Alex O’Connor OBLITERATES Cliffe Knechtle’s “Perfectly Good God” Argument LIVE

Ajouté : 2026-05-27

[00:00:00]I also want to know why it is that when I'm asked about the most fundamental basic question of reality, whether there's a god and what the ultimate meaning of life is, that when I say I don't know, you say that that's an impossible question, that I'm not allowed to have that option available to me. But when we ask you a very direct simple textual question, do you think this actually happened and why, you're allowed to say you don't know on that much more simple question.

[00:00:22]Hey everyone, welcome back and if you are new here, genuinely glad you found this channel. So today we are sitting down with a clip that I could not stop thinking about after I watched it. We've got Alex O'Connor, one of the sharpest young voices in the atheist and agnostic space, going head-to-head with Cliff Knechtle, a Christian apologist who has been doing this for decades. The topic sounds simple on the surface, does the biblical god exist? But what actually unfolds is a deep uncomfortable conversation about animal suffering, divine commands, and whether the Bible's god can genuinely be called perfectly good. And trust me, it goes places you probably are not expecting. Stay with this one all the way through because the final exchange is the moment the whole clip builds toward. And if you tap out early, you are going to miss the part everyone is going to be talking about.

[00:01:12]Also, before we get into it, drop a comment and let me know where in the world you are watching from right now.

[00:01:18]It genuinely blows me away how far this community reaches and I love seeing where you all are coming from. All right, let us get into it. these animals are killed on the command of god. And as you know, we we discussed this at some length in our last conversation in 1 Samuel 15, the best of the livestock are kept alive by Saul.

[00:01:41]And when he approaches Samuel, Samuel informs him that that god has said he regretted he made Saul king. Why did god regret that he made Saul king?

[00:01:50]Because he kept alive the animals that he was supposed to kill. This is not like there is some kind of natural order which requires a balanced ecosystem which will involve predation and this kind of thing. This is God saying, "Go into this town, kill the men, kill the women, kill the children and the infants, and kill the animals." And when Saul does not kill the animals and leave some of them alive, God regrets that he made Saul king. Phil's question, I think, is to explain how this kind of command can be justified. Not not not animals getting swept up as a as a as a foreseen but unintended consequence of of the natural order or war, but no, go and kill them. And if you don't kill them all, you're going to be punished for it. Why?

[00:02:31]Because you have an omniscient, omnipotent God who controls the entire universe, who we have to allow to judge when he so chooses. So the animals have revulsions in our 21st century mindset, especially you being very white male and me being very white male, in a very secular, very prominent intellectual area of the world, we're going to have a revulsion to it. Now, go over I'm going to go to your earlier argument, Alex. Go over to >> think it's Do you think it's a white male thing to to object to the killing of animals?

[00:03:02]They're going to say, "Who are you, Alex, to say in your white Western culture that there's such a big issue with this?" The majority of people in those areas of the world would say, "Of course a God who's big enough who created you is allowed to judge in a nasty, brutish, ancient Near Eastern culture. What's the big deal?" And so this gets back to the malleability of the Bible, how it lifts up some cultures and then at the same time challenges and convicts other cultures, rather than this just consensus, universalistic, fluffy type of text.

[00:03:34]>> Let's think Let me ask you Hang on. Hang on. I just want to ask you a question, right? Very simple question, right? If torturing animals is not something to make you think maybe the character in the Bible is not the perfect God that you think exists, right? Cuz it could be there is a perfect God, but it's not the God of the Bible, right? That's possible. Would you concede that?

[00:03:55]Anything's possible. If I'm an agnostic All right. All right. So, right? Now, if this if if torturing animals is not going to convince you that this god is not perfectly good, if commanding genocide is not going to convince you that this god isn't perfectly good, what would? Tell me what would convince you actually the character in this book isn't perfectly good. What would convince you of that?

[00:04:19]That he was perfectly good that he is not >> would convince you that he isn't?

