You're conflating _definition_ with *description.* The term "god" already _has_ a definition.
I'm getting a bit disappointment by the focus on a Christian "good God" (ok, maybe Zoroastrian as well) maybe mention Mesoamerican or Mesopotamian gods and their "morality" or lack there of every once in a while
@@NotIdefixchristianity is the main religion in the west and has a lot of political power, thats why western atheists tend to focus on it while atheists from the middle east tend to focus on islam.
@@Dushan-o8w taking down the Christian "good God" concept certainly makes for popular viewing in the west it would be good to remind viewers there are other creation myths out there involving god(s) and other "origin of evil" /"morals" explanations
go read the sermon on the mount to see how serious God sees sin and even if I don’t explicitly find a verse that says those specific words, common sense implicitly follows if it were possible for God not to do a thing then it follows that God needn’t do x thing namely God requiring a blood sacrifice from animals. Furthermore these were foreshadowings of the ultimate sacrifice to come from Jesus Christ as per: A. “For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.” Hebrews 10:1, 4 KJV B. “For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.” Hebrews 10:4 KJV Since God is perfect as per scripture if you fail in one part of the law you fail the whole law Meaning God is so perfect he takes all sins/offenses seriously Hence what I said previously
@@BubbaF0wpenddid you just ignore the scripture that says the blood of bulls and goats doesn’t forgive sins? Or the sermon on the mount that shows the severity of how God sees sin?
I think what we mean by God/gods just comes down to semantics. The main takeaway here is that a being with certain maximal or unconstrained properties is fundamentally contradictory. If a theist defines God without these characteristics, it would be consistent, but kind of pointless.
Yeah I think the problem is that there are so many possible versions of God that you conceivably can’t argue against all of them. It does make sense to focus on Abrahamic religions though, which the majority of the world believe in
@@krishvids608 Indeed and the fundamental belief question ...if there is God and I subscribe to that belief ...how can I speak of attributes ...by analogy or definition. (with or without revelation in any sense)..or can I say what God s have done if there is such.?
I would like to hear more of Alex philosophically debating people that have other concepts of God. I hear you. Contrary to the above statement, it does not make sense to only argue for atheism in contrast to the Abrahamic systems of faith. Though popular, those belief systems only represent a sliver of potential concepts of God. I think it shows a particular resentment toward those particular faiths and results in less interesting and repetitive arguments. So many of which do not make sense or are incomplete when thinking in terms of other belief systems.
One wrinkle to the E-tier rock paradox is that we regular humans _can_ make things that we can't lift. So there is some way in which it isn't analogous to drawing a four-sided triangle -- drawing a four-sided triangle is impossible for everyone by its very nature, but making a too-heavy rock is only impossible for God. A satisfying understanding takes at least _a little_ more thought about what's going on.
The rebuttal to that is quite a simple one though. You never actually created anything, as in “creatio ex nihilo”, you simply rearranged matter. But of course we can just rephrase the question to “Can G-d rearrange matter in such a way that he cannot lift it?”
That's not even a wrinkle, and it's completely contingent on the phrasing of the question. You can resolve it by just changing the verbiage. "Can God create an unliftable rock?" That applies equally well to humans. It can also account for the triangle example when we see there is always going to be a single premise (often unstated) and a single question. All triangles have 3 sides. Can a triangle with more than 3 sides be drawn? All rocks are liftable. Can an unliftable rock be created? All questions of this form are asking the exact same thing: can an impossible thing be done?
Regular humans can figure out how to lift something that is too heavy by applying mathematics on the amount of force required to lift something too heavy for an average human to lift. A crane with a pulley becomes a force multiplier to enable a person to lift loads that would usually be too heavy for one person to lift. A four sided triangle or a married bachelor isn't a matter of capability, it is a logical impossibility. Much like asking for a black coffee with cream. The moment you add cream or oat milk to a coffee, it is no longer black. In the Bible, God cannot change, lie, be tempted, tempt others, deny himself, or erase himself out of existence. Those are ontological impossibilities, and just because God's personality doesn't allow him to do it, it doesn't mean he doesn't have the omnipotence to do them.
@@anthonydesimone502 _"You can resolve it by just changing the verbiage."_ Maybe. I'm not sure changing the verbiage gets you the same claim. As I see it, it's not about the liftability of rocks, per se, but the relationship between one's own powers and limits. The references to one's self seem to be central. So I'd think it's appropriate to keep the verbiage but resolve it by realizing that there's nothing troubling for God in this being impossible for God. It was never a requirement that God could; it's just a neat bit of trivia that he can't. Maybe the structure's a bit different, but like your reading we still involve the question "Can an impossible thing be done?" and our answer, just like on your reading, should always be no.
Theists: God has to stay hidden, he can't be obvious to us or it would take away our free will Also Theists: Look at the trees! _Obviously_ God has to exist!
To believe in his existence he gave you reasons but he isn't visible to you all the time cuz he doesn't want to restrict your freedom I mean imagine your seeing your mother staring at you all the time since you were born you would've done nothing from what you did right?
@@nam-r1f I still know my mother exists. I have seen her. She didn't vanish after I was born and expect me to discover her existence through obscure evidence that is more reasonably explained by other things. If one believes God exists with His attributes, then God _is_ watching you all the time, and a believer thinks this: how is their freedom not restricted?
@@Rogstin first of all he didn't vanish, read more about Jesus and you determine yourself ,secondly who said that the universe and nature works supernaturally by God? Nowhere in the Bible says that not even when performing miracles beacuse i know he was using the nature he created to perform them, there's nothing wrong with that ,also God gave you reason to how everything is working so you can learn from it to develop your mind and brain and do things yourself , so God created universe and nature and added laws to how its working now, Fully understanding how a machine works doesnt make it have no creator
@@Rogstin if you know your mom is watching you all the time is different from seeing her watching you all the time ,also imagine a starfish trying to understand a human, thats a smaller example for how we are trying to understand God
@@nam-r1fdid the freedom of Joan of Arc get restricted? Did the freedom of Moses get restricted. It definitely wasn’t restricted for Adam and Eve and they watched God Create them. What exactly are you trying to argue if not an inconsistent point?
You only need one argument for atheism and it comes in the form of a question "can you prove god exists?" If the answer is "no" ( and it will be) then job done
I love Joe's cheerfulness, the 15 hour video is already in my queue. I will definitely look more into an evil god hypothesis, because the rating of it based on asymmetries that the hosts mentioned doesn't seem reasonable to me at all, and by their convictions I'm curious what other asymmetries there are.
Check out Joe’s channel: ruclips.net/channel/UCvWRKmcplBTYQS49AVGsLgw
thanks for this, have you considered debating another muslim apologist? i know last time went horribly but i would love to see a discussion/debate between you and Abdallah Al Andalusi for example
nah, he can't name 5 things without a creator with proof, and when he tries he will simply name things with a creator. Whereas I can name billions of things and show proof that do have a creator.
There is in built anesthesia. I wish nothing ever died though. we mammals especially have in built anesthesia particularly powerful when on the brink of death from blood loss and exhaustion the most common death for prey animals. I’d argue why did we need to evolve that at all? It only happens when you’ve cross the threshold of death anyway. Like without modern medicine at the point they kick in death is certain.
Not getting molested by priests should be high up the list!
Alex, I'd be curious about your take on the research and hypothesis of Dr. Donald Hoffman.
That we experience reality as a construct of space-time, which he says explains the difficulty in scientifically quantifying experience and consciousness as they exist outside that construct. I would say he would even make a great guest.
I love the dynamic of a laid back Brit and a high energy American in a deep philosophical discussion.
on the nose lmao !
