How Alex O'Connor got his own Claim Wrong
Moral suffering of non-Human animals
At this point in today's culture, Christianity has peaked worldwide among believers. The Center for the Study of Global Christianity reported recently that the global Christian population is over 2.52 billion1. This is essentially a third of the entire Human race, yet culturally, the world has never been more secular. Atheism and agnosticism dominate the public sphere. Due to this strange imbalance of Global faith percentages vs. societal perspectives, seeing a video that showcases a non-believer vs. a group of Christians was enjoyable.
On January 26th, 2025 the YouTube channel Jubilee posted this video titled “1 Atheist vs 25 Christians (feat. Alex O'Connor) | Surrounded"2 and immediately the views skyrocketed. This style of debate has a particular form and function. Alex's first prompt for the Christians to reason against was:
Suffering makes God's existence unlikely
While phrased in this manner, throughout the disputations from the Christians, Alex redefined his assertation in this way
The Suffering of non-human animals makes God's existence unlikely
Because this is an internal critique that requires a prerequisite theological stance upon which to critique
Let's think about the basics of this problem for Alex, he is proposing that God is not all-loving because he allows for the suffering of non-human animals, therefore establishing the existence of God as unlikely.
Let's define God's Intrinsic Character Which Defines His Actions/non-Actions:
God is Omnipotent (All powerful. His power cannot be matched and is theoretically limitless)
God is Omnibenevolent (Wholly and perfectly good. A caveat to this is that 'good' is defined by God's character, any action/non-action that deviates from His character is intrinsically bad/evil/sin)
Pause. Let's take a second to break......
That was a lot, so let's pause for a couple more seconds........
Alright, now let's jump right back in
So now that we have defined some of God's internal character, let's re-address Alex's claim.
He is claiming that since there are animals (like deer, per his analogy) that get hurt and die without any necessary force or reason, therefore God cannot be ‘all-loving’ to allow such an animal to suffer for hours until its death.
Before I address my answer to his question, I must point out Alex's error
Alex O'Connor's Philosophical Mistake
I write this with extreme care and sincerity. Alex O’Connor is my favorite Agnostic/non-believer I listen to. His ability to fully comprehend philosophical treatises with profound accuracy is enjoyable.
Where I was surprised by Alex in this video, was that he made an inherently contradictory claim.
His Claim:
Alex -“I’m not really talking about evil here. Because that is a Moral term. I’m talking about suffering.”
Christian - “Can you distinguish the two?”
Alex - “Evil is a Moral term. Evil, meaning something bad or immoral, you would need a moral Ontology for that. Suffering is just an experience that is not wanted when experienced”
2:30-2:50 in the video above
Analogy of Working out
If you have ever spent any time doing physical activity then you know that suffering is the only way to grow. In the weight room of a gym, there will be guys lined up to do an exercise called the ‘bench press’. All exercises a person can do to become stronger are literally tearing down and breaking apart the muscle fibers within their body.
When the first time you experience a workout that breaks you down and makes you feel weak, sweaty, and small; in those moments of complete suffering you become stronger.
Suffering is inherently Good, even if we despise the process.
The Problem for Alex
Suffering in and of itself is not evil or wrong. As Alex stated, suffering is simply experiences that a subject does not want when experiencing. The mistake made lies in the nuances of the assertion.
If there was a conscious moral creature (the capability to perceive and reflect upon personal circumstances) to experience any imaginable activity, they would necessarily be capable of internally desiring a different situation. This creature could compare and contrast experiences against one another between better or worse circumstances.
How the Deer and Non-human Suffering Work for God
Setting aside the complicated philosophy, we all feel strong empathy for creatures that suffer. Especially when witnessing the suffering directly. So why would God allow non-sentient beings to experience cruelty? The answer is simple and definitely not going to satiate Alex, but is the truth when having a Biblical perspective. The World as we know it today was not always so cruel. The Earth (and presumably the universe) was a paradise without death and destruction. Unfortunately for all of us descendants of Adam and Eve we live in a cruel world where sin entered through one man. Corrupting not only man but every living thing.
So, simply put, it’s humanity’s fault.
Side note: Any person could have been in the garden, all would have chosen apart from God. That’s the hard part about not being God, we all wish we were.
Here’s My Point
To suffer means you recognize you are in a situation that is not ideal or desirable. What kinds of situations then are ideal and desirable? For there to be better or worse situations that any creature, conscious of their suffering or not, can experience there is the prerequisite of a standard that determines which circumstances are better or worse to be in.
As an internal critique posed by Alex O’Connor, the claim does not hold its own weight. The suffering of humans and non-humans does not increase the likelihood of God’s non-existence.
Zurlo, G. (2025, January 27). World christianity: It’s annual Statistical table time! OMSC. https://omsc.ptsem.edu/world-christianity-its-annual-statistical-table-time/#:~:text=For%20the%20last%2041%20years,to%20reach%2078%25%20by%202050.
Jubilee. (2025, January 26). 1 Atheist vs 25 Christians (feat. Alex O’Connor) | Surrounded. YouTube.
You nailed it. What he seems to be claiming is that “animals ought not to suffer” or that “it would be immoral for there to be suffering in a world with God.” But he has to presuppose an objective morality to make his argument. In other words, he has to presuppose a theistic world to argue against it. It’s self defeating. Francis Schaefer called this something like “leaping to the upper story” where atheists borrow from the Christian worldview while denying it. Good work, brother.
Thank you so much Jacob! I have learned a lot from an Apologist named Frank Turek and his podcast "I don't have enough faith to be an Athiest". He will sometimes reference one of his books "Stealing from God" where he dives deeply into that topic you mentioned.