The dialogue between Alex and Phil on Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) explores arguments for and against the concept, highlighting logical inconsistencies. While Alex defends PSA, asserting it’s central to Christian faith, Phil critiques it, pointing to a lack of evidence for the equivalence between Jesus’ finite suffering and sin’s eternal penalty. The debate raises critical questions about justice, forgiveness, and the necessity of robust evidence in theological claims, revealing weaknesses in the defense of PSA.