I enjoy watching Alex's slight code switching to match the energy.
We're not laid back we're disappointed.
Depressed you mean? @@moriahgamesdev
With the greatest compliment possible, I was thinking the American had that Golden Retriever energy. Watching at 1.25 speed, he seemed to be hopped up on gallons of Red Bull. But seriously, no shade whatsoever. Clearly a brilliant person with well-formed reasoning and critical thinking.
The S-rank is the highest grade in the Japanese school system; it comes from "shū" ("excellent", maybe?) and it is normally represented in English as "superb". It became popular in the West via scoring systems on Japanese arcade games, e.g. it's the highest performance you can get on Dance Dance Revolution
I like the ironic God tier.
S STANDS FOR SPITFIRE
Anyone says an empty cult where this worst genretion has trapped and had to be judge by God for betrayed Gif for the nothing empty atheism gives to their lives? Lier as any Goddenier. What a cult!...
@@HENTAl69Anyone says an empty cult where this worst genretion has trapped and had to be judge by God for betrayed Gif for the nothing empty atheism gives to their lives? Lier as any Goddenier. What a cult!..
And the result of scoring 5-0 or more in the Inazuma Eleven games' competition routes... You probably have no idea what that means, do you? Never mind.
i love it when alex’s videos are longer than the first hunger games movie
Thank you for this 😂
It's impressive that your hypothetical responses are some of the strongest arguments for god I have heard. Your ability to present the other side so genuinely and charitably is what I appreciate the most about this channel.
It's one of the things that pushed me further from religion: that atheists consistently gave me the theist position accurately while theists nearly never gave the atheist position accurately (or at best deceptively incomplete so as to be effectively inaccurate).
Skim read the notification and thought it said “Arguments For Antisemitism Tier List” and got VERY confused 😂
He should do that.
@@annanysingh9188 not until he does the racial tier list.
That would be very interesting.
Where would current events and the Talmud rank?
It would be a good one aswell
(1) Bagels? Overrated
"1 more video before bed"
the video: 12 hours long
"Just one more spoonful of ice cream"
*Pulls out a comically large spoon*
Literallyyyyy
1 more game before bed
Said 20 more times
@@theberry6734or
*Pulls out Final Fantasy 6*
I love this guy's vocabulary and freedom of thought. The way his choice of words match up with his ideas and how simply he can explain concepts makes it clear he doesn't just say things he doesn't really understand just to sound smart. Seems like a very intellectually honest guy as well. Definitely gonna check out his channel.
Yeah, the opposite of Jordon Peterson in a way.
This was a fun one. More of this, please! Also, it's nice to see you laugh/smile more often, Alex.
Is it weird to admit that these Cosmic x Majesty videos are a sort of comfort video for me? While I'm sure Alex enjoys talking to his other guests, his conversations with Joe feel much closer to a friend banter as opposed to a debate or an interview. There's an aspect of informality here that I really appreciate.
Me too that's for sure
Totally agreed. Their energy levels also match very well in my opinion, with Joe being upbeat and high paced and Alex more calm and collected.
no, it's not weird
I think you're missing the real point of the "universe big" argument. The point is to get you to question whether your belief in a God who built a world for humans is based on a cognitive bias. Suppose you were isolated tribe of a couple thousand who didn't know about the rest of the world, and you have a whole belief system that depends on a God who created the world for your isolated tribe. When you are made aware of the rest of the world, suddenly it seems less plausible that everything was made for you. You gradually realize that you only thought it was for you because you didn't know about everyone else. Similarly, as people become more aware of the scale of the universe, of other potential worlds with life, of other belief systems about God, of the number of animals in the world, the idea that everything was for you and your community's personal conception of God becomes less and less plausible. I grew up in a Jewish community. This might be mixing some arguments together, bu their idea that there is a God who has a special relationship with the Jewish people is embraced by 0.0001% of human beings who all happen to be Jews. Of course you should question whether that's based on a cognitive bias.
I also think that when someone says that “God created the universe with us in mind”, and you look at the actual universe, it’s like seeing a parent creating a room for a baby to live in, and then making 99,9999% of the room unlivable in a way that if the baby wandered there, they’d die instantly.
I’ve seen parents struggle to make a safe and beautiful room, but this is quite the level of incompetence.
At some point we might have to wonder if the room is really designed for the baby, or if we accidentally wandered in his tool shed instead and we were actually not even supposed to be here.
A male gamete is like 0.006cm and is meant to scale up to something that is like 175cm. Alex's argument that current planetary beings may be meant to inhabit spaces at an interstellar or intergalactic scale is plausible. Although it is quite an egocentric counter-argument to the big universe argument, it does retain the unlikely possibility that the big universe is meant for humanity.
Almost one-third of the world are Christians and it continues to grow especially in Africa and in Asia.
Terrible argument.
@@ZoneTelevision *doesn't elaborate*
its strange to me when people claim if god revealed himself, it would abolish free will. The original story of satan proclaims he was a whole angel, who knew god, was 2nd to god, was as close to god as you can get. and still chose to go against god. So if god revealed itself, the true sinners, those truly evil, will continue to be evil despite seeing god. the people who truly "just want to sin" will. and those who were non resistant non believers would be saved. simple.
There's also the option of knowing God exists but simply finding him unworthy of worship/obedience. Not out of a desire to 'sin' or be evil, but just like a disappointed child rejecting the authority of their parent.
Exactly, God supposedly showed himself to a bunch of different people, people who are revered by Christians. "If God showed himself to us it would limit our free will" implies that the freedom of Paul, Abraham, Job etc. was limited, which I've never seen anyone argue.
Not only did Judas Iscariot witness the power of Jesus, but was granted miraculous powers of god through Jesus (Luke 9:1-6), and yet he still had free will, choosing to betray Jesus.
@@jelledesmet7086 All the ancient philosophers who thought more deeply asserted this was an impossibility -- to not one the one you are a part of and who made you. Think deeper. You cannot not want that which to you belong.
He also supposedly does. Various Old Testament characters knew god personally, where did their free will go?
I think the argument from the scale of the universe is typically a response to the fine tuning argument. Since clearly the majority of the observable universe is hostile to life as we know it, not fine tuned to support it.
I've actually never seen it used in that context, but that is an interesting point.
There could have at least been a single galaxy, our own galaxy, teeming with intelligent lifeforms like in Star Wars and Star Trek. We don't even get that.
Yes I was surprised they didn’t consider this. This was precisely the way famous atheist Hitchens always used it. It’s a counter to thinking the universe is created for us or with us in mind .
@christsavesreadromans1096
We can't venture outside of our own solar system, let alone explore the rest if the galaxy, LET ALONE the rest of the universe. I don't see how it is "narcissistic" to want to be able to do more than we can do that way.
@christsavesreadromans1096 How/ why would this give god glory? He’s allegedly a being of pure perfection, lacking nothing. Why would he require giant empty space to feel better about himself?
Also were you saying that God is the narcissistic one? You might not have been but it makes sense.
Hiddeness is S tier for sure. If you've never heard of a god, your first questions would be "Where is he? Show it to me. Where's your proof?"
but Jesus said to believe without seeing, so he has chosen to remain invisible for now
@@billwalton4571 why would Jesus choose disciples who *have* seen him to go forth and spread his gospel, rather than electing to moreso influence people who *haven’t* seen him?