[00:04:24]Oh, that he isn't? Yes. I I would start with the resurrection. I wouldn't go to talking snakes. I wouldn't go to a dome.

[00:04:31]I would go right to the resurrection to see if Christ really rose from the dead and then see what he said about the Old Testament and the claims of God. This is the moment where the entire defense collapses.

[00:04:45]Because Alex O'Connor just laid out something that most people gloss over when they read the Bible.

[00:04:52]And once you see it clearly, you genuinely cannot unsee it.

[00:04:57]What Alex is pointing out is not just that animals died.

[00:05:03]It is that God specifically commanded their deaths and then punished a king for not finishing the job.

[00:05:11]That is the detail that matters.

[00:05:15]Saul kept some of the livestock alive and the response from God was not disappointment. It was regret that he ever made Saul king in the first place.

[00:05:27]Over animals.

[00:05:29]Animals that were supposed to be killed on command.

[00:05:34]You have to understand what that actually means theologically.

[00:05:38]This is not a natural disaster.

[00:05:41]This is not collateral damage from war.

[00:05:45]This is a direct divine instruction that said, "Go in, kill everything, and if you show mercy, you have failed me."

[00:05:55]That framing completely destroys the earlier deflection about animals being swept up in conflict.

[00:06:03]Alex already saw that deflection coming, and he shut it down before it even landed.

[00:06:09]And here is what blows my mind about Stewart's response.

[00:06:14]His answer was essentially, "Well, people in ancient Near Eastern cultures would not have had a problem with this."

[00:06:22]Think about what that argument is actually doing.

[00:06:26]It is saying the standard of what counts as moral behavior from God changes depending on which culture you are standing in.

[00:06:36]But if God is perfectly good and eternal, his goodness should not be relative to geography or century.

[00:06:45]That is not a defense of God's character.

[00:06:48]That is quietly admitting that the Bible reflects the values of the people who wrote it, not the values of a perfect being.

[00:06:59]And here is the historical context worth knowing.

[00:07:03]The concept of divine command in ancient Near Eastern warfare was not unique to the Israelites.

[00:07:10]Neighboring cultures also framed military campaigns as ordered by their gods.

[00:07:16]The Moabites, the Assyrians, they all did this. So, when Stewart says people back then would have accepted this, he is correct. But that is exactly the problem, because it means this looks exactly like what you would expect humans to write when they are trying to justify warfare, not what you would expect from a perfect moral lawgiver.

[00:07:40]Alex is not being emotional here. He is being precise, and precision is what makes this so hard to answer. You just said that God tortures animals. No, God stopped the torturing of human beings.

[00:07:54]Look at Molech, for example, and what was going on with child sacrifice. So, he would be considered way better, way more good than what you are stating right here. So, there's no torturing of animals. What happened in the flood?

[00:08:07]What happened in the flood? What happened in the flood? Did they drown over 40 days and nights? Yes or no? We don't know exactly.

[00:08:14]You're not allowed to not know that.

[00:08:15]You're not allowed to be agnostic. I I have no idea what that torturing supposedly looked like, or if it was a swift death.

[00:08:21]>> Hold on. Why Why are you allowed to say you don't know?

[00:08:24]>> I don't what that looked like, that type of justice. But to say that somehow people were holding little puppies in their hands and slowly killing them, I think that's a pretty weak argument.

[00:08:36]>> Who said that? Who said that? Nobody said that. And also, why don't we torturing. He used the word torturing.

[00:08:41]That doesn't That doesn't That doesn't flood. No, no, hang on. Hang on. The flood is happening over 40 days and nights.

[00:08:48]Now, in law, waterboarding, where you simulate drowning, is considered a torture. Now, this is actual drowning.

[00:08:57]Done over 40 days and nights. Let's think about this. The weak would die first. The little kittens would die before the adult cats, right? This would be a slow death. It's over 40 days and nights, too. Now, also consider Consider this, all right? In Joshua, what does God command of the Hebrew armies? He tells them to hough their horses. Do you know what houghing a horse is?

