Danny from Philtalk runs this same rebuttal to greater good defenses, that there is nothing which is (all things considered) evil. Everything evil in isolation has a justifying reason.
If all evil acts have a justified reason, then no matter what I or anybody else does is permitted morally, as it would be morally permissible on the grounds that it has a justifying reason. Why incarcerate murderers? Why tell children lying is morally impermissible? Why criticize Nazis. Why hate Democrats or Republicans if what they do or say is justified? Everything being justified assumes that every agent's evil or good action can see all of the consequences of their evil or good deeds. This is an admission that the CREATION is also the CREATOR. You're only rejecting the God of the Christian bible, not the existence of God.
sounds like some sort of moral anti-realism? in that case questions about a good god would be moot anyway, because "good" would be meaningless. personally, i'd rather give up god than morality…
Love this dialogue! I think it's helpful to make explicit what norms about justification we're working with. If one's set of justifying norms follow a Rowe-style stricture, then it follows that, under these conditions, we have what can be accurately termed a "necessity condition" (Schneider) or an additive approach to value-assigments (Adams). Within authorizable range delimited by the necessity condition, gratitious evils are just defined in terms of it's negation. If our norms are numerically identical with the necessity condition, then God having "morally sufficient reasons" is just the upper and lower limits of the necessity condition. I appreciate how Luis mentioned Chisholm's defeat-thesis and Pittard's defense of such in his paper. What if there's an alternative justifying-norm? This condition conceives of the justifiedness of permitting an evil in terms of "screening-off" the negative impact/influence of the evil on an agent's life, while integrating it into an over-all non-regrettable whole that is that agent's life-history. This condition is inherently anthropic, and I think it makes sense of the contextual dependency of moral authorization given God's unique relationship to the moral order.
I am having a hard time understanding that first paragraph and yet, when I read it I feel like it makes sense, but how can I know that if I dont understand it? I am sorry to ask but is it possible for you to say that in a different, simpler way? There was a few things from voltiare that were like this for me and I was able to look that up so I am trying to do the same thing here by asking you :)
For me, it was Divine Command Theory that drove me to inverse the Dostoevsky's dictum. But it is good to see there are other pathways to get there too.
It feels good to know I figured this out on my own just be debating in YT comments. Allow me to sum it up in a couple questions as that is what I do, I am a huge fan of the socratic method and this is a lot faster then typing out a syllogism. #1 If all evil is for the greater good, then does evil even exist or is there only good and the greater good? #2 If the child death is for the greater good, are you bad if you save the child and prevent the greater good from coming about? #3 If the child drowning is for the greater good and only god knows what that greater good is and we dont, then should we not sit and watch to see if god saves the child as that will be the only way to be sure that the childs death is bad or good?
#1. Yes, evil does exist because it'd be something that is temporarily displeasing to God. What I mean by "temporarily displeasing" is that in God's ultimate goal, certain occasions serve a finite purpose for God's eternal pleasure. 2# No, saving a child from death may be one good that is dependent on the mortality of children. To clarify, this isn't the equivalent to setting a house on fire so someone can put it out. Permitting the existence of an evil is incomparable to committing the pre-existing that evil because of the ontological and cosmic significance of an evil. In addition, in religions where an all-loving, all-powerful, and all-knowing God establishes a relationship we're obligated to do good which would include saving children. #3 We are not God, and we don't know what ultimately serves His will. However, we have been obligated by God to do good to the best of our abilities. If we've made an honest mistake in discerning what is right and wrong then we will be forgiven as long as we're willing to be forgiven. I should also note that I think this extends to non-resistant non-believers as well.
@@theintelligentmilkjug944 #1 Are morals objective? #2 If so, is there objective moral duties? #3 If so, is it immoral not to do objective moral duties?
@@macmac1022 #1. Morality is the distinction between good and bad, for us that would be subjective because it'd essentially be what displeases and pleases ourselves. However, God's moral preferences are based on absolute sound and reasonable abstractions because God is the greatest conceivable being; He will have the greatest conceivable preferences. These preferences are also universal and eternal because God Is universal and eternal. So, God's morality is either objective, or holds subjective, universal and eternal truths. I don't think it's possible that a claim can be subjective while being universally and eternally true, therefore, God's morality is objective. #2. If God holds objective moral standards and commands others to do His will then yes objective moral duties exist. #3 Yes, it would be immoral to not do the duties commanded by God.
@@theintelligentmilkjug944 Good good, now the follow up questions. #1 You see a child drowning in a shallow pool and notice a person just watching that is able to save the child with no risk to themselves but is not, is that persons non action moral? #2 If you go to save the child, the man tells you to stop as he was told it was for the greater good, but he does not know what that is, do you continue to save the child? #3 Is it an act of justice to punish innocent people for the crimes of others? #4 If you were able to stop it and knew a person was about to grape a child would you stop it? #5 Would you consider a parent who put their kids in a room with a poison fruit and told the kids not to eat it but then also put the best con artist in the room with the children knowing the con artist will get the kids to eat the fruit and the parent does nothing to stop it a good parent?
@@macmac1022Good arguments and method, I agree with you. I used to be a theist and I've found that at least for me, (but safe to say many other theists), theodicies are just weak attempts to reconcile the *VERY VERY OBVIOUS* indifference of the universe with the idea of an omni-God creator. None of these hypotheses are verifiable because they are made to be compatible with a vast array of observations. There is no moral regularity to the universe (greater goods consistently coming about, justice being served, etc), as expected under naturalism. Furthermore theodicies make no predictions. They just post-dict, ie. explain away past events, but say nothing of future events (besides the second-coming and Last Judgement, of which conveniently nobody knows the day nor the hour). It's way more psychological than theists like to admit, and this is exactly what I'd say to my past theistic self.
More accurately, everything (including our worst atrocities) are permitted. Because theoretically, god may have prevented some even worse atrocity. I don't think that weakens Luis's argument, however.
@@donjindra How so? We have formulated many rules and laws based around the idea that all men are created equal and have natural rights, which is inseparable from God. So this seems clearly false. History has proven that humans are capable of committing any evil act when they do what is right in their own eyes. The rules we adhere to seem to prove that with God, not everything is permitted.
@@harlowcj "We have formulated many rules and laws based around the idea that all men are created equal and have natural rights, which is inseparable from God." That is Christian propaganda. Natural rights are not a Christian idea. It's doubtful that Locke was a Christian, for example. Thomas Jefferson sure wasn't -- not in a religious sense anyway. History has proven that humans are capable of committing any evil act when they follow God. Even the Bible expresses that truth.
@@donjindra Who influenced Locke? Prove that the ideal exists apart from the concept of God. While you're at it prove that your obvious contradiction that a casual agent can simultaneously follow God and commit an evil act is not an obvious contradiction.
@@harlowcj Who influenced Locke? Locke's Two Treatises of Government was in direct opposition to the Christian political theology of "Sir Robert Filmer, and His Followers." So Locke's Christian influence was negative -- he was reacting against it. Cicero wrote on natural law. Cicero was not a Christian and did not draw on Christian ideas. So it's easy to show natural law is not rooted in Christian theology. "While you're at it prove that your obvious contradiction that a casual agent can simultaneously follow God and commit an evil act is not an obvious contradiction." What logical contradiction? You seem to suggest that whatever God commands (or, rather, what humans believe God commands) is necessarily good. I reject that assumption entirely. So if that's where you're headed,. your logical contradiction is based on a false assumption.
I always like hearing a philosopher formalize the same thoughts that I have had on a subject. Except the agrippa trilemma, I actually had hoped to be wrong about that one.
I have never heard of philosophers who actually argue that a god does not need justifying reasons to permit evil to happen. It is wild to me that even such a view exists. But I supposed I should not be surprised given how in philosophy for any problem there is some views that denies that problem even exists.
If God is evil, or just neutral, then he doesn't need any justifications. The problem of evil only arises when a perfectly good God is assumed. There is no problem of evil with other kind of God ideas.
So as a theist who’s into greater-goods theodicies, I think intrinsic goods like showing care or empathy take motivational precedence over whatever might be an instrumental good. So punching someone randomly under the idea that there’s an all-good God who allows necessary evils is not as motivated as being friendly to that person, all else being equal. You should also save the drowning child and not let them drown because that would show mercy, an intrinsic good, which takes motivational precedence over letting the child drown so some other good to be brought out of their suffering. Moreover, at least for my perspectivalism, the issue isn’t my not knowing merely *if* there is a justifying good for some apparently-evil action under theism. The issue is *how* the justifying good will come about from, e.g., my letting a child drown. I might know *that* God has set the cosmos so that other humans or conscious creatures will cultivate care, community, and empathy out of apparent harms that would be instrumental goods under theism. Nevertheless, as a human, I do not know *how* other humans will cultivate intrinsic goods like empathy out of such instrumental goods. Other people might show mercy to a victim of apparent harm immediately after the harm takes place, or they might not. A victim might well wind up as a statistic that eventually motivates care-driven government action in the far future. Or the government might collapse and their neglect of those who died will serve as a cautionary tale to whatever civilization comes after ours. An omniscient, omnipotent God would know how these justifying intrinsic goods would come about, but I don’t. If I don’t know how some good will be cultivated out of, e.g., letting a child drown, then my motivation to do apparently-harmful actions or allow those actions to happen is even more significantly weakened.