@@JimBobJoeB0b he does what he wants
@@JimBobJoeB0b cuz the apostles were specifically trained and taught by him specifically for this mission. cuz they were witnesses of his power, cuz they werent holy people at the beginning. if im not mistaken one of them was even a thief. and they all went thru drastic changes of behavior under him. they were also the first leaders of the church and people at the time followed them cuz they knew they met Jesus personally. tons of reasons why he chose them
@christsavesreadromans1096 and when has anyone ever observed anything that we know must be the result of the Abrahamic God in particular
Oh man… a 2 and a half hour video notification at 1:30am 💀I’m cooked
One of my favorite comments was on a 20 hour video someone said they were just going to watch one more video before bed.😂 Now I wouldn't do a 20 hour video before bed but honestly I might watch this one.
Go to sleep. You will thank yourself in the future :)
Adelaide
no better time! so much uninterrupted time on ur hand
@@setharnaud7869 😱
Okay, but what do you mean by "arguments" and "for" and "atheism" and "tier list?." And it better not have anything to do with drugs or else I'm out of here
Did you just create the unholy abomination that is Peter Peterson?
look if you just take some crack then you will get it
Lol the Peterson effect is still comical.
alex has taken advantage of my good nature sir!
That seemed like a blend of Peterson and Hitch's brother.
seeing two dudes on the same "side" lightly arguing and coming to disagreements sometimes but also conversing and relating well to one another is actually so fun and incredible. The respectful pushback you both offered without ever losing the friendship is such a novelty nowadays. Refreshing, informative, fun. Great fucking content my guy
The Problem of Evil is not an argument for Atheism, only an argument against specific religions that promote an omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent deity (usually monotheistic religions). It cannot be used against Hinduism or Buddhism for example, and surely any argument that cannot address the 3rd and 4th most popular religions in the world cannot be considered a good argument for Atheism.
Perhaps it could possibly be ranked as an S tier argument against Christianity, Islam, and similar (debatable), but as an argument for Atheism I don't understand how it could possibly be ranked S. I would put it in D, if I was being generous.
He said IF God is the omni list. I'm not sure Buddhism has god/s?
certain forms of Hinduism believe in an omnipotent omnibenevolent god though
I think you're being a bit contrarian. Pretty much everything in this video is based on a monotheistic god. Of the 5 major religions in the world, three have a very omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient god, i dont really understand hinduism but im pretty sure it has a bunch of gods, and buddism doesn't have any god(s). Obviously no argument is going to work against all 5, especially not every single other religion out there.
The purpose of the problem of evil is clear, and for that purpose it is s tier. not much else to say.
Many Buddhists are atheists.
Buddhism does not have a god
Whenever Alex and Joe have a conversation, they seem to cover every box and are so easy to understand. It's so beneficial for anyone new to these arguments.
Hey Alex, I’m a Christian and absolutely love your videos. You should try and do an interview with Jeffery Louder or Sean McDowell. I think it would be very interesting seeing you and Jeffery talking about the argument’s in this video or just having a dialogue on atheism and theism.
Thank God for Alex.
There’s only one TINY little problem with what you wrote above, Sir.☝🏼
There has never been, nor will there ever be, even the SLIGHTEST shred of evidence for the existence of the Godhead, that is, a Supreme Person, or Deity.🤓
It is high time for humanity to awaken from all INANE superstitions such as the belief in a Personal God who created the Universe, would you not agree, Slave? 😩
@@whatisthetruth5726he’s joking lol
@@whatisthetruth5726are you acoustic?
@@pigeh 🎸 😂
Haha. Yes. Thank God for him.
I loved the first one and am very excited for this part 2!
Good to see you here.
Yo it's MindShift!
It’s the man himself
This was a great episode, thanks Joe and Alex!
Okay but I have a deep philosophical question for you, if your name is capturing Christianity and your worldview is against taking captives, then how do you reconcile the inherent contradiction in your name?
@@thetheatreguy9853questions aren't arguments
@@adrianheath3854 I didn't say it was an argument I said it was a question. And I was also just being cheeky LOL
@@adrianheath3854 bro is fuming 🤣
@theaterbro you cheeky bastard
Good to see you guys back together for this! Thanks for the content.
please stop arguing guys
Why
LMAOO
NEVER!!
Nah, brain plagues from the desert ought to be treated.
My dads fighting; it really takes me back to childhood.
I actually cant believe this came out the exact microsecond that i finished rewatching the arguments for god video. LIKE THE EXACT SECOND I FINISHED IT THIS JUST POPPED UP. God is real. Final verdict
lmao
And He especially cares about you.
exact same thing happened to me lmao and that video is like 2 years old
Was that synchronicity, an argument for a metaphysics beyond materialism or merely coincidence? U decide 😅
HALLELUJAH 😮😊
For the religious confusion segment:
It would cost God literally nothing to completely resolve ALL doctrinal dispites to every person, no matter how small. He is supposedly infinitely powerful. Better than resolving them all when asked, he could do it pre-emptively. Instead, he used fallible men to write a consfusing mess of a book in languages that would die shortly after with no way to verify any of its claims.
@christsavesreadromans1096you just lied it’s not obvious which religion is true because none of them have evidence that’s why it’s called a belief and not a science because science is fact belief is ideal
@christsavesreadromans1096 no matter which religion you say here, at least 2/3rds of all people are going to disagree with you, and that's without even going into denominations and specifics.
@christsavesreadromans1096 god you are exhausting but sure let’s talk about this I’m not an atheist because I don’t like god I’m an atheist because I don’t believe him any more real then shiva or Zeus there’s no solid evidence god is real and it is blatantly rude that you assume people chose different religions because they didn’t want to be ordered around when the Buddhist lifestyle is actually very difficult also the fact there were hundreds of religions before Christianity including Hinduism Buddhism the Norse pantheon the Greek pantheon the Egyptian pantheon etc.
And you do realize the only reason Christianity has more “miracles” is because it has been around for a long time and is the most widespread religion correlation doesn’t imply causation and how many times was it really “miracles” a doctor saving your child isn’t a miracle from god it’s a miracle of the doctor a fireman saving your home isn’t a bless Jesus it’s a bless the fireman and you do realize people could lie about their “miracles” right
@christsavesreadromans1096 I don't think you have access to the knowledge of what everyone else thinks and their reasoning for not being convinced.
Are you saying that all devout believers in all other religions secretly know that it's not true? Do you think they'd continue to waste their lives on it if it wasn't?
We don't even know for sure that Jesus was a real person, certainly can't confirm any of his miracle claims.
How do I tell that your denomination is the right one? What miracle claims (with evidence) confirm this?
@christsavesreadromans1096 again correlation doesn’t equal causation it is shown god doesn’t like false idols in the Bible so other religions having miracles proves you wrong
The stone paradox should be way higher up. They said that the argument doesn't make much sense because it's okay for god to not be able to do something impossible, because it just can't be done. And that's the exact point of the argument, because god is supposedly omnipotent, which means all-powerful. If you restrict god's abilities to only what's possible, what's your definition of possible? Why shouldn't a triangle with 4 sides be creatable? Because geometry and math says so. But isn't god supposed to transcend all that? If you restrict god's power to only what math and science allows, then the whole god argument crumbles since it will inevitably turn out that this so called God can't be anything other than a random Joe because anything else would be impossible. And that is certainly not omnipotent.
Couldn't I just argue that He could do impossible things but He wouldn't? Like, not finding any particular reason to do it?
The stone paradox is *logical incoherence* . It should be last. Top debaters don't bring it up but to a normal person that don't philosophize often it seems to be very convincing. In case anyone still unconvincing, the clue is in the definition of omnipotence.
If ompipotence is being able to do only possible things, then this question is a logical incoherence. OTHERWISE, if GOD can do unlogical things ( some versions of christianity allow it ), then he CAN create that rock, and then he CAN lift it, he can do non-logical things. In both ways this argument is the worst ever.