[00:09:22]What What is That's a good We are horse people, but you may you may know more about horses than me.

[00:09:26]>> Okay. To hough a horse, I had to look this up when I read it, is to sever the Achilles tendon of a horse, so that it can no longer run, can no longer walk.

[00:09:37]It's going to die a horrible death, and that is what God commands the Hebrew armies to do. And it's obviously why We know why because he It's for victory in battle. Now, God could have easily taught them how to use tranquilizers. He could He could have He could have teleported the horses elsewhere. He could have just put them to sleep for a few hours during the battle. But no, he commanded this torture.

[00:10:03]Right? Now, if that doesn't convince you that this God is not perfectly good, what would?

[00:10:11]Well, I just continue to rely on my favorite intellects over there where you guys are. And C.S. Lewis would answer yes, there's a problem emotionally for me when it comes to this issue, but there's a greater problem for the atheist agnostic in explaining this type of moral outrage they have over this issue. So, we both have problems. I'm not going to say, "Oh, this is an easy one." And I'm not going to say this is a Let's just turn it into a page-turner.

[00:10:37]No, there's true issues here, but I defer to C.S. Lewis, and I think Alex should as well when saying that you still have a bigger issue than me in answering this question when it comes down to where is this ultimate moral outrage coming from? It's just your own subjectivity.

[00:10:55]I would like to know >> try and convince Why try and convince me of this with your great moral outrage?

[00:11:00]Here is where Phil Halper brings in something so specific that there is genuinely no way to wave it away.

[00:11:07]Because up to this point, you could argue that the conversation was staying in abstract territory: commands, kingdoms, ancient texts. But Phil does something different. He goes and finds a single verse in Joshua, and he reads it out loud. And suddenly, this is not abstract anymore. Phil points out that God commanded the Hebrew armies to hoof their horses. And for anyone who does not know what that means, Phil explains it himself. To hough a horse is to sever the Achilles tendon so that it can no longer walk or run. The animal does not die quickly. It is immobilized and left to suffer until it dies. And this was not done by rogue soldiers acting outside their orders. This was the command. And then Phil says something that I think is the most devastating line in this entire segment. He says God could have easily taught them how to use tranquilizers. He could have teleported the horses elsewhere. He could have just put them to sleep for a few hours during the battle. But no, he commanded this torture. That line is so important because it removes every single escape route at once. You cannot say God was working within the limits of the natural world. You cannot say this was just how warfare worked. Because we are talking about an omni- potent being. A being who by definition could have chosen any other outcome. The choice to command this specific act when infinite alternatives existed is a choice that has to be explained. And what does Cliff say? He defers to C.S. Lewis. Now, I have enormous respect for C.S. Lewis as a writer and thinker. But deferring to a literary figure when someone has just handed you a direct textual command is not an answer. It is a redirect. And the audience can feel that. Here is what this moment reveals. When the evidence gets specific enough, the response shifts from theology to personality.

[00:13:12]Suddenly, we are talking about C.S.

[00:13:14]Lewis's emotional response to suffering rather than the actual verse in Joshua.

[00:13:20]That pattern is worth paying attention to. I'm not trying to convince you of a point of morality. I'm trying to convince you of a point of the truth of the Christian doctrine. I'm making a criticism similar to what Lincoln said of slavery. If this is not wrong, then nothing is wrong. I'm not saying that it's wrong. I'm not saying that it's immoral. I haven't used moralized terms.

[00:13:35]What I'm saying is that it's unexpected on the command of a loving God. C.S.

[00:13:39]Lewis, of course, has a chapter in The Problem of Pain where he discusses the suffering of animals. You know how he solves the problem? He says that they don't really experience pain. He says that they're in pain, but they don't realize it. This to me is is literally a nonsensical statement. I I I think that that actually doesn't make sense. If you want If you want to take that line, if if you want if you want to say, "Well, let's refer to C.S. Lewis."