So you agree that the Holocaust was good, the Holdomor was good, Cambodian genocide was good, Bangladesh genocide was good…that's 18,000,000 deaths. Those 18m deaths were good because they created feelings or led to legislation. That's a sick view, sir.
@@HumblyQuestioning That’s not my view at all. Those horrific events are not intrinsically good. I think they *will be* instrumentally good because I think humanity’s capacity for empathy and community-building and care will inevitably redeem them. But that remains to be seen. We are not in a position to say they have been instrumentally good at this point in time because humanity has yet to fully heal from them.
#1 If all evil is for the greater good, then does evil even exist or is there only good and the greater good? #2 If the child death is for the greater good, are you bad if you save the child and prevent the greater good from coming about? #3 If the child drowning is for the greater good and only god knows what that greater good is and we dont, then should we not sit and watch to see if god saves the child as that will be the only way to be sure that the childs death is bad or good?
@@macmac1022 1.) Evil exists as a type of instrumental good under greater good theodicies. Intrinsic goods are worth bringing about more than instrumental goods, all things considered. 2.) No. That was the point of my original comment. Saving the child is an intrinsically good act, to be preferred over letting the child drown for the sake of some other greater good you don’t know about. Your rescuing the child and practicing care IS the greater/redeeming good. 3.) No. Bringing about the greater good is our task. However, God can push us towards bringing it about.
@@vulteiuscatellus4105 So what that a yes or a no for question #1? So if you saved a child that god was going to let die because a virus will develop in that child and kill 7 billion people and nearly end humanity, you would be good by saving that child and allowing that to happen? #1 Are morals objective? #2 If so, are there objective moral duties? #3 If so, is it immoral not to do those objective moral duties? #4 Does god do objective moral duties?
To a religious person: *Harmless things become bad if god says he doesn't like it and what's worse is that harmful things become moral and even good if god tells you to do it*
God is immutable so things don't "become bad" if he says he doesn't "like it" also harm doesn't equate to moral that's fallacious In Christian theology there's God, the divine law the natural law and the human law, the natural law is what God gave us in order that we may access the divine law but because of the fall this got messed up and now we try to use the human law to access the natural law but we're not always correct for the example we generally agree on the harm principle but running to Atheism or Agnosticism gets us in a weird place where morality is somehow objective but divorced from God or morality isn't objective at all
@KayleePrince-we5pb The reason morality would be objective with God is if God is identical to goodness itself, is the source of said goodness as well as morals and values being reflections of the nature of God ie immutability
@KayleePrince-we5pb I was pointing out that how it affects someone doesn't give the justification as to why it is right or wrong that was my point it's a non sequitur
@@LilySage-mf7uf How can "It doesn't matter if it doesn't gives the justification and " if your actions negatively affect me than of course I'd take steps to prevent it" both be true in the same respect in any possible world
Hey Joe, I thought of three counterarguments to this thesis and am curious if you find any compelling. The two level utilitarian argument: We should act in ways that generally promote good outcomes unless there are particular instances where a locally immoral act guarantees a good result. So the means justify the ends only if the ends are obvious to the actor. Letting a child drown is almost always negative EV, so only an omniscient or near omniscient agent is justified to do it. The happenstance vs instance argument: Necessary evils promote virtues because they are possible to happen and happen *sometimes* , not because every single one of them does so. So, it is a morally better world because it's a world in which children *can* drown, not because as many children as possible drown, so every individual time we see a child drowning, we should still save them. The virtue mechanism argument: Necessary evils promote virtues because they make us strive against them. So it's not that children drowning promotes virtue qua the child drowning, it's that children drowning promotes virtue qua it moving us to exercise courage in saving them, so we should save them.
As a Christian, it is easy to say that we can permit moral evils for our own creations but since other people are not our own creation/property, we cannot act like God (some permission with regards to our own children). I think his argument falls short because it is not a parallel case. Good attempt though.
I'm not feeling this philosophical argument; here's why: It is logically possible for G to permit something while intending us to overcome/avoid that same something (e.g., some kind of "existence as a test" theodicy); however, we can not simultaneously hold the goal of permitting something, while holding the goal of overcoming/avoiding that same something (e.g., we cannot seek to simultaneously pass and fail the test?). Symmetry fails by being logically inconsistent from our POV, but not from God's.
The concept of evil is subjective (i.e relativistic) and non-authoritative from an atheistic perspective or an agnostic one, where morality is seen as societal norms rather than objective truths, therefore morality differs from one society to another, and how it was in ancient times and how it is now, therefore leading to mereological nihilism, different cultures have labelled varying views of morality on a same deed of a person, therefore you cannot really say whether God is evil or good, these metaphysical truths cannot derived without invoking an objective basis, and naturalistic explanations cannot reduce metaphysical truths, it would be a categorial error and a non-sequitur. In Islamic theism he is authoritative of legislating Good or bad because God understood as the ultimate authority and creator, transcending human concepts of good and evil, in Islamic theology its worth noting his attributes are unlike of humans (42:11), therefore his attributes are not to be anthropomorphized as per Islamic theology, the attributes offer a glimpse and cannot be exhausted by us of finite metaphysical understanding and comprehension that's why God's words and attributes cannot be definitively exhausted by our intellect as pointed (31:27) in the Qur'an. In Islamic theism, life is a test for humanity so they know their fate of hereafter, and ultimate justice is served in the afterlife, and part of it served in this life as well, in accordance to what God has legislated good or bad, and if someone is devoid of what he revealed they will have a separate test on the day of judgement. Evil is what we perceive due to our skewed understandings of the landscape of metaphysics, everything Allah does is considered to be in accordance with His infinite wisdom and justice. Even if certain events or actions might appear to humans as unjust or inexplicable, they are believed to be part of a larger divine plan that is ultimately for the greater good. One can say whatever God deems as good or evil is arbitrary to him, well to some extent, he is the judge and the creator, and his stances are in accordance to his divine plan of things and wisdom, and it is he who has given this test of life to humans so that we can know our fate in hereafter, therefore He is authoritative and anthropically depicting his legislations as arbitrary would not entirely be correct as he is the creator of metaphysical reality, transcendental from concepts of good or evil, denying this just ends up with non-sensical frameworks having unreconcilable epistemic regress.
Dr. Justin Mooney and Dr. Luis Oliveira argue that the existence of God might imply that everything is permitted if we adhere to divine command theory. However, this perspective misunderstands the nature of divine morality as I’ve outlined. First, divine command theory does not imply that morality is arbitrary. According to Islamic theology, God’s commands are grounded in His nature and infinite wisdom, which transcend human concepts of good and evil. This means that moral standards are not merely based on divine whim but are inherently tied to God’s just and wise nature and plan. Second, the Euthyphro dilemma, which questions whether actions are good because God commands them or if God commands them because they are good, misunderstands the Islamic view. In Islamic thought, God’s attributes and commands are not subject to human notions of good and evil; they are reflections of His divine perfection. Thus, the dilemma itself is resolved by recognizing that divine commands are an expression of an objective moral order that is beyond our complete comprehension. Third, the concern about undermining moral autonomy is misplaced. In Islamic theology, God’s guidance provides a framework for understanding morality that complements rather than diminishes human moral reasoning, we can either follow what He legislated or not, in this test of life. God's commands are not arbitrary but are part of a larger divine plan that considers human welfare and justice, as he is authoritative and transcendental. Overall, the video’s argument overlooks the depth of Islamic ethical teachings, which position God's commands as expressions of an objective moral reality rather than as arbitrary decrees. Therefore, the existence of God, far from implying that everything is permitted, actually provides a robust foundation for understanding and upholding objective moral values rather forcing binding relativistic and secular ones baselessly of moral autonomy of anything, whilst being agnostic of it. ik the video is not aimed at Islamic theistic understanding of what is ehtically moral or not, however these are my takes, whilst having theological coherence and understanding, which may have been overlooked.
Everything is permitted with or without a religion or any god. There may be consequences of certain actions. If a God with certain characteristics exists - one who will make being dead an all-pleasure experience for everyone [who follows the correct rituals] - then there would be no "Godly" consequences for any act [except not following the rituals].
I'd love to see you talk with SIIG about anything philosophy his a Christian, young 19-20 years old and is now going onto different big channels over time
I like this twist on the old question. Why not? If God is our creator and we are truly free, God would want to see the millions of weird ways we would live our lives.
From the Abrahamic scriptures, we see that there is a permissive will of God and a direct intervening will. Seeing the destructiveness of humanity, and yet we still exist with some semblance of good things in life, I would have to conclude that by God's grace there are limits to what he permits. And there are blessings from what he encourages. Also from the Abrahamic scriptures, we see that evil does not exist as a separate power in itself. Rather, it is the willful misuse or ignoring of the good. This is possible, again, because of the degrees of freedom permitted to sapient creatures, although only within divine parameters. Ultimately, people are responsible for the choices they make, to stick to the good or to turn their backs on it. Those who choose to prey on their fellows are an outlier, while most people fall in the middle of the curve somewhere.