Watched the entire thing and thoroughly enjoyed it, what a fantastic guest and conversation! Would absolutely love to see him on again to discuss more of the arguments he references.
Eh, he fell into the usual trap people arguing against the existence of God set for themselves. During the problem of evil, he had that fairly clever argument to get away from having to establish objective morality by saying he was only talking about suffering. The problem is, he's still saying suffering is bad and it is good to avoid suffering. But why?
He then fell into hyperbole with "There are countless theories that establish objective morality without God." Really? Countless? Interestingly, applying the same standard applied later in the video, wouldn't the existence of numerous, sometimes contradicting theories of objective morality without God be evidence that a true theory likely doesn't exist?
@@angusmcculloch6653 He's literally about as close to a true agnostic as you can get (he regulairly says his credance for theism is somewhere between 40 and 60 percent). He's also a moral realist (believes in objective morality) however Alex (as I think is mentioned in this video) is an emotivist; so I think the reason he went the problem of suffering route is that while the two of them disagree on the existence of objective evil, they both disagree suffering is deeply unfavorable.
As to grounding morality outside of God, within acedemic philosophy this is just as much a goal for the theist as it is the atheist as very few serious philosophers (again including theists) find divine command theory compelling (probably mostly due to the Euthyphro Dilemma). Moral epistomology is a masive subject (as eluded to by MoR when he said there are "countless arguments") and there's alot of arguements that attempt to ground or explain the existence of objective morality without God (MoR has a video that is like 2 hours long that introduces the biggest arguement in the field). I assure you he isn't exaggerating here, this is just a massive can of worms that would quickly fall well beyond the scope of this particular discussion.
All things considered, Magesty of Reason is playing extremely fair and he doesn't believe in subjective morality as you seem to think he does. And again, hes literally as much a theist as he is an atheist so hes not favoring any atheist arguements because he favors their conclusion, but rather because he genuinely finds them convincing and well founded.
@@Isaac_L.. Thank you for this detailed, well-thought out response.
I don't know that I ever said MoR *is* an atheist, because I didn't know. That's why I worded it as "people arguing against the existence of God" instead of "other atheists," because he was presenting arguments against the existence of God and fell into the same trap others do. I can see where that wording may have been too subtle and led to misunderstanding, so I should say I wasn't calling him *an atheist* and tried to phrase my post so that I didn't call him an atheist.
Maybe I'm just being pedantic, but "countless" is an exaggeration. I would prefer "a lot", but I'll concede it's a podcast format, not a paper presentation. However, the main criticism still stands that he deflects defending objective morality, but suffering is bad. Why? That's not to say he personally believes it, but it's a trap that awaits anyone trying to make that argument and he walked into it as well.
And, again, the multitude of conflicting theories of objective morality should be strong evidence that no true objective morality exists. That is simply using a same argument against theism--if God is real, there should not be multiple, conflicting accounts. That is a connection I wish they had made, as that makes for an interesting discussion.
Thank you again for your serious and well-reasoned response.
@angusmcculloch6653 No problem. I'm glad I was able to help.
I'm assuming that he would be more than happy to argue that suffering is bad in one way or another under either a subjective or objective moral framework. One way I suspect he would defend it is by using the psychophysiological response to suffering and stress widely observed across the animal kingdom. Not only did God create an environment/system that induces immense amounts of unnecessary suffering, but he placed creatures in that system that consistently feel immense negative emotion, active panic, and displeasure in proportion to that suffering. If God was all loving and for some reason or another (usually free will if you're a theist) it's essential for suffering to exist, it seems like God would have created the vast majority of creatures to have a very high psychological tolerance to suffering. In other words, a big part of the problem of suffering is the conscious response to suffering. If God was going to make a world with so much suffering, you would think that he would make creatures that broadly have a psychological indifference to suffering as opposed to what we widely observe. I'm sure that MoR would put it more eloquently than that but I'd be willing to bet that he would use an argument along those lines to defend that particular point.
As to your other point, I don't think it follows that the existence of contradictory theories about either the content or grounding of morality (I'm not entirely sure which you were referring to here but it doesn't really matter) is good evidence against the existence of objective morality in general. Another big debate within philosophy is pertains to theories of time (externalism vs presentism), but clearly time demonstrably exists. So yeah, I don't think you can use the debate surrounding (especially the grounding of) morality as evidence that it doesn't exist. (Note: to be clear I'm not arguing for moral realism, as I've yet to be convinced by arguments for it; but this is something that's an active area of interest for me since my views deviate heavily from the majority in the field here)
As to your other point about moral epistemology and God, I completely agree that it's a significant (and fascinating) problem for theism. If God exists, even if he isn't the source for morality, given omniscience he would know what is morally ideal. Therefore, you'd expect that one could learn about the nature and contents of morality through communion with God yet those who claim to do so routinely make moral claims that are at odds with others that also claim to commune with God (oftentimes these disagreements persist within, not just between, religions). That said, while this is a great piece of evidence against the moral argument or the truth of some individual religions, I don't think it's nearly as strong of evidence against theism in general as the problems of evil or hiddenness or even religious confusion are.
@@Isaac_L.. apolgies that it's taken me a few days to respond.
1. You are probably right that this how he would try to respond to suffering is bad, but the response still assumes someone needs to justify suffering's existence. Why, though? It's what's called in philosophy a vicious infinite regress. Why is suffering bad? Because it hurts. Why is pain bad? Because it's unpleasant. Why is unpleasantness bad? Here you end either in tautology: "Unpleasantness is bad, because it is no pleasing" or the vicious infinite regress continues (i.e. the truth of one statement depends on the truth of the previous statement and we never reach a foundational true statement). Either way, the argument simply doesn't hold.
2. I would agree, but people who argue against the existence of God have to apply this across the board. Either confusion where one might expect unanimity is evidence of a thing's nonexistence or it's not.
Alex x Joe content is by far my favorite! I find I learn so much from these types of videos! Hope you two continue to make great content
Hey Alex I know you likely won’t see this, however just wanted to say thank you for bringing rise to my atheism I used to be a bit unconfident in my belief or atleast didn’t know how to argue it, But your arguments as well as some others make me feel more heard and understood than my family, I genuinely want to thank you for your content and hope you have a “blessed” day lol, much love and appreciation from the Bible Belt of Florida
Your channel is becoming my favorite. You were made for podcasts
My favorite argument is to say: even if theism were true, one could never be justified in *believing* it is true. For whatever evidence or experience you might find convincing, you can never be sure that your experience *doesn't* actually have a natural cause.
Imagine some guy appears in your room and claims to be god. Do you believe him? Why should you? How do you know he's not an advanced alien pretending to be a god? From your human perspective, you'd have no way to tell the difference.
The implied consequences of theistic claims make absolute questions like "does God exist" or "did Jesus really rise from the dead" less useful than relative ones like "how can I know what God demands of me" or "is Jesus the only way to salvation." Sure, a man might have done extraordinary things about 2,000 years ago. If that man were the ultimate messenger of the Almighty, why are we only learning about His life through fragmentary texts rather than direct experience? Why can we safely discount anyone who claims to fulfill His destiny as most likely delusional?