[00:13:58]Look at what he says uh on the suffering of animals, and then ask yourself if you'd be okay torturing a dog because ultimately, although they look like they're in pain, they're not really experiencing it in the way that a human is. Also, be careful with your quotes. I mean, earlier, Stuart, you quoted Dostoevsky. You actually quoted one of the characters of Dostoevsky as saying that if God is dead, everything is permitted. Of course, the first place that this phrase everything is permitted actually occurs is in Crime and Punishment. Uh but in this place, it's it's applied to the extraordinary men, in particular Napoleon, who are willing to step step over the moral feeling that most people have because they've given themselves a position of authority that absolves them of the general morality to commit all kinds of criminality uh even though it kind of runs against people's intuitions. People like Napoleon, these great figures, are able to step over that as as uh as Dostoevsky or Raskolnikov says.

[00:14:44]And for those people, everything is permitted. That sounds a lot more like the kind of thing that the Israelites were doing than anything that any atheist has done. Also, Dostoevsky wrote in a letter to one of his friends, and I quote, "If anyone could prove to me that Christ is outside the truth, and the truth really did exclude Christ, I should prefer to stay with Christ and not with the truth."

[00:15:04]So, I agree with you that there are a great many literary greats who have uh ascended to Christianity, but some of them do so on such ludicrous notions as diminishing the idea that animals could feel pain in the way that other human beings can, and others do so explicitly saying that they would do so even if the facts were all against them. I also want to know why it is that when I'm asked about the most fundamental basic question of reality, whether there's a God and what the ultimate meaning of life is, that when I say I don't know, you say that that's an impossible question, that I'm not allowed to have that option available to me. But when we ask you a very direct simple textual question, do you think this actually happened and why, you're allowed to say you don't know on that much more simple question.

[00:15:45]Oh, this closing moment from Alex O'Connor is something else entirely.

[00:15:50]Because what he does here is not just win a point. He exposes a structural problem in the entire conversation. Alex points out that C.S. Lewis, one of the most celebrated Christian apologists of the 20th century, solved the problem of animal suffering by arguing that animals do not really experience pain the way humans do. They are in pain, but they do not realize it. And Alex calls this exactly what it is, a nonsense statement. Because if that logic held, you could apply it to justify anything done to any creature that cannot verbally report its suffering. That is not a solution to the problem. That is just redefining the problem out of existence.

[00:16:33]But then Alex does something even sharper. He catches a quote misattribution in real time. Stewart had been citing Dostoevsky as if the famous line about everything being permitted was a direct expression of Dostoevsky's world view. Alex corrects this precisely. He explains that the line comes from Crime and Punishment, that it is spoken by a character, and that in context, it describes extraordinary individuals who believe their greatness places them above ordinary morality.

[00:17:05]Alex then points out that this description maps far more accurately onto the military campaigns of the Israelites than onto anything an atheist has done. That is a clean reversal, and Stewart does not recover from it. And then comes the line that this entire clip has been building toward. Alex looks at Cliff and asks why agnosticism is treated as an intellectually impossible position when it comes to the biggest questions in existence, but the moment Alex asks a direct question about a specific biblical event, the answer is suddenly I don't know. You have to sit with that for a second because it is not just a clever debating point. It is a genuine logical inconsistency.

[00:17:50]Cliff spent a significant portion of this debate arguing that saying I don't know about God is a cop-out, that you are forced to take a position.

[00:18:01]But when the camera turns around and a specific textual claim is questioned, the same standard disappears completely.

[00:18:11]Alex did not say Cliff was lying.

[00:18:14]He did not attack his character.

[00:18:17]He just held up a mirror.

[00:18:20]And what the mirror showed was a double standard that the audience could see clearly.

[00:18:26]That is what makes this clip so rewatchable.

[00:18:30]It is not about anger.

[00:18:33]It is about precision.

[00:18:35]And precision done calmly lands harder than any raised voice ever could.

[00:18:43]So, what do you guys think of this?

[00:18:45]Leave your thoughts down in the comments. Please like and subscribe and I will see you in the next video.