"From the Abrahamic scriptures, we see that there is a permissive will of God and a direct intervening will." Do we? I don't see anything in scripture stating God has two independent minds. Quite the opposite. God can't will two different things at once. I'm not sure that claim is even coherent for an omniscient and omnipotent being. I'm also not sure the idea of permissive will makes any sense unless you're an open theist. "Also from the Abrahamic scriptures, we see that evil does not exist as a separate power in itself. Rather, it is the willful misuse or ignoring of the good." I think that's false, both in principle and in the claim that Abrahamic scriptures say this. Illness is not the willful misuse or ignoring of health. Indifference is not evil if there is no positive duty necessitating action. God also claims in scripture to create and be responsible for evil and calamity, as proof of his sovereignty.
@@Uryvichk Are you looking for rationalistic claims? That's not how people back in those days explained things. They did it through story/narrative. By making connections in that way. If you know the stories and how they connect, then the revelation is apparent. The point? God is not a concept. He is the source of being and comes to people through being, person to person, in the stuff of our lives. The same is true for believers today as for then.
@@stephenbailey9969 Yes, I am looking for claims that make sense. If you can't offer a claim that makes sense, all you have is a fictional story about a fictional concept you call God. God in fact is a concept, and probably, solely a concept.
@@stephenbailey9969Premise: The proposed omniscient, all-knowing god can never be wrong about anything - right? Right. It can neither see a false future nor a false past. The god is immutable, as it cannot be made a liar. *In light of Christianity's premise, I have a QUESTION:* Does the all-knowing god _know,_ whose name will be written in the "Book of Life," _before_ 'creating' each person? If the god sees, even before creation, that a person will inevitably go to hell-despite perhaps "accepting Christ"-then what? Recall: "Not all will go to glory; some I never knew," etc. Knowing this future with absolute certainty, the god still creates the majority of humanity, condemning them to hell. After all, "Only a few may enter," etc. Given this diabolical scheme, the god _must_ manipulate the pre-condemned person's life to ensure they end up where it foresaw them going, before creating them, to avoid being a liar or fraud. And remember, the god has already admitted that _only a relative few_ will make it to heaven because the path is narrow etc.
People who argue about what's good and bad, right and wrong, continue to commit the sin of eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. God has given everyone free will to do just that. Well, it would also have worked out without, like it did in the garden of Eden. In any case, god allowed and allows that to happen for a reason. What's the greater good coming from this? That we, by experiencing the madness of confusion and the pain of ignorance, come to the conclusion, that to know nothing about the difference of god and evil is the preferable state of mind. That we then freely surrender to god in full trust that he will guide us from within with his wisdom, leaving all decisions and thinking up to him, in other words, that we basically cease to exist as separate beings, giving up our free will voluntary, out of free will so to speak (Don't ask me how that works) and return to innocence. Voila. But wait, that's a lie! Why to start that shitty story in the first place? God could have had that tree, with the bloody snake hiding in it NOT standing in the garden of Eden and everything would have remained perfect ... but then he would be, technically speaking, all alone by himself, slowly drifting into a depression. So that's why he split himself into two and the first being he created was - The Adversary, the father of lies, fallen angels, demons, evil spirits, aliens and humans and above all; atheists. In this way he defeated his depression and boredom once and for all. THAT, ladies and gentleman, is the greater good! Now, my dear reader, could that be evil, like as in very selfish? You decide ...
Good stuff. Problems: 1. God does have reasons for every action he takes; it is neither required nor even possible for humans to know those reasons, so a general policy is good enough because at least it can be known and it provides evidence that particular reasons exist even if they aren’t known 2. The Christian God is “not a respecter of persons.” Some of the requirements around “this doesn’t seem like a loving God” are problems on the perception side of the seemer
As Darkmatter2525 put it, the god of the Bible is not mysterious. The Bible lays out his endgame in plain wording. The vast majority of humans will be denied death and compelled to exist in a state of agony. A small handful will be spared Hell but only on the condition that they worship and praise him. And as Christians love to point out, before Jesus orders anyone cast into Hell, he will mind control them and force their knees to bow and their tongues to worship him. Then the torture.
Philosophers must live on a different planet for me because I don't even see any problem at all from a Christian perspective. Can someone explain? Christians believe we live in a participatory universe. A child who falls into a pond should be saved, because God wants us to participate in His universe. What's the problem for the Christian?
The problem is that we cannot know which things we're supposed to participate in, because we cannot know what God -- if one exists -- would actually want. Not even the scriptures of any religion can cover every single case, so there will always be gaps where the intention of whatever divinity is proposed are not known. In those circumstances, we cannot be sure what we "ought" to do.
@@Uryvichk I appreciate the response. Here is why I am unbothered by what you call the gaps. Within Christianity, God promises the Holy Spirit to at a personal level essentially fill the gaps not covered by Scripture or church authority. There is a promise of divine wisdom to those who walk with God to know what "ought" to be done in blurry situations. That is the Christian teaching. That aside, a child who slips and falls into a pond is hardly a gray situation in Christianity. Which is why I am confused by the dilemma.
@@harlowcj The problem is that the god sees it and dos nothing yet we see it and are compelled to act. Not that I expect you to appreciate the problem since you seem more caught up in your christian identity than addressing the issue
@@harlowcj OK. Does God keep that promise? I don't think he does, and I don't think you can demonstrate that he does. No one has ever demonstrated that they possess divine wisdom. No one can show what God actually does and does not desire, if for the sake of argument we presume a God to exist. Scriptures are only claims, and if they don't happen, they can be rejected. I have never once observed the Holy Spirit doing anything, so I am inclined to reject any claim that the Holy Spirit does anything at all or even exists. Can you show otherwise?
@@TheOtherCaleb The fall happened because we trusted our moral compass over God's. Yes, we have a conscience and on a practical level, we must trust it, but ultimately, justice is the Lord's.
If Theism is true, then people are just manufactured products, human knowledge is worthless, and there is no existential inertia. The only thing that actually matters is God. I can't harm nor improve the only thing that actually matters. I can only capitulate to his arbitrary desires in my own interest. God will ultimately make the universe into the way he wants it, so there are no moral consequences for my actions outside of my own selfish desire for personal salvation. There is no morality in this system. If naturalism is true, humanity is a profoundly unlikely event in this part of the galaxy and each unique person possesses unique knowledge and it seems that there is nothing that can happen in the universe incidentally that humanity cannot potentially cause or stop DELIBERATELY. If objective value is based on replaceability and exclusive effects to increase possibilities for the future, then the most priceless things that we have discovered are humanity, people, human knowledge, and all that sustains them. These things really matter because they include the effects of anything that could possibly matter. It certainly matters to me, more than myself. I can't rationally place my self importance outside the context of humanity and other people and priceless human knowledge. They are in real danger of extinction if naturalism is true. The past is permanent and destruction is eternal. I would not risk doing actual eternal harm in the real world to satisfy a selfish delusion of immortality and personal salvation. That would be morally wrong and an evil waste of something extraordinary in a universe of rocks and gas balls.
god permits whatever evil pleases it and god's pleasure is the highest good. problem of evil solved. the solution nukes ordinary moral intuitions, but all theodicies do that. the whole point of theism is that everything exists for god's pleasure, and our human morality is irrelevant.
Not sure it would solve it. God as he is defined couldn't be pleased by evil, because as apologists like Trent Horn would say, evil is mostly the lack of good, and ultimately the lack of something (for instance, the lack of empathy). God doesn't lack a drop of empathy or anything else, so the idea he could be pleased by evil wouldn't hold in their view, unless if we accept that he is not perfectly good which is the whole point of the problem of evil. According to them, God can ONLY be perfectly good, he has to by definition. To me, we are just going circles with this idea that evil can be good. If God is pleased by evil, he is not good, and then not God, as simple as that.
@karndesintox9612 it solves it because empathy is not inherently good on theism. only god's pleasure is good. morality doesn't apply to god, it has no obligations. what we call evil (suffering, cruelty, etc.) often plrases god. indeed, the god of christianity is said to be pleased by the infinite suffering it imposes on almost all human souls, in hell. if god is pleased by infinite suffering, why not finite suffering? strictly speaking, in christianity, empathy is a sin. you're supposed to love, and god is supposedly love, but 'love' for a person is defined as wanting them to be used for god's pleasure. it's not caring for their comfort or safety. some vessels are made for destruction, etc.