In a similar vein I’ve thought about how perception depends on transduction (such as photons to nerve impulses), and how we verify the external stimuli exists versus a delusion created by the brain (such as phantom limb syndrome). If “feeling god’s presence” (such as through prayer) was actually the transduction of some spiritual stimuli, how would we differentiate it from talking to ourselves? In short, we can’t. This realization was the “final straw” for me to become an atheist.
thats interesting but to me its not so much that you could never have good reason to believe it its more that you wouldnt have good reason to claim you KNOW God exists with total certainty which the religious often do
@S.D.323 To believe a proposition is to be *convinced* that it is true. If we can argue that theistic belief is unjustified, then it would follow that dogmatic claims to knowledge are unjustified too.
I honestly don't know what it would take to convince me that a god exists. No matter how spectacular the evidence, I couldn't rule out all naturalistic possibilities. What if there's an explanation in 10-dimensional physics? Unless you know *everything* about the natural universe, you can't be sure that a phenomenon *doesn't* have a natural cause. Therefore seeing something super-magical and crazy looking still wouldn't be evidence for anything supernatural.
@@S.D.323 it’s much worse than not achieving certainty. There’s no grounds for granting more than some minimal credence. All one would have is some perception parsimony should have one assume it’s a hallucination as the default.
The vibe in this video is so lovely
I agree 😮 and it makes sense
The idea that God has to allow 'evil' (I much prefer to say "suffering", or "badness": to me, "evil" invokes the supernatural) so that there can be such things as bravery reminds me of the idea that God had to condemn us to being born with Original Sin so that He could give us the gift of salvation. It's like a parent's saying to a child "I had to give you a bloody nose so I could 'kiss it and make it better'."
Look into Islamic worldview, it makes much more sense.
It’s almost as if you don’t understand what God has planned
Let’s at least theorize: you think if you were in Adam’s shoes you’d have made the right choice concerning the forbidden tree?
@@scottm4975it’s almost as if you wouldn’t be able know his plan, yet can still make objective statements about the inherent suffering needed for us to evolve. Do you believe slavery is immoral, why or why not, and what passage in the Bible do you use to justify your opinion? My main point being, you already hold beliefs about morality that cannot be formed by simply reading the Bible, you pick and choose what passages to follow.
“You are born sick, and commanded to be well.”
-Christopher Hitchens
You said you weren’t going to address arguments against any particular religion, like Christianity, but I feel like many of these arguments are fundamentally addressing the claims of Abrahamic religion, and particularly Christianity. And fair enough, I suppose, because western philosophy has been conversant with Judeo/Christian/Islamic faiths for centuries. But many of these issues (like the problem of evil and divine hiddenness) almost don’t exist in Vedanta, Buddhist, and Jain philosophy because of the particular metaphysical claims they make. It seems to me that many of the arguments for atheism presented here begin to look quite different when approached from a global perspective.
Yup, the arguments are rife with assumptions about God that come mostly from the Abrahamic faiths.
Such as the ideas of perfection, benevolence, omnipresence, and omniscience.
@@im_aleey Indeed. But even if you accept those notions, just adding the ideas of reincarnation and karma completely change what almost all of these arguments look like. What so speak of the concept of cyclical time and the well accepted idea of multiverses in eastern philosophy. I mean, the problem of evil just doesn't have the same bite if you accept that the soul is eternal and subject to the reactions of karma. There are consequences for almost all the other arguments in this video based on those two ideas alone.
@@im_aleeywhich is also why the religious confusion argument is so bad: it's equivocating the word "God" with any very powerful, supernatural being, when really what we want to know is whether a necessary, all powerful, all good God exists.
That last video is one of my favorites you’ve ever made. Really it’s one of my favorite videos on the topic of religion as a whole. I didn’t know if this sequel was going to happen, so the surprise of it is amazing
I love learning well known arguments like this, thank you!
Joe should stop by more often
Zendaya would dump him
No he should not
You can always watch him on his own channel.
Definitely
This is my top five guests I've ever heard on your program Alex. He has thought so deeply about each of these subjects beyond the depth that I thought and I am just loving the nuanced and depths I just want more of him thank you so much for introducing me to this new person!
Joe is Awesome! Amazing guest! I've learned a ton from the Majesty of Reason.
2:08 Alex, with his immense vocabulary and amazing intellect could think of no better description of a tier list than "it's a big sort of box" 😂
Gotta love the man! Keep up the great content Alex!
Yes! This collab is what I needed, thanks
@@greentheam629 Yep. It's really interesting.
Two of the smartest guys on RUclips. Thanks for the interview Alex. It would be awesome if you did an episode with Emerson Green, he’s amazingly intelligent too.
Love it when joes the on the channel it like watching alex talk to his American doppleganger
love this long form philosophy bro content alex bring joe back for more !
From a logical standpoint, there is no reason that a god must be omni- anything. Therefore, the PoE is an S-tier argument against any religion (like Christianity) that requires an omni- god, but is D-tier (C-tier at best) against deism/theism in general.
But why then call it God? Perhaps its a polytheist argument that limit the ability of individual gods.
A non-omni god is just a very very strong human/creature, might as well be an alien with force powers and nothing more, by a certain point of view, such a creature has very few reasons to be called god and expecially there would be no reason to worship him.
@@TonyLambregts Because the term was not invented for the abrahamic god, look at the god of ovids creation myth, he is unknown and powerful but not omni in any way. Still he is the cause of everything but chaos and his kind(the other gods) in this myth
I disagree, as long as we're talking about creationism, because a creator of the universe logically should be omnipotent in regards to its creation, because it's necessarily all-powerful. Maybe you could argue that its control is somehow overtaken by development, or something, but it just seems clunky and certainly you would struggle to find any kind of theist that approaches the problem of evil this way.
@@luphoria Why should a creator of the universe be omnipotent? There is no logical reason why a being that can create a universe must be omnipotent. Being able to create a universe is pittance in comparison to what an omnipotent being can do. I can create a metal spring, but that doesn't mean I can control every individual atom in that spring.
Can't get enough of both you gentlemen. Hope to see further discussions from this fabulous duo.
Alex makes a great point about how people in Iran or other non Christian countries could be said to be more “Christian” than Christians in the west are in action and heart. He’s right.
Someone made a response to his debate with Jonathan Mclatchie, where he made that geographical argument a couple of years ago, saying essentially the same thing
It's one of a fee things that Jordan Peterson actually gets right. If us western Christians actually acted like what we believe , the world could be a magnificent place for all. Though from my perspective we , and those we know do our part
@@SeanathanCreek I wish we focused more on the 4 gospels in the west. I see a lot of Old Testament teaching. Which is fine but I rarely hear readings from the gospels. We don’t focus enough on Jesus life and his teachings from his mouth as written in the 4 gospels.
@Dgujg Agreed as some don't notice that it is greek-romsn literature and Mark was thrown in the dumpster by Luke and Mathew which considered each other to be wrong. John considered all to be totally wrong and made up his own story.
One of my friends has become Chritian but does not admit since it is dangerous for him.
I watched all 12 hours of joes video, I think he does an excellent job.
Alex said: “I hope it was fun, and I hope people enjoyed it“
Answer: was fun, did enjoy it.
My favorite response to the argument from religious diversity is polytheism. "Of course there are differing opinions on god! There are multiple and they're all different!" This also works well with how historically most religious practices have been polytheist.
Also, I think the issue of material causality is best responded to by just conceding and making God an emanator instead of a creator.
My understanding of this is God doesn't care who is right but that they are worshipping him/her/them
@@of9490 I don't see how this is a reply to my comment.
I can't help thinking of the kid who wrote in a paper for school that the Ancient Egyptians built pyramids and went on to explain that a pyramid is "a triangular cube".
A cone with more edges?
Alex should spend a bit more time with physicists to hone his physics-based arguments
fortunately, the theists he debates know even less about physics
hahaha bringing the YT style into the podcast, love this
Two of my favourite youtubers together 😍. This is going to be awesome.
