A Brief Overview: Who is Alex O’Connor?
Alex O’Connor is a 25 year old British Youtuber, Presenter, Debater, and modern-day Philosopher. A philosophy graduate from Saint John’s College (Oxford), he has gained recognition for his articulate and well-reasoned critiques of religious belief, morality, and metaphysics. Through his YouTube channel, Cosmic Skeptic, he has engaged in numerous debates, interviews, and discussions with prominent religious scholars, scientists, and philosophers.
Throughout this article, I will be referencing his 45 minute-long video titled “Every Argument For Atheism,” and laying out his arguments. To clarify, despite the title of the video using the word “Atheism,” Alex is an Agnostic. An Agnostic is a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
1. The Problem of Evil
Core Idea: The existence of suffering and evil contradicts the idea of an all-loving, all-powerful, and all-knowing deity.
This is one of the oldest and most compelling arguments against theism. The logical version argues that the co-existence of an omni-benevolent and omnipotent God with evil is inherently contradictory. Alex suggests that while God and evil may not be logically incompatible, the amount and nature of suffering in the world make God’s existence highly unlikely.
Alex’s Argument:
If God is all-powerful, He could prevent all suffering.
If God is all-loving, He would want to prevent suffering.
If God is all-knowing, He would be aware of all suffering.
Yet suffering exists, from natural disasters to moral evils like murder and genocide. Attempts to resolve this problem include the free will defense (suffering exists because humans have free will) and the soul-making theodicy (suffering is necessary for spiritual growth). However, these responses fail to address why a loving God allows natural suffering (natural disasters, diseases) or why free will must entail such extreme suffering.
2. The Argument from Divine-Hiddenness
Core Idea: If a loving God existed, His existence would be obvious to all.
Alex’s Argument: The divine hiddenness problem, formulated by philosopher J.L. Schellenberg, states that:
A loving God would want a relationship with humans.
Many sincere seekers of truth do not believe in God.
Therefore, a loving God likely does not exist.
This argument challenges the idea that God wants people to believe in Him. If belief is a requirement for salvation, then why would God allow reasonable non-believers to exist? If God wants humans to freely choose to love Him, why is belief in Him not as obvious as belief in the external world? Alex also talks about how theists sometimes argue that God’s hiddenness preserves free will, but this seems inadequate because after all, people can be aware of their parents’ existence without being forced to love them. If God truly desired universal belief, He could make His existence clear while still allowing free choice.
3. The Incoherence of Divine Attributes
Core Idea: The traditional attributes of God (omniscience, omnipotence, omni-benevolence) contradict each other.
Alex’s Argument: Some attributes commonly ascribed to God lead to logical contradictions:
Omnipotence Paradox: Can God create a rock so heavy that He cannot lift it? If He can, then He is not omnipotent (because He cannot lift it). If He cannot, He is also not omnipotent.
Omniscience vs. Free Will: If God knows every action you will take in advance, then you cannot change your actions, meaning free will is an illusion.
Omni-benevolence vs. Justice: If God is perfectly just, He should punish sinners fairly. If He is perfectly merciful, He should forgive all sins. However, justice and mercy are opposites; they cannot be perfectly reconciled.
These contradictions suggest that the concept of God, as traditionally understood, may be fundamentally incoherent.
4. The Argument From Inconsistent Revelations
Core Idea: The existence of many contradictory religious beliefs undermines the claim that any one of them is true.
Alex’s Argument: Major world religions (Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc.) have vastly different doctrines. If one religion were true, we would expect divine revelation to be consistent across cultures and history. Instead, we see:
- Conflicting claims about the nature of God (monotheism, polytheism, pantheism).
- Contradictory moral teachings (e.g., Islam permits polygamy, Christianity does not).
- Incompatible paths to salvation (Christianity demands faith in Christ, while Islam denies Christ’s divinity).
Alex thinks that if an all-powerful, all-loving deity wanted people to know the truth, why would divine messages be so fragmented and contradictory?
5. The Argument From Poor Design
Core Idea: If life was designed by a perfect creator, we would not see biological imperfections.
Alex’s Argument: Many aspects of biology suggest evolution rather than intelligent design:
- Vestigial structures (e.g., the human appendix, wisdom teeth) serve no function but exist due to evolutionary remnants.
- Suboptimal design (e.g., the recurrent laryngeal nerve in giraffes, which takes an unnecessary detour in the neck of the animal) suggests an evolutionary, not divine, origin.
- Genetic flaws and mutations result in diseases and suffering, contradicting the idea of a perfect designer.
The fine-tuning argument, which claims that the universe is designed for life, is weakened by the fact that most of the universe is inhospitable to life.
6. The Argument From Non-Belief
Core Idea: The fact that many people do not believe in God is evidence against His existence.
Alex’s Argument: If God exists and desires universal belief, then why do millions of rational, intelligent people (including former believers) remain atheists? Theists often claim that nonbelievers “choose” to reject God, but many atheists earnestly seek truth and still find no reason to believe. This argument strengthens the divine hiddenness problem, emphasizing that non-belief is not just an act of rebellion but a logical conclusion for many.
7. The Atheist’s Wager
Core Idea: A moral life is more valuable than religious belief, even if God exists.
Alex’s Argument: This argument counters Pascal’s Wager, which claims that believing in God is a “safe bet” because the consequences of being wrong (eternal damnation) outweigh the consequences of believing unnecessarily. The Atheist’s Wager argues:
- If there is no God, leading a good life benefits humanity.
- If God exists and is just, He would reward moral people, not mere believers.
- If God is unjust, then belief is irrelevant.
This argument encourages moral behavior regardless of religious belief.
8. The Problem of Hell
Core Idea: Eternal punishment is morally unjustifiable.
Alex’s Argument: The doctrine of Hell, present in many religions, suggests that non-believers or sinners are punished eternally. However, eternal punishment for finite sins contradicts both justice and mercy: No finite crime deserves infinite punishment. If God is loving and merciful, He should not create Hell at all.
This argument makes the concept of a morally perfect deity incompatible with Hell’s existence.
9. The Argument From Lack of Evidence
Core Idea: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Alex’s Argument: Atheism is often justified by the simple lack of evidence for God’s existence. If a claim as extraordinary as an omniscient, omnipotent being is made, it should be backed by strong, undeniable evidence. Instead, the evidence for God is often anecdotal, based on faith, or contradicts known science.
Without concrete evidence, the default rational position is non-belief.
Conclusion:
I believe that Alex O’Connor’s arguments presents an interesting perspective on atheism. His approach seems to be motivated by a sincere interest in exploring the deeper questions of faith, morality, and existence. Sure, his views may challenge traditional religious perspectives, but it is important for people to debate about highly controversial things in meaningful dialogue. By considering arguments both for and against religious belief, O’Connor reinforces the fact that faith and reason can coexist in the pursuit of the ultimate mystery (the truth).
Lastly, Alex recently did a debate against 25 theists on the Jubilee channel which I found to be really interesting. Check it out using this link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpK8CoWBnq8
Stay Tuned to The Roundup for future thought-provoking perspectives and controversial topics.