All of these types of discussions about the problem of evil just convince me more and more why God is God and we are not. If God were as cynical or evil as human beings, He would be laughing hysterically and mockingly at how stupid His creation is. Yes, if God exists, we, His creation, are comparatively dumb as doorknobs. Because a child is drowning we humans are never justified in letting them drown without trying to help them by claiming that if we were to save the drowning child, we would be preventing it from growing into a virtuous person in heaven. Why? Because the implicit assumption is that we have the wisdom and knowledge of God. It also assumes that God cannot use all of man's free actions for good, no matter what man chooses to do or not to do. This shallow way of thinking is why God is God and mankind are mere mortals who think they are just as intelligent as their creator. Did you guys ever stop to consider that if God does exist, what you can think of, all the possible edge cases, are so few compared to what is at the disposal of God when He makes decisions and judgments?
I don't see why I should believe you know anything about God then. You're basically saying nothing about God can be understood, which means you don't understand God either. So your claims could simply be wrong.
@@Uryvichk No! I didn't say "nothing" about God can be understood. Where did I say that? I just don't see how it has been established that human's have the eternal vision, the capacity to see every edge case relevant to ruling out with high confidence that the permission or allowance of free agents to commit evil acts cannot be used for a greater good by an omniscient God whose foreknowledge of all events in time takes into account subjunctive conditionals. Byerly, in his book "The Mechanics of Divine Foreknowledge" goes on to develop the following argument as a response to the Foreknowledge Argument: 1. We are in a position to know that the foreknowledge argument is sound only if we are in a position to know that divine foreknowledge requires the existence of something which makes persons lack freedom. 2. We are not in a position to know that divine foreknowledge requires the existence of something which makes persons lack freedom. So, 3. We are not in a position to know that the foreknowledge argument is sound. I don't see any good argument that shows that God's foreknowledge requires that human agents lack freedom. If human foreknown actions don't lack freedom, then how can any evil act of such agents be justified, particularly when such actions, whether evil or good, don't interfere with God's ultimate plan of a greater good? Even if agents' actions alter the course God takes to achieve such a greater good, it doesn't necessarily follow that they can alter the GREATER ultimate good, or prevent it from happening as though they caught an omniscient God off guard, somehow.
@@Uryvichk It looks like my response was deleted. I don't know why. I'm posting it here again: No! I didn't say "nothing" about God can be understood. Where did I say that? I just don't see how it has been established that human's have the eternal vision, the capacity to see every edge case relevant to ruling out with high confidence that the permission or allowance of free agents to commit evil acts cannot be used for a greater good by an omniscient God whose foreknowledge of all event in time takes into account subjunctive conditionals. Byerly, in his book "The Mechanics of Divine Foreknowledge" goes on to develop the following argument as a response to the Foreknowledge Argument: 1. We are in a position to know that the foreknowledge argument is sound only if we are in a position to know that divine foreknowledge requires the existence of something which makes persons lack freedom. 2. We are not in a position to know that divine foreknowledge requires the existence of something which makes persons lack freedom. So, 3. We are not in a position to know that the foreknowledge argument is sound. I don't see any good argument that shows that God's foreknowledge requires that human agents lack freedom. If human foreknown actions don't lack freedom, then how can any evil act of such agents be justified, particularly when such actions, whether evil or good, don't interfere with God's ultimate plan of a greater good? Even if agents' actions alter the course God takes to achieve such a greater good, it doesn't necessarily follow that they alter the GREATER good, or prevent it from happening as though they caught an omniscient God off guard, somehow.
Well, it is a very elaborated "God mysterious way" comment but I think that kind of argument ultimately relies on faith, and therefore won't convince any non-believer. It makes the whole idea of religion even more questionable, because the most rational view, if we admit the premise that God can't be understood, is not to try and define him. Ironically, nothing could be said about God. Now, atheists usually accept the premise of the existence of God for the sake of the arguments, but if we were to ask believers to prove that a God exists in the first place to then discuss its features, we would be going circles everytime, because they would HAVE to rely on its features to proves its God. Again, no discussion is possible on the ground that "God ways are mysterious, we have to take the risk to define it, religions started it, not atheists.
@@karndesintox9612 But, atheists also believe in things that are not rational, such as that the Universe came from "nothing," suggesting that from "nothing" comes "something." They appeal to theoretical models in mathematical physics with fudge factors and imaginary numbers to make their hypothetical case. Some atheists and physicists would argue that the "nothing" in this context isn't a literal nothing, but a different kind of state or quantum vacuum. They seem to do this to strengthen their argument by trying to preempt a common counterargument to the absurdity of proposing that the universe came from a literal nothing. Their modifications and qualifications don't strengthen the persuasiveness of their case, though. As soon as a theist proposes an explanation for the existence of God, atheists claim in response that such a posited God is irrational because by the definition of God, His attributes are unknowable. I never quite understood how not knowing every aspect of God precludes not knowing the aspects of God He intended His creation to understand, as well as the properties of Himself that are all that are necessary to know.
Why does an entity ostensibly superior to us have to not like whatever in order for us to justifiably not like it as well? Do the properties therein somehow change depending on what this entity thinks? Do these properties change depending on what lowly humans think?
"Let us do evil that good may result -there condemnation is deserved." The ends doesn't justify the means, Biblically. The people saying God permits evil for greater good haven't studied enough. Nothing can merit God's goodness. Grace is grace. Rather, He allows evil and uses it according to the counsel of His will. The distinction is important because God is Holy. "In Him there is no darkness at all."
@@BuddhaMonkey7 "Who has given to Me that I should repay him? Everything belongs to Me." It is the claim of the Bible that God does not owe anyone anything because He is the One who created everything and from Him and for Him were all things created. "Has not the Potter the right over the clay?"
@@macmac1022 Creation belongs to God. He can create children to die just as much He did ants or livestock or worms. Laying upon Him your emotional insecurities is not the same as Him being wrong. Even without a God you say the universe is a cold place. But what does the truth owe you? If random moving molecules should be indifferent towards your pains, how much more a God to whom all things are due?
@@fatalheart7382 God does not own creation. That is childish and monstrous. When you create something you owe responsibility toward it and may not arbitrarily do whatever you wish with it. If God created, God actually DOES owe creation something, and inescapably so.
so the question if he can, is "invalid". he wont, except in one place where reason is complete and evil is broken into none....which is not our place today.
Does not the gist of kenotic theology--the idea of necessary self-limitation of divine Being in order to engender mortal being, that the all good and only good deity had to create at least a partially evil world in order to create anything other than divine perfection--does not the thrust of such thinking help explain why our world is a blend of order and disorder, joy and suffering, beauty and horror, etc.? And if God does not relate to Creation as a puppeteer pulling the strings of every occurrence, if our world rather has some degree of autonomy and therefore randomness (in accord with kenotic thought), then the problem of evil morphs into a different question, not how the deity can allow a particular evil occurrence but rather whether the world we live in has more evil in it than it had to have in order to exist in the first place. In other words, was Leibniz right or not that we live in the best POSSIBLE world?
And what if heaven could only exist as a redemption or completion of an imperfect world, as a plant is germinated by a seed? But this is speculation well beyond our pay grade, is it not? When it comes to such questions, we are, William James observed, like dogs and cats in a library, staring at shelves of books.
Evil is the effect on creation if God was going to die. In comparison to eternity, it is a brief moment in time. Evil is a state of nature now contrary to what was originally designed. The knowledge of good and evil are experiences beyond the concepts.
The ability to do otherwise given the same circumstances from free will is logically impossible so free will is not a defense. The only way we could do otherwise in the same circumstances is if part of our decision is random. In all cases we cannot help who we are or what we do. Divine judgment is immoral in any form. Agency is an emergent property of determinism.
It’s very simple: practically every single action that has been widely condemned as immoral by one culture or society has been deemed moral by some religion or another. Slavery, rape, killing, genocide, theft. All the usual suspects and more have been condoned or even commanded by one religion or another. It is self-evident that religion does not inhibit immoral acts.
the question of the video wasn't whether religion is good or bad. (i think it's overall bad, but obviously some are worse than others. and there is a fair bit of fuzzyness about what religion even is…) > practically every single action that has been widely condemned as immoral by one culture or society that includes an awful lot f things that aren't actually immoral. because people can be mistaken. > has been deemed moral by some religion or another that does not imply every religion, or even a majority. > It is self-evident that religion does not inhibit immoral acts. what you have established is that some religion endorse what some cultures deem immoral (including some actually immoral things). if you want to make a point on religion overall, you would have to quantify and compare it to irreligion.
@@PaulPereira-l5q Notice that you do not provide any specific examples of where common sense is lacking. This implies to me that you do not actually have anything to contribute to the conversation.
Danny from Philtalk runs this same rebuttal to greater good defenses, that there is nothing which is (all things considered) evil. Everything evil in isolation has a justifying reason.
If all evil acts have a justified reason, then no matter what I or anybody else does is permitted morally, as it would be morally permissible on the grounds that it has a justifying reason. Why incarcerate murderers? Why tell children lying is morally impermissible? Why criticize Nazis. Why hate Democrats or Republicans if what they do or say is justified? Everything being justified assumes that every agent's evil or good action can see all of the consequences of their evil or good deeds. This is an admission that the CREATION is also the CREATOR. You're only rejecting the God of the Christian bible, not the existence of God.
It’s especially hurtful to Christianities with atonement theories that have Christs death and sacrifice as justifying us in our our sins to God…😬
@@Lmaoh5150 How so?