I think the best example of the lack of existence of an all powerful being is on Joe's shelf, no all powerful being would ever let Arsenal exist
Joe is my favorite guest of yours, thank you!
Every Christian apologist is a walking argument for divine hiddenness.
Anyone says an empty cult where this worst genretion has trapped and had to be judge by God for betrayed Gif for the nothing empty atheism gives to their lives? Lier as any Goddenier. What a cult!...
After being close enough to God that the pain and suffering I went through was worse than when I was without God that I prayed to God to distance himself because I couldn’t handle his holiness I am thoroughly convinced that divine hiddenness is a blessing not only for the unbeliever but to the believer, everyone claims they want to be close to God but his holiness is so bright and pure I don’t think they realize what they’re asking.
“But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.”
Luke 12:48
“For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.”
1 Corinthians 13:12 KJV
Exactly. How could I ever respect a god that needed pasty white middle aged overweight men with prostate problems to do all of his fighting for him.
@@japexican007 lmao bruh
@@japexican007 you prayed to God to distance himself.
so.. presumably, EVERYONE in heaven will suffer just by being near god.
so it's suffering in heaven and suffering in hell.
I give you that it solves problem of evil.. it's just god being everywhere,causing unnecessary suffering.
but now you have problem of good.
how is anything good possible,when you have omnipresent god that causes suffering by proxy.
maybe god is not omni in any way,it was just one of his lies,to threaten believers into submission.
meh.
I just saw the title and got so excited. Alex's old video with Joe Schmid on this is one of my favorites on the entire channel. Can't wait to watch!
Divine hiddenness is checkmate imo, maybe not in disproving Gods existence, but certainly in proving that the creator of the universe doesn’t care about having a genuine relationship with me. The more philosophical arguments for or against Gods existence miss the point imo. If you resort to philosophical arguments to prove you have a girlfriend instead of just, idk, having her just show up, people are going to doubt the existence of said girlfriend, no matter how well reasoned your arguments are
I went off Sam Harris about five years ago - and he was the person who really introduced me to the IDW and thinking critically in the way that you do. I'm so glad to see you succeed because you really seem like the spiritual successor to the 4 horsemen of the IDW in the best way possible.
A conversation with Joe is always is so so interesting
Please make more videos with him 🙏
Can’t wait for this one, Alex!
F Tier shoudl be: "I can't see God, therefore no God"
Do you mean physically see God? Because there are stories in the Bible of God literally appearing to and communicating with human beings, not to mention Jesus Christ being God in the form of a man
Do you mean just observing God? Because honestly seeking God and not finding it is the basis for what is generally considered an A- or S-tier atheist argument in Divine Hiddenness
Either way you meant it I don’t see what is unreasonable about expecting God to manifestly exist in any way that is actually detectable beyond feelings one gets sitting listening to worship songs or visions they get when on LSD
isnt that just divine hiddenness though
There ought to be only one item in the S-Tier: Religious Apologists.
There is only one argument in the S-Tier. Therefor we ought to always use that argument.
Seriously though. One of the best arguments against God is that He needs humans to make arguments for His existence. I think that's a subset of divine hiddenness though.
@@therongjr I was thinking more along the lines, if a triomni god exists, he wouldn’t allow people like D’Souza, Craig, Powell, Hamm, Winger, and so many others, speak for him. D’Souza’s recent performance surely deconverted as many Christians as Hitchens ever did.
@@basildrawsas a Christian I think this is genuinely a good point 😂
Every religious person you disagree with is an agent of satan, there, problem solved.
let this be a reminder to any theist who needs to hear it: Alex may be a very respectful and reasonable person, but he is still an atheist, and his opinions on god have not changed significantly over the years. I've seen some people struggling to reconcile these two facts and claiming that Alex is certainly about to convert to Christianity. This does not seem to be likely at the moment. So I ask you to please change your perspective on the matter accordingly: either Alex isn't as thoughtful and reasonable as you thought, or it is possible to be both of those things and still be an atheist. I for one hope that you'll choose the latter. I don't know if that should significantly alter your religious beliefs, but I do think it should change your beliefs about atheists, and atheism in general. Because Alex is not an outlier, and I'm getting kinda tired of him being portrayed as one. This is what atheism can and often does look like.
I agree with your main point, although i think the underlying problem is that a solid 60-70% of both atheists and christians online haven't a shred of the manners the likes of Alex. It paints both sides in a bad light
@@daanmollema6366 I pay no mind to those poeple on both sides, I don't think spending energy in engaging with them is productive for anyone. My issue is mainly with religious people who do have those manners amongst their peers, and just choose to not use them with atheists, because they seem to believe that an atheist can't share them. I'm not claiming they're a majority or anything, it's just a group of people who does exist and has a relevant presence in *my* experience in these spaces. That's why I said that mine is a reminder "to those who need it". You may very well be a theist who doesn't
@@gffkdcjwt this is my alt account by the way. RUclips prevents me from posting that comment from my main one. That comment was also supposed to have a dot at the end, but if I put it there it gets deleted. Yeah, I really have no idea why. It's quite annoying but at this point I'm used to it. If someone else here has experience with youtube constantly deleting their comments, their help would be greatly appreciated.
@@sanstheblaster2626 yeah i know right! Super annoying
@@gffkdcjwtI think it’s wise to be *careful* spending energy on such folks, but it’s not always fruitless. Some of us exreligious folk lost faith *in part because* of people spending their energy to converse with us about that stuff, despite our stubbornness.
Really enjoyed that, made painting the fence enjoyable 😅
What's the deal with a triangle with 4 sides? A triangle is simply defined as a planar object with 3 sides. Ir it has 4 it is DEFINED as a quadrilateral. A 4-sided triangle isn't a contradiction. It's an incorrect use of language.
0:33 Right out the gate: "We're gonna *resurrect* it!" Nice! Very punny!!😂
I enjoy the content, but one common pitfall I find throughout the videos I've seen is that there's an implicit assumption that rather than taking the position of an "atheist," you and your guests speak more broadly from an "anti-Christian" stance rather than going through the mental gymnastics of accepting the possibility of a non-benevolent/nonomniscient/nonomnipotent god or gods. Maybe you'd argue a being that wasn't omnipotent shouldn't be considered a god, but I think you end up giving too much stock to specifically Christian (or Abrahamic, if you prefer,) arguments
On the stone paradox: Alex said omnipotence is the ability to do what's possible. As if what's possible exists outside of and independent of God. Isn't God the maker or originator of the possible and impossible? Is God then bound by what he made impossible or does this impossibility exist independently of him?
It works two ways. If God can lift that rock then it's be possible by definition.
The only way to be sure is to ask God for a demonstration.
Moreover most christians and pastors like Turek on WLC don't put any restrictions on omnipotence whatsoever, so it's more than fair to use the same rules
I think God could be omnipotent in it's own realm but not in the universe. If the universe is fine-tuned, there can be no physical interference at all. It's constrained by it's own Laws and Constants.
@@briansmith3791
You'd rather invent a new realm than admit the God claim is inconsistent.
Great job with the short video that brought me here. Just Alex talking and the guest laughing. 😂😂 Genuinely sparked curiosity to know who he was.
Joe is so knowledgable!
Just watched the whole thing basically in one sitting. Would love to see more collabs like this with Joe, be they about atheist arguments, theist arguments or any other topic in philosophy!
I was wondering if Majesty of reason would become a guest at some point in your podcast; guess this answers it.
