Public debates about God, suffering, and morality often generate more heat than clarity. This is especially true when critiques of Christianity are made outside the internal logic of the biblical narrative itself.
Recently, I watched a short exchange in which Alex O’Connor challenges the Christian conception of God—particularly the idea that a good God could permit suffering. Rather than responding with a quick rebuttal or isolated counter-argument, I felt it was worth slowing the discussion down and approaching it more carefully.
In the video linked below, I offer a structured response organized around three foundational questions:
The goodness of God The nature of suffering The nature of reality
My central claim is not that Christianity should be accepted uncritically, but that meaningful critique requires engaging a worldview on its own terms. When arguments are removed from the theological and metaphysical framework they are critiquing, logical coherence often collapses—not because the questions are illegitimate, but because the structure being examined has been misunderstood.
This response draws from theology, philosophy, psychology, and evolutionary perspectives to clarify where many modern debates about God go astray. It is not intended as a polemic, but as an attempt to restore conceptual coherence to a discussion that is frequently reduced to abstractions or category errors.
If you’re interested in a more careful examination of these issues, you can watch the full video here:
I welcome thoughtful engagement and discussion.
Michael Thacker 