Only if Danny had the same demeanor as Joe.
sounds like some sort of moral anti-realism? in that case questions about a good god would be moot anyway, because "good" would be meaningless.
personally, i'd rather give up god than morality…
Love this dialogue!
I think it's helpful to make explicit what norms about justification we're working with. If one's set of justifying norms follow a Rowe-style stricture, then it follows that, under these conditions, we have what can be accurately termed a "necessity condition" (Schneider) or an additive approach to value-assigments (Adams). Within authorizable range delimited by the necessity condition, gratitious evils are just defined in terms of it's negation. If our norms are numerically identical with the necessity condition, then God having "morally sufficient reasons" is just the upper and lower limits of the necessity condition.
I appreciate how Luis mentioned Chisholm's defeat-thesis and Pittard's defense of such in his paper. What if there's an alternative justifying-norm? This condition conceives of the justifiedness of permitting an evil in terms of "screening-off" the negative impact/influence of the evil on an agent's life, while integrating it into an over-all non-regrettable whole that is that agent's life-history. This condition is inherently anthropic, and I think it makes sense of the contextual dependency of moral authorization given God's unique relationship to the moral order.
I am having a hard time understanding that first paragraph and yet, when I read it I feel like it makes sense, but how can I know that if I dont understand it? I am sorry to ask but is it possible for you to say that in a different, simpler way? There was a few things from voltiare that were like this for me and I was able to look that up so I am trying to do the same thing here by asking you :)
1. Se tem brasileiro no vídeo, então o vídeo terá meu like.
2. Tem brasileiro no vídeo.
C. Logo, o vídeo terá meu like.
🇧🇷
Estou aqui para corroborar com a premissa 2
Wow, I didn't know about Dr. Luis, it's awesome to see a philosopher from my country being on Joe's channel. Did you ask him if he likes soccer? 🇧🇷😂
For me, it was Divine Command Theory that drove me to inverse the Dostoevsky's dictum. But it is good to see there are other pathways to get there too.
It feels good to know I figured this out on my own just be debating in YT comments. Allow me to sum it up in a couple questions as that is what I do, I am a huge fan of the socratic method and this is a lot faster then typing out a syllogism.
#1 If all evil is for the greater good, then does evil even exist or is there only good and the greater good?
#2 If the child death is for the greater good, are you bad if you save the child and prevent the greater good from coming about?
#3 If the child drowning is for the greater good and only god knows what that greater good is and we dont, then should we not sit and watch to see if god saves the child as that will be the only way to be sure that the childs death is bad or good?
#1. Yes, evil does exist because it'd be something that is temporarily displeasing to God. What I mean by "temporarily displeasing" is that in God's ultimate goal, certain occasions serve a finite purpose for God's eternal pleasure.
2# No, saving a child from death may be one good that is dependent on the mortality of children. To clarify, this isn't the equivalent to setting a house on fire so someone can put it out. Permitting the existence of an evil is incomparable to committing the pre-existing that evil because of the ontological and cosmic significance of an evil. In addition, in religions where an all-loving, all-powerful, and all-knowing God establishes a relationship we're obligated to do good which would include saving children.
#3 We are not God, and we don't know what ultimately serves His will. However, we have been obligated by God to do good to the best of our abilities. If we've made an honest mistake in discerning what is right and wrong then we will be forgiven as long as we're willing to be forgiven. I should also note that I think this extends to non-resistant non-believers as well.
@@theintelligentmilkjug944 #1 Are morals objective?
#2 If so, is there objective moral duties?
#3 If so, is it immoral not to do objective moral duties?
@@macmac1022 #1. Morality is the distinction between good and bad, for us that would be subjective because it'd essentially be what displeases and pleases ourselves. However, God's moral preferences are based on absolute sound and reasonable abstractions because God is the greatest conceivable being; He will have the greatest conceivable preferences. These preferences are also universal and eternal because God Is universal and eternal. So, God's morality is either objective, or holds subjective, universal and eternal truths. I don't think it's possible that a claim can be subjective while being universally and eternally true, therefore, God's morality is objective.
#2. If God holds objective moral standards and commands others to do His will then yes objective moral duties exist.
#3 Yes, it would be immoral to not do the duties commanded by God.
@@theintelligentmilkjug944 Good good, now the follow up questions.
#1 You see a child drowning in a shallow pool and notice a person just watching that is able to save the child with no risk to themselves but is not, is that persons non action moral?
#2 If you go to save the child, the man tells you to stop as he was told it was for the greater good, but he does not know what that is, do you continue to save the child?
#3 Is it an act of justice to punish innocent people for the crimes of others?
#4 If you were able to stop it and knew a person was about to grape a child would you stop it?
#5 Would you consider a parent who put their kids in a room with a poison fruit and told the kids not to eat it but then also put the best con artist in the room with the children knowing the con artist will get the kids to eat the fruit and the parent does nothing to stop it a good parent?
@@macmac1022Good arguments and method, I agree with you. I used to be a theist and I've found that at least for me, (but safe to say many other theists), theodicies are just weak attempts to reconcile the *VERY VERY OBVIOUS* indifference of the universe with the idea of an omni-God creator. None of these hypotheses are verifiable because they are made to be compatible with a vast array of observations. There is no moral regularity to the universe (greater goods consistently coming about, justice being served, etc), as expected under naturalism. Furthermore theodicies make no predictions. They just post-dict, ie. explain away past events, but say nothing of future events (besides the second-coming and Last Judgement, of which conveniently nobody knows the day nor the hour). It's way more psychological than theists like to admit, and this is exactly what I'd say to my past theistic self.
History has proven that with God, everything is permitted.
More accurately, everything (including our worst atrocities) are permitted. Because theoretically, god may have prevented some even worse atrocity. I don't think that weakens Luis's argument, however.
@@donjindra How so? We have formulated many rules and laws based around the idea that all men are created equal and have natural rights, which is inseparable from God. So this seems clearly false.
History has proven that humans are capable of committing any evil act when they do what is right in their own eyes. The rules we adhere to seem to prove that with God, not everything is permitted.
@@harlowcj "We have formulated many rules and laws based around the idea that all men are created equal and have natural rights, which is inseparable from God."
That is Christian propaganda. Natural rights are not a Christian idea. It's doubtful that Locke was a Christian, for example. Thomas Jefferson sure wasn't -- not in a religious sense anyway.
History has proven that humans are capable of committing any evil act when they follow God. Even the Bible expresses that truth.
@@donjindra Who influenced Locke? Prove that the ideal exists apart from the concept of God. While you're at it prove that your obvious contradiction that a casual agent can simultaneously follow God and commit an evil act is not an obvious contradiction.
@@harlowcj Who influenced Locke? Locke's Two Treatises of Government was in direct opposition to the Christian political theology of "Sir Robert Filmer, and His Followers." So Locke's Christian influence was negative -- he was reacting against it.
Cicero wrote on natural law. Cicero was not a Christian and did not draw on Christian ideas. So it's easy to show natural law is not rooted in Christian theology.
"While you're at it prove that your obvious contradiction that a casual agent can simultaneously follow God and commit an evil act is not an obvious contradiction."
What logical contradiction? You seem to suggest that whatever God commands (or, rather, what humans believe God commands) is necessarily good. I reject that assumption entirely. So if that's where you're headed,. your logical contradiction is based on a false assumption.
I always like hearing a philosopher formalize the same thoughts that I have had on a subject.
Except the agrippa trilemma, I actually had hoped to be wrong about that one.
I have never heard of philosophers who actually argue that a god does not need justifying reasons to permit evil to happen. It is wild to me that even such a view exists. But I supposed I should not be surprised given how in philosophy for any problem there is some views that denies that problem even exists.
If God is evil, or just neutral, then he doesn't need any justifications. The problem of evil only arises when a perfectly good God is assumed. There is no problem of evil with other kind of God ideas.
Love this! Thanks Joe!
So as a theist who’s into greater-goods theodicies, I think intrinsic goods like showing care or empathy take motivational precedence over whatever might be an instrumental good. So punching someone randomly under the idea that there’s an all-good God who allows necessary evils is not as motivated as being friendly to that person, all else being equal. You should also save the drowning child and not let them drown because that would show mercy, an intrinsic good, which takes motivational precedence over letting the child drown so some other good to be brought out of their suffering.
Moreover, at least for my perspectivalism, the issue isn’t my not knowing merely *if* there is a justifying good for some apparently-evil action under theism. The issue is *how* the justifying good will come about from, e.g., my letting a child drown. I might know *that* God has set the cosmos so that other humans or conscious creatures will cultivate care, community, and empathy out of apparent harms that would be instrumental goods under theism. Nevertheless, as a human, I do not know *how* other humans will cultivate intrinsic goods like empathy out of such instrumental goods. Other people might show mercy to a victim of apparent harm immediately after the harm takes place, or they might not. A victim might well wind up as a statistic that eventually motivates care-driven government action in the far future. Or the government might collapse and their neglect of those who died will serve as a cautionary tale to whatever civilization comes after ours. An omniscient, omnipotent God would know how these justifying intrinsic goods would come about, but I don’t. If I don’t know how some good will be cultivated out of, e.g., letting a child drown, then my motivation to do apparently-harmful actions or allow those actions to happen is even more significantly weakened.
So you agree that the Holocaust was good, the Holdomor was good, Cambodian genocide was good, Bangladesh genocide was good…that's 18,000,000 deaths. Those 18m deaths were good because they created feelings or led to legislation. That's a sick view, sir.
@@HumblyQuestioning That’s not my view at all. Those horrific events are not intrinsically good. I think they *will be* instrumentally good because I think humanity’s capacity for empathy and community-building and care will inevitably redeem them. But that remains to be seen. We are not in a position to say they have been instrumentally good at this point in time because humanity has yet to fully heal from them.
#1 If all evil is for the greater good, then does evil even exist or is there only good and the greater good?
#2 If the child death is for the greater good, are you bad if you save the child and prevent the greater good from coming about?
#3 If the child drowning is for the greater good and only god knows what that greater good is and we dont, then should we not sit and watch to see if god saves the child as that will be the only way to be sure that the childs death is bad or good?
@@macmac1022 1.) Evil exists as a type of instrumental good under greater good theodicies. Intrinsic goods are worth bringing about more than instrumental goods, all things considered.
2.) No. That was the point of my original comment. Saving the child is an intrinsically good act, to be preferred over letting the child drown for the sake of some other greater good you don’t know about. Your rescuing the child and practicing care IS the greater/redeeming good.
3.) No. Bringing about the greater good is our task. However, God can push us towards bringing it about.
@@vulteiuscatellus4105 So what that a yes or a no for question #1?
So if you saved a child that god was going to let die because a virus will develop in that child and kill 7 billion people and nearly end humanity, you would be good by saving that child and allowing that to happen?
#1 Are morals objective?
#2 If so, are there objective moral duties?
#3 If so, is it immoral not to do those objective moral duties?
#4 Does god do objective moral duties?
Man God could have really cleared this up in any of the texts he inspired
To a religious person: *Harmless things become bad if god says he doesn't like it and what's worse is that harmful things become moral and even good if god tells you to do it*
If God commands only what's good then there's no issue. Also harm != evil.
God is immutable so things don't "become bad" if he says he doesn't "like it" also harm doesn't equate to moral that's fallacious
In Christian theology there's God, the divine law the natural law and the human law, the natural law is what God gave us in order that we may access the divine law but because of the fall this got messed up and now we try to use the human law to access the natural law but we're not always correct for the example we generally agree on the harm principle but running to Atheism or Agnosticism gets us in a weird place where morality is somehow objective but divorced from God or morality isn't objective at all
@KayleePrince-we5pb The reason morality would be objective with God is if God is identical to goodness itself, is the source of said goodness as well as morals and values being reflections of the nature of God ie immutability
@KayleePrince-we5pb I was pointing out that how it affects someone doesn't give the justification as to why it is right or wrong that was my point it's a non sequitur
@@LilySage-mf7uf How can "It doesn't matter if it doesn't gives the justification and " if your actions negatively affect me than of course I'd take steps to prevent it" both be true in the same respect in any possible world
4:36 symmetry is ok
It is not wrong for people to bring children into this world, why is this not acceptable for god to do?
Hey Joe, I thought of three counterarguments to this thesis and am curious if you find any compelling.
The two level utilitarian argument:
We should act in ways that generally promote good outcomes unless there are particular instances where a locally immoral act guarantees a good result. So the means justify the ends only if the ends are obvious to the actor. Letting a child drown is almost always negative EV, so only an omniscient or near omniscient agent is justified to do it.
The happenstance vs instance argument:
Necessary evils promote virtues because they are possible to happen and happen *sometimes* , not because every single one of them does so. So, it is a morally better world because it's a world in which children *can* drown, not because as many children as possible drown, so every individual time we see a child drowning, we should still save them.
The virtue mechanism argument:
Necessary evils promote virtues because they make us strive against them. So it's not that children drowning promotes virtue qua the child drowning, it's that children drowning promotes virtue qua it moving us to exercise courage in saving them, so we should save them.
As a Christian, it is easy to say that we can permit moral evils for our own creations but since other people are not our own creation/property, we cannot act like God (some permission with regards to our own children). I think his argument falls short because it is not a parallel case. Good attempt though.
Luis is inquiring about what we call good and evil in general. If God’s metaethic is not even close to ours, then we some huge problems.
Fastest I’ve ever seen a video
😂
I'm not feeling this philosophical argument; here's why:
It is logically possible for G to permit something while intending us to overcome/avoid that same something (e.g., some kind of "existence as a test" theodicy); however, we can not simultaneously hold the goal of permitting something, while holding the goal of overcoming/avoiding that same something (e.g., we cannot seek to simultaneously pass and fail the test?). Symmetry fails by being logically inconsistent from our POV, but not from God's.
If god wanted Justin to respond to divine duty he would have intervened and given him the opportunity to do so. Who are we to question god 🤣
Listening to this while playing Kingdom Come Deliverance as Henry in 15th century Bohemia…. Fitting, very fitting 😂👍
The concept of evil is subjective (i.e relativistic) and non-authoritative from an atheistic perspective or an agnostic one, where morality is seen as societal norms rather than objective truths, therefore morality differs from one society to another, and how it was in ancient times and how it is now, therefore leading to mereological nihilism, different cultures have labelled varying views of morality on a same deed of a person, therefore you cannot really say whether God is evil or good, these metaphysical truths cannot derived without invoking an objective basis, and naturalistic explanations cannot reduce metaphysical truths, it would be a categorial error and a non-sequitur. In Islamic theism he is authoritative of legislating Good or bad because God understood as the ultimate authority and creator, transcending human concepts of good and evil, in Islamic theology its worth noting his attributes are unlike of humans (42:11), therefore his attributes are not to be anthropomorphized as per Islamic theology, the attributes offer a glimpse and cannot be exhausted by us of finite metaphysical understanding and comprehension that's why God's words and attributes cannot be definitively exhausted by our intellect as pointed (31:27) in the Qur'an. In Islamic theism, life is a test for humanity so they know their fate of hereafter, and ultimate justice is served in the afterlife, and part of it served in this life as well, in accordance to what God has legislated good or bad, and if someone is devoid of what he revealed they will have a separate test on the day of judgement. Evil is what we perceive due to our skewed understandings of the landscape of metaphysics, everything Allah does is considered to be in accordance with His infinite wisdom and justice. Even if certain events or actions might appear to humans as unjust or inexplicable, they are believed to be part of a larger divine plan that is ultimately for the greater good. One can say whatever God deems as good or evil is arbitrary to him, well to some extent, he is the judge and the creator, and his stances are in accordance to his divine plan of things and wisdom, and it is he who has given this test of life to humans so that we can know our fate in hereafter, therefore He is authoritative and anthropically depicting his legislations as arbitrary would not entirely be correct as he is the creator of metaphysical reality, transcendental from concepts of good or evil, denying this just ends up with non-sensical frameworks having unreconcilable epistemic regress.
Those are not time stamps btw, they are verse and chapter number from the Qur'an
Dr. Justin Mooney and Dr. Luis Oliveira argue that the existence of God might imply that everything is permitted if we adhere to divine command theory. However, this perspective misunderstands the nature of divine morality as I’ve outlined.
First, divine command theory does not imply that morality is arbitrary. According to Islamic theology, God’s commands are grounded in His nature and infinite wisdom, which transcend human concepts of good and evil. This means that moral standards are not merely based on divine whim but are inherently tied to God’s just and wise nature and plan.
Second, the Euthyphro dilemma, which questions whether actions are good because God commands them or if God commands them because they are good, misunderstands the Islamic view. In Islamic thought, God’s attributes and commands are not subject to human notions of good and evil; they are reflections of His divine perfection. Thus, the dilemma itself is resolved by recognizing that divine commands are an expression of an objective moral order that is beyond our complete comprehension.
Third, the concern about undermining moral autonomy is misplaced. In Islamic theology, God’s guidance provides a framework for understanding morality that complements rather than diminishes human moral reasoning, we can either follow what He legislated or not, in this test of life. God's commands are not arbitrary but are part of a larger divine plan that considers human welfare and justice, as he is authoritative and transcendental.
Overall, the video’s argument overlooks the depth of Islamic ethical teachings, which position God's commands as expressions of an objective moral reality rather than as arbitrary decrees. Therefore, the existence of God, far from implying that everything is permitted, actually provides a robust foundation for understanding and upholding objective moral values rather forcing binding relativistic and secular ones baselessly of moral autonomy of anything, whilst being agnostic of it. ik the video is not aimed at Islamic theistic understanding of what is ehtically moral or not, however these are my takes, whilst having theological coherence and understanding, which may have been overlooked.
God is man made. Rules are man made.
Great video y’all 😊
Everything is permitted with or without a religion or any god. There may be consequences of certain actions.
If a God with certain characteristics exists - one who will make being dead an all-pleasure experience for everyone [who follows the correct rituals] - then there would be no "Godly" consequences for any act [except not following the rituals].
Again, there should be an iq filter on TH-cam comments, way too many people write without even thinking.
just what I need on a night before a sunday at 3 am
I'd love to see you talk with SIIG about anything philosophy his a Christian, young 19-20 years old and is now going onto different big channels over time
I like this twist on the old question. Why not? If God is our creator and we are truly free, God would want to see the millions of weird ways we would live our lives.
From the Abrahamic scriptures, we see that there is a permissive will of God and a direct intervening will.
Seeing the destructiveness of humanity, and yet we still exist with some semblance of good things in life, I would have to conclude that by God's grace there are limits to what he permits. And there are blessings from what he encourages.
Also from the Abrahamic scriptures, we see that evil does not exist as a separate power in itself. Rather, it is the willful misuse or ignoring of the good. This is possible, again, because of the degrees of freedom permitted to sapient creatures, although only within divine parameters. Ultimately, people are responsible for the choices they make, to stick to the good or to turn their backs on it. Those who choose to prey on their fellows are an outlier, while most people fall in the middle of the curve somewhere.
"From the Abrahamic scriptures, we see that there is a permissive will of God and a direct intervening will."
Do we? I don't see anything in scripture stating God has two independent minds. Quite the opposite. God can't will two different things at once. I'm not sure that claim is even coherent for an omniscient and omnipotent being. I'm also not sure the idea of permissive will makes any sense unless you're an open theist.
"Also from the Abrahamic scriptures, we see that evil does not exist as a separate power in itself. Rather, it is the willful misuse or ignoring of the good."
I think that's false, both in principle and in the claim that Abrahamic scriptures say this. Illness is not the willful misuse or ignoring of health. Indifference is not evil if there is no positive duty necessitating action. God also claims in scripture to create and be responsible for evil and calamity, as proof of his sovereignty.
@@Uryvichk Are you looking for rationalistic claims? That's not how people back in those days explained things.
They did it through story/narrative. By making connections in that way.
If you know the stories and how they connect, then the revelation is apparent.
The point? God is not a concept. He is the source of being and comes to people through being, person to person, in the stuff of our lives.
The same is true for believers today as for then.
@@stephenbailey9969 Yes, I am looking for claims that make sense. If you can't offer a claim that makes sense, all you have is a fictional story about a fictional concept you call God. God in fact is a concept, and probably, solely a concept.
@@stephenbailey9969Premise: The proposed omniscient, all-knowing god can never be wrong about anything - right? Right.
It can neither see a false future nor a false past. The god is immutable, as it cannot be made a liar.
*In light of Christianity's premise, I have a QUESTION:*
Does the all-knowing god _know,_ whose name will be written in the "Book of Life," _before_ 'creating' each person?
If the god sees, even before creation, that a person will inevitably go to hell-despite perhaps "accepting Christ"-then what?
Recall: "Not all will go to glory; some I never knew," etc.
Knowing this future with absolute certainty, the god still creates the majority of humanity, condemning them to hell. After all, "Only a few may enter," etc.
Given this diabolical scheme, the god _must_ manipulate the pre-condemned person's life to ensure they end up where it foresaw them going, before creating them, to avoid being a liar or fraud.
And remember, the god has already admitted that _only a relative few_ will make it to heaven because the path is narrow etc.
He's got some limits if He permits the Holocaust. Or is that one of God's blessings?
People who argue about what's good and bad, right and wrong, continue to commit the sin of eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
God has given everyone free will to do just that. Well, it would also have worked out without, like it did in the garden of Eden.
In any case, god allowed and allows that to happen for a reason. What's the greater good coming from this?
That we, by experiencing the madness of confusion and the pain of ignorance, come to the conclusion, that to know nothing about the difference of god and evil is the preferable state of mind. That we then freely surrender to god in full trust that he will guide us from within with his wisdom, leaving all decisions and thinking up to him, in other words, that we basically cease to exist as separate beings, giving up our free will voluntary, out of free will so to speak (Don't ask me how that works) and return to innocence. Voila. But wait, that's a lie!
Why to start that shitty story in the first place? God could have had that tree, with the bloody snake hiding in it NOT standing in the garden of Eden and everything would have remained perfect ... but then he would be, technically speaking, all alone by himself, slowly drifting into a depression. So that's why he split himself into two and the first being he created was - The Adversary, the father of lies, fallen angels, demons, evil spirits, aliens and humans and above all; atheists. In this way he defeated his depression and boredom once and for all. THAT, ladies and gentleman, is the greater good! Now, my dear reader, could that be evil, like as in very selfish?
You decide ...
ridiculous, the ramblings of a mad man
@@bob-e5zlol
@@bob-e5z Argumentum ad hominem, try again.
@@marcsunborn im not saying your "argument" is bad im saying that its nonsensical gibberish.
You seem unwell. At the very least insanely delusional.
Why would god be able to get depressed or bored?
Many thanks
i dont think i've ever seen a picture of Dostoevsky before, but i was pretty sure the man is the thumbnail was Dostoevsky. :P
Good stuff. Problems:
1. God does have reasons for every action he takes; it is neither required nor even possible for humans to know those reasons, so a general policy is good enough because at least it can be known and it provides evidence that particular reasons exist even if they aren’t known
2. The Christian God is “not a respecter of persons.” Some of the requirements around “this doesn’t seem like a loving God” are problems on the perception side of the seemer
As Darkmatter2525 put it, the god of the Bible is not mysterious. The Bible lays out his endgame in plain wording. The vast majority of humans will be denied death and compelled to exist in a state of agony. A small handful will be spared Hell but only on the condition that they worship and praise him. And as Christians love to point out, before Jesus orders anyone cast into Hell, he will mind control them and force their knees to bow and their tongues to worship him. Then the torture.
@@Nemo12417 thats not what the bible says thats what culture reads
Philosophers must live on a different planet for me because I don't even see any problem at all from a Christian perspective. Can someone explain? Christians believe we live in a participatory universe. A child who falls into a pond should be saved, because God wants us to participate in His universe. What's the problem for the Christian?
The problem is that we cannot know which things we're supposed to participate in, because we cannot know what God -- if one exists -- would actually want. Not even the scriptures of any religion can cover every single case, so there will always be gaps where the intention of whatever divinity is proposed are not known. In those circumstances, we cannot be sure what we "ought" to do.
@@Uryvichk I appreciate the response. Here is why I am unbothered by what you call the gaps. Within Christianity, God promises the Holy Spirit to at a personal level essentially fill the gaps not covered by Scripture or church authority. There is a promise of divine wisdom to those who walk with God to know what "ought" to be done in blurry situations. That is the Christian teaching. That aside, a child who slips and falls into a pond is hardly a gray situation in Christianity. Which is why I am confused by the dilemma.
@@harlowcj The problem is that the god sees it and dos nothing yet we see it and are compelled to act.
Not that I expect you to appreciate the problem since you seem more caught up in your christian identity than addressing the issue
@@bob-e5z Can you elaborate further without spending half of your comment on personal attacks?
@@harlowcj OK. Does God keep that promise? I don't think he does, and I don't think you can demonstrate that he does. No one has ever demonstrated that they possess divine wisdom. No one can show what God actually does and does not desire, if for the sake of argument we presume a God to exist. Scriptures are only claims, and if they don't happen, they can be rejected. I have never once observed the Holy Spirit doing anything, so I am inclined to reject any claim that the Holy Spirit does anything at all or even exists. Can you show otherwise?
interesting chat with some new - at least new to me - angles of looking at this stuff.
Oh gosh. Luis’ audio is really rough
‘Without God, everything is permitted’
No! *With* God, anything is permitted!
1:34:07 I love when I win a debate!
30:20 Genesis 2-3
does what Nintendon't 4-5
Bad response
-fellow Christian
@@TheOtherCaleb Bad is not a helpful correction. What makes it bad?
@@jasonsomers8224 The fall doesn’t eliminate people’s moral compass completely.
@@TheOtherCaleb The fall happened because we trusted our moral compass over God's. Yes, we have a conscience and on a practical level, we must trust it, but ultimately, justice is the Lord's.
If Theism is true, then people are just manufactured products, human knowledge is worthless, and there is no existential inertia. The only thing that actually matters is God. I can't harm nor improve the only thing that actually matters. I can only capitulate to his arbitrary desires in my own interest. God will ultimately make the universe into the way he wants it, so there are no moral consequences for my actions outside of my own selfish desire for personal salvation. There is no morality in this system.
If naturalism is true, humanity is a profoundly unlikely event in this part of the galaxy and each unique person possesses unique knowledge and it seems that there is nothing that can happen in the universe incidentally that humanity cannot potentially cause or stop DELIBERATELY. If objective value is based on replaceability and exclusive effects to increase possibilities for the future, then the most priceless things that we have discovered are humanity, people, human knowledge, and all that sustains them. These things really matter because they include the effects of anything that could possibly matter. It certainly matters to me, more than myself. I can't rationally place my self importance outside the context of humanity and other people and priceless human knowledge. They are in real danger of extinction if naturalism is true. The past is permanent and destruction is eternal. I would not risk doing actual eternal harm in the real world to satisfy a selfish delusion of immortality and personal salvation. That would be morally wrong and an evil waste of something extraordinary in a universe of rocks and gas balls.
THAT'S IT, TOO MUCH HONEST ISN'T GOOD
god permits whatever evil pleases it and god's pleasure is the highest good. problem of evil solved.
the solution nukes ordinary moral intuitions, but all theodicies do that. the whole point of theism is that everything exists for god's pleasure, and our human morality is irrelevant.
To which the response would be "Okay, then I do not care what God wants."
@@Uryvichk yes.
Not sure it would solve it. God as he is defined couldn't be pleased by evil, because as apologists like Trent Horn would say, evil is mostly the lack of good, and ultimately the lack of something (for instance, the lack of empathy). God doesn't lack a drop of empathy or anything else, so the idea he could be pleased by evil wouldn't hold in their view, unless if we accept that he is not perfectly good which is the whole point of the problem of evil. According to them, God can ONLY be perfectly good, he has to by definition.
To me, we are just going circles with this idea that evil can be good. If God is pleased by evil, he is not good, and then not God, as simple as that.
@karndesintox9612 it solves it because empathy is not inherently good on theism. only god's pleasure is good. morality doesn't apply to god, it has no obligations. what we call evil (suffering, cruelty, etc.) often plrases god. indeed, the god of christianity is said to be pleased by the infinite suffering it imposes on almost all human souls, in hell. if god is pleased by infinite suffering, why not finite suffering?
strictly speaking, in christianity, empathy is a sin. you're supposed to love, and god is supposedly love, but 'love' for a person is defined as wanting them to be used for god's pleasure. it's not caring for their comfort or safety. some vessels are made for destruction, etc.
@@joshridinger3407 Ok but it seems then that it triggers the "God is a tyrant" hypothesis, which I think wouldn't be defended by christians.
All of these types of discussions about the problem of evil just convince me more and more why God is God and we are not. If God were as cynical or evil as human beings, He would be laughing hysterically and mockingly at how stupid His creation is. Yes, if God exists, we, His creation, are comparatively dumb as doorknobs.
Because a child is drowning we humans are never justified in letting them drown without trying to help them by claiming that if we were to save the drowning child, we would be preventing it from growing into a virtuous person in heaven. Why? Because the implicit assumption is that we have the wisdom and knowledge of God. It also assumes that God cannot use all of man's free actions for good, no matter what man chooses to do or not to do. This shallow way of thinking is why God is God and mankind are mere mortals who think they are just as intelligent as their creator. Did you guys ever stop to consider that if God does exist, what you can think of, all the possible edge cases, are so few compared to what is at the disposal of God when He makes decisions and judgments?
I don't see why I should believe you know anything about God then. You're basically saying nothing about God can be understood, which means you don't understand God either. So your claims could simply be wrong.
@@Uryvichk No! I didn't say "nothing" about God can be understood. Where did I say that? I just don't see how it has been established that human's have the eternal vision, the capacity to see every edge case relevant to ruling out with high confidence that the permission or allowance of free agents to commit evil acts cannot be used for a greater good by an omniscient God whose foreknowledge of all events in time takes into account subjunctive conditionals.
Byerly, in his book "The Mechanics of Divine Foreknowledge" goes on to develop the following argument as a response to
the Foreknowledge Argument:
1. We are in a position to know that the foreknowledge argument is sound only if we are in a position to know that divine foreknowledge requires the existence of something which makes persons lack freedom.
2. We are not in a position to know that divine foreknowledge requires the existence of something which makes persons lack freedom. So,
3. We are not in a position to know that the foreknowledge argument
is sound.
I don't see any good argument that shows that God's foreknowledge requires that human agents lack freedom. If human foreknown actions don't lack freedom, then how can any evil act of such agents be justified, particularly when such actions, whether evil or good, don't interfere with God's ultimate plan of a greater good? Even if agents' actions alter the course God takes to achieve such a greater good, it doesn't necessarily follow that they can alter the GREATER ultimate good, or prevent it from happening as though they caught an omniscient God off guard, somehow.
@@Uryvichk It looks like my response was deleted. I don't know why. I'm posting it here again:
No! I didn't say "nothing" about God can be understood. Where did I say that? I just don't see how it has been established that human's have the eternal vision, the capacity to see every edge case relevant to ruling out with high confidence that the permission or allowance of free agents to commit evil acts cannot be used for a greater good by an omniscient God whose foreknowledge of all event in time takes into account subjunctive conditionals.
Byerly, in his book "The Mechanics of Divine Foreknowledge" goes on to develop the following argument as a response to
the Foreknowledge Argument:
1. We are in a position to know that the foreknowledge argument is sound only if we are in a position to know that divine foreknowledge requires the existence of something which makes persons lack freedom.
2. We are not in a position to know that divine foreknowledge requires the existence of something which makes persons lack freedom. So,
3. We are not in a position to know that the foreknowledge argument
is sound.
I don't see any good argument that shows that God's foreknowledge requires that human agents lack freedom. If human foreknown actions don't lack freedom, then how can any evil act of such agents be justified, particularly when such actions, whether evil or good, don't interfere with God's ultimate plan of a greater good? Even if agents' actions alter the course God takes to achieve such a greater good, it doesn't necessarily follow that they alter the GREATER good, or prevent it from happening as though they caught an omniscient God off guard, somehow.
Well, it is a very elaborated "God mysterious way" comment but I think that kind of argument ultimately relies on faith, and therefore won't convince any non-believer. It makes the whole idea of religion even more questionable, because the most rational view, if we admit the premise that God can't be understood, is not to try and define him. Ironically, nothing could be said about God.
Now, atheists usually accept the premise of the existence of God for the sake of the arguments, but if we were to ask believers to prove that a God exists in the first place to then discuss its features, we would be going circles everytime, because they would HAVE to rely on its features to proves its God. Again, no discussion is possible on the ground that "God ways are mysterious, we have to take the risk to define it, religions started it, not atheists.
@@karndesintox9612 But, atheists also believe in things that are not rational, such as that the Universe came from "nothing," suggesting that from "nothing" comes "something." They appeal to theoretical models in mathematical physics with fudge factors and imaginary numbers to make their hypothetical case. Some atheists and physicists would argue that the "nothing" in this context isn't a literal nothing, but a different kind of state or quantum vacuum. They seem to do this to strengthen their argument by trying to preempt a common counterargument to the absurdity of proposing that the universe came from a literal nothing. Their modifications and qualifications don't strengthen the persuasiveness of their case, though. As soon as a theist proposes an explanation for the existence of God, atheists claim in response that such a posited God is irrational because by the definition of God, His attributes are unknowable. I never quite understood how not knowing every aspect of God precludes not knowing the aspects of God He intended His creation to understand, as well as the properties of Himself that are all that are necessary to know.
WHAT THE HECK JOE LOOKS TOTALLY DIFFERENT edit: oh its just a haircut lol
@@radscorpion8 it’s just a haircut! Lol
Joe Schmid looks like tom Holland
From the atheist perspective it should not be called the problem of evil. It should be the problem of things that are bad in my opinion.
This is extensively refuted in my moral argument playlist: th-cam.com/play/PLxRhaLyXxXkaUcAQpHXN9ZNF2RxZLe7U_.html
@@MajestyofReasonExcept it was a joke not an argument. How do you refute a joke?
@@frimports jokes have presuppositions, and I’m clearly referring to one such presupposition
@@MajestyofReason 🤓
Why does an entity ostensibly superior to us have to not like whatever in order for us to justifiably not like it as well? Do the properties therein somehow change depending on what this entity thinks? Do these properties change depending on what lowly humans think?
"Let us do evil that good may result -there condemnation is deserved." The ends doesn't justify the means, Biblically. The people saying God permits evil for greater good haven't studied enough. Nothing can merit God's goodness. Grace is grace. Rather, He allows evil and uses it according to the counsel of His will. The distinction is important because God is Holy. "In Him there is no darkness at all."
So, God is justified in doing evil because he's so perfectly good?
Is it immoral to sit and watch a child drown if you could save them with no risk to yourself?
@@BuddhaMonkey7 "Who has given to Me that I should repay him? Everything belongs to Me." It is the claim of the Bible that God does not owe anyone anything because He is the One who created everything and from Him and for Him were all things created. "Has not the Potter the right over the clay?"
@@macmac1022 Creation belongs to God. He can create children to die just as much He did ants or livestock or worms. Laying upon Him your emotional insecurities is not the same as Him being wrong. Even without a God you say the universe is a cold place. But what does the truth owe you? If random moving molecules should be indifferent towards your pains, how much more a God to whom all things are due?
@@fatalheart7382 God does not own creation. That is childish and monstrous. When you create something you owe responsibility toward it and may not arbitrarily do whatever you wish with it. If God created, God actually DOES owe creation something, and inescapably so.