I would love to see this trend continue, and perhaps you both could create a theodicy tier list ranking the best theistic defenses against the problem of evil.
its the greatest video of all time we have reached peak youtube
Good conversation, but Joe's so cute it's hard to focus.
Joe? Joe? Come on. They are both adorable.
Joe is a great guy. Subscribed to his channel right away.
Material Causality for me is probably "C Tier". And this is me using my smooth brain and basic knowledge, so I'm sure there's a lot of holes in what I'm about to say. The argument that we don't see the breakdown of physics in any other location outside of the Big bang is just fundamentally untrue. We actually see such breakdowns happening in black holes. We also see those types of breakdowns at really small levels. And the idea that we don't have a unified theory of everything, for lack of a better phrase, means that the universe has already provided material evidence for strange and weird circumstances. No, they don't perfectly replicate the conditions of the early universe, however, the information that we have of the universe makes it perfectly plausible, and highly likely in my uneducated opinion, that there is a perfectly material basis for the cause of the beginning of universe. So I actually think this argument holds a lot more weight, even without the Kalam cosmological argument as A parallel for it. I think it would do perfectly well for agnostic.
For divine hiddenness, theists reply to me that God was so obvious, then we'd have no free will, and God wants us to freely choose to believe in him. As for why some people are born into other religions, they argue that people are judged based on their circumstances and by how much effort they've put into their search for God, so it is still fair. Not convincing to me, but just wanted to note those arguments.
Id say the free will one isnt really that valid as one could see god, but still choose not to worship him.
And then they say that universe is obviously designed.
They just don't say it at the same time.
@@idkwhatnonamemyself1951 Yes, and those that see God and choose not to worship him would rightly be called fools. So what difference does it make if God shows himself or doesn’t? People will still reject believing in him either way, but that doesn’t make them right it just makes them foolish.
@@alexanderh2345 If an omnipotent and omniscient god existed and it's existence was profoundly evident, then the problem of evil seems to be a fairly good reason not to worship that god.
@@ethanbottomley-mason8447 Then the Problem of Evil has just defeated the Divine Hiddenness premise of "non-resistant non-belief". To say that the problem of evil is a good reason to not worship that god is by definition, a "resistant non-belief". Ironically, the two biggest arguments for theistic scepticism has just cannibalized themselves.
We are complicated creatures with varying thoughts and conflicting emotions. We can barely be honest with our own beliefs, let alone declare that we have "non-resistant non-belief".
Surely all non-believers are non-resistant non believers?
None of us choose what we believe?
Is being either a democrat or republican based on choice?
How does one become a flat earther vs a round earther, surely they have chosen to accept certain things as truth
The same goes with accepting or rejecting God wouldn’t you say?
What’s the difference between a believer and a non-believer as you see it?
What about when one goes from one camp or the other, are they choosing to accept new beliefs in order to form a totally different conclusion from where they first began?
@@japexican007 The evidence I have come across and the way I was raised leads me to be a democrat or republic. You for example, whichever you are, right this moment, could you choose to be the other right now? You could vote the other but wouuld you really believe in those values? No, because you can't choose different values like that.
I could pretent to believe in god, I could even try and believe by for example reading certain literature, but after that, deep down I will still either believe or not and there's nothing I can do about it.
If I was indocrinated in a flat earth cult, I would prob believe in a flat earth. Not out of choice. And hopefully if I spoke to the right people and read the right books I would change that oppinion. I can choose to do those things but whether it will change my opinion or not is out of my hands. :)
@christsavesreadromans1096 I would LOVE to believe in a god, an afterlife or even ghosts. Unfortunately I can't choose what I believe in :)
Also, I thought Christians were meant to be nice btw, calling non believers dumb doesn't come across too kind
@christsavesreadromans1096 so everyone is either stupid or willfully ignorant if they believe something other than you how convenient
@christsavesreadromans1096 got it so youre smarter than Alan Turing and Stephen Hawking
THIS WAS VERY INTERESTING STUFF. THANK YOU BOTH
Arguments for atheism:
Prove theism. Until you do it’s not real by default.
Anything else is just debunking nonsense. It’s not an argument it’s just pointing out why the claim being made, whatever the point or argument is, is not sufficient to prove theism to any reasonable evidentiary standard.
What?
@@antinumchrum9440burden of proof is on the theist
actually that's a very bad argument
whenever a theist would argue that a scientific theory is wrong (theory of evolution for example), then god...
that's not working at all
so the reverse doesn't work either: the lack of proof or evidence for god doesn't make atheism stand and hold.
science does though.
science is the most reliable way to get knowledge.
god isn't a scientific field of study, therefore science doesn't care about god, so do we.
@@josephgorodnitskiy4461 I must have been sleep deprived, I didn't understand what he was saying.
F-tier argument
I just love how Alex is blushing on joe the entire time ☺️
I ship it!
Glad to see the old style of videos are back!
Joe and Alex surely have a great character development since their last collaboration
Now Alex is much more calm and composed, and Joe, more excited
Happy to see You guys collab again😊
The first one is a logical impossibility. I use this one as my first point whenever someone challenges. And I say “god can’t be all knowing, all powerful and all good.” And then say “why do kids need to die of starvation or cancer? Or die prematurely at all? If I was an all good and powerful god this seems like an easy correction over your current god that would make me by your definition a better god…”
God didnt create evil. evil is a direct result, direct byproduct of our sins. our own free will. the story of adam and eve explains how sin entered the world through human disobedience. its our creation. not his. and he doesnt eliminate it cuz it tests our faith in him, God wants us to choose him willingly. he gave us free will to be able to decide by ourselves to believe in him. i would recommend you to read the book of Job. it actually addresses your question.
@@ricardorivera7549 nope. It’s an excuse for an obvious impossible fix as there’s no god. Plain and simple. Good luck with your excuses and also living in reality
@@LaneBatman-c2v always found it sad how atheist always gotta be so aggressive and petty with comments such as “good luck with reality” “u live in a fairy tale”. Idk if that is what makes u feel better hope u fill that hole w something else more productive.
@@LaneBatman-c2v the fact i literally referred u to an entire book in the bible dedicated to ur question and just dismissed it shows u dont really care for dialogue or argument. Prolly just resentment
@@ricardorivera7549 the irony
I'm disappointed that *none* of these are arguments against the existence of *_A_* deity; they are arguments against _specific_ interpretations of a _specific_ deity...Hence, they are strong justification against _religion,_ but *not* against _theism._
Based on the consensual usage of the term (as evidenced by multiple dictionaries and how they derive the definitions that they provide), and divorced from _religious_ context *_A_* "god" is simply an entity capable of effects beyond established laws of nature and that we cannot scientifically explain.
That's how it usually is.
It is impossible to Argue against an undefined God.
Without the definition given by Religions, a God’s form and capabilities and character are all completely mutable to situation at hand and thus cannot be argued against.
For example, how could you use the Argument Of Evil if we don’t take God being good as a Prerequisite?
I suppose I’m confused what the arguments you were hoping for look like. Don’t you kind of have to assume an interpretation in order to evaluate the arguments? They seem to have taken a sufficiently broad interpretation so as to cover their bases but narrow enough that it still pertains to most popular interpretations
@JoeshWave
"It is impossibe to argue against an undefined god."
You're conflating _definition_ with *description.* The term "god" already _has_ a definition.
@@Capt.Fail.
Again, false equivocation of _description_ with _definition._
You didn't include the blog with the 200 arguments for atheism in the description.
I love tier lists. I don't care if they're overdone. It's a fun format!
I'm getting a bit disappointment by the focus on a Christian "good God" (ok, maybe Zoroastrian as well)
maybe mention Mesoamerican or Mesopotamian gods and their "morality" or lack there of every once in a while
@@NotIdefixchristianity is the main religion in the west and has a lot of political power, thats why western atheists tend to focus on it while atheists from the middle east tend to focus on islam.
@@Dushan-o8w taking down the Christian "good God" concept certainly makes for popular viewing in the west
it would be good to remind viewers there are other creation myths out there involving god(s) and other "origin of evil" /"morals" explanations
In never saw a tier list in my life and I haven't been living under a rock
@@bengeurden1272 nah... you've definitely been living under a rock
I loved this. Thank you Both. And I did make it to the end. Great discussion
Why does god need blood from a sacrificed animal to forgive?
He doesn’t, it was meant to show the severity of the wages of sin
@@japexican007where does the bible say that?
go read the sermon on the mount to see how serious God sees sin and even if I don’t explicitly find a verse that says those specific words, common sense implicitly follows if it were possible for God not to do a thing then it follows that God needn’t do x thing namely God requiring a blood sacrifice from animals.
Furthermore these were foreshadowings of the ultimate sacrifice to come from Jesus Christ as per:
A. “For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.”
Hebrews 10:1, 4 KJV
B. “For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.”
Hebrews 10:4 KJV
Since God is perfect as per scripture if you fail in one part of the law you fail the whole law
Meaning God is so perfect he takes all sins/offenses seriously
Hence what I said previously
@@japexican007 "it doesn't say it but but but common sense"
Thanks, this can be ignored.
@@BubbaF0wpenddid you just ignore the scripture that says the blood of bulls and goats doesn’t forgive sins? Or the sermon on the mount that shows the severity of how God sees sin?
I don't think these arguments are an argument for atheism; it's arguments against a particular concept of a god.
I think what we mean by God/gods just comes down to semantics. The main takeaway here is that a being with certain maximal or unconstrained properties is fundamentally contradictory. If a theist defines God without these characteristics, it would be consistent, but kind of pointless.
My favourite atheist is Graham Oppy..
Yeah I think the problem is that there are so many possible versions of God that you conceivably can’t argue against all of them. It does make sense to focus on Abrahamic religions though, which the majority of the world believe in
@@krishvids608 Indeed and the fundamental belief question ...if there is God and I subscribe to that belief ...how can I speak of attributes ...by analogy or definition. (with or without revelation in any sense)..or can I say what God s have done if there is such.?
I would like to hear more of Alex philosophically debating people that have other concepts of God. I hear you. Contrary to the above statement, it does not make sense to only argue for atheism in contrast to the Abrahamic systems of faith. Though popular, those belief systems only represent a sliver of potential concepts of God. I think it shows a particular resentment toward those particular faiths and results in less interesting and repetitive arguments. So many of which do not make sense or are incomplete when thinking in terms of other belief systems.
One wrinkle to the E-tier rock paradox is that we regular humans _can_ make things that we can't lift. So there is some way in which it isn't analogous to drawing a four-sided triangle -- drawing a four-sided triangle is impossible for everyone by its very nature, but making a too-heavy rock is only impossible for God. A satisfying understanding takes at least _a little_ more thought about what's going on.
The rebuttal to that is quite a simple one though. You never actually created anything, as in “creatio ex nihilo”, you simply rearranged matter.
But of course we can just rephrase the question to “Can G-d rearrange matter in such a way that he cannot lift it?”
That's not even a wrinkle, and it's completely contingent on the phrasing of the question.
You can resolve it by just changing the verbiage. "Can God create an unliftable rock?" That applies equally well to humans. It can also account for the triangle example when we see there is always going to be a single premise (often unstated) and a single question.
All triangles have 3 sides.
Can a triangle with more than 3 sides be drawn?
All rocks are liftable.
Can an unliftable rock be created?
All questions of this form are asking the exact same thing: can an impossible thing be done?
*_Is_*_ making a too-heavy rock impossible for god?_
Regular humans can figure out how to lift something that is too heavy by applying mathematics on the amount of force required to lift something too heavy for an average human to lift. A crane with a pulley becomes a force multiplier to enable a person to lift loads that would usually be too heavy for one person to lift.
A four sided triangle or a married bachelor isn't a matter of capability, it is a logical impossibility. Much like asking for a black coffee with cream. The moment you add cream or oat milk to a coffee, it is no longer black. In the Bible, God cannot change, lie, be tempted, tempt others, deny himself, or erase himself out of existence. Those are ontological impossibilities, and just because God's personality doesn't allow him to do it, it doesn't mean he doesn't have the omnipotence to do them.
@@anthonydesimone502 _"You can resolve it by just changing the verbiage."_
Maybe. I'm not sure changing the verbiage gets you the same claim. As I see it, it's not about the liftability of rocks, per se, but the relationship between one's own powers and limits. The references to one's self seem to be central. So I'd think it's appropriate to keep the verbiage but resolve it by realizing that there's nothing troubling for God in this being impossible for God. It was never a requirement that God could; it's just a neat bit of trivia that he can't.
Maybe the structure's a bit different, but like your reading we still involve the question "Can an impossible thing be done?" and our answer, just like on your reading, should always be no.
Alex, you are my most favorite person in the world. Cool, calm, and collected. Thank you for doing what you do.
Theists: God has to stay hidden, he can't be obvious to us or it would take away our free will
Also Theists: Look at the trees! _Obviously_ God has to exist!
To believe in his existence he gave you reasons but he isn't visible to you all the time cuz he doesn't want to restrict your freedom I mean imagine your seeing your mother staring at you all the time since you were born you would've done nothing from what you did right?
@@nam-r1f I still know my mother exists. I have seen her. She didn't vanish after I was born and expect me to discover her existence through obscure evidence that is more reasonably explained by other things.
If one believes God exists with His attributes, then God _is_ watching you all the time, and a believer thinks this: how is their freedom not restricted?
@@Rogstin first of all he didn't vanish, read more about Jesus and you determine yourself ,secondly who said that the universe and nature works supernaturally by God? Nowhere in the Bible says that not even when performing miracles beacuse i know he was using the nature he created to perform them, there's nothing wrong with that ,also God gave you reason to how everything is working so you can learn from it to develop your mind and brain and do things yourself , so God created universe and nature and added laws to how its working now,
Fully understanding how a machine works doesnt make it have no creator
@@Rogstin if you know your mom is watching you all the time is different from seeing her watching you all the time ,also imagine a starfish trying to understand a human, thats a smaller example for how we are trying to understand God
@@nam-r1fdid the freedom of Joan of Arc get restricted? Did the freedom of Moses get restricted. It definitely wasn’t restricted for Adam and Eve and they watched God Create them. What exactly are you trying to argue if not an inconsistent point?
You only need one argument for atheism and it comes in the form of a question "can you prove god exists?"
If the answer is "no" ( and it will be) then job done
The worst part is that I can already imagine Trinity Radio, Mike Winger, and Redeemed Zoomer preparing an awful response to this 🤦♀️
I really hope that Joe makes a response video if that happens, just like when he annihilated Mike Winger the last time.
I don't expect any of them to though Inspiring Philosophy might.
Why is that a bad thing? You just want the discussion to be 'i'm right, here's why and that's the end of it'?
Nah, if im correct, Inspiring philosophy already has videos addressing those arguments. IP doesn't really have to react to a tier list video.
Who?
I love Joe's cheerfulness, the 15 hour video is already in my queue. I will definitely look more into an evil god hypothesis, because the rating of it based on asymmetries that the hosts mentioned doesn't seem reasonable to me at all, and by their convictions I'm curious what other asymmetries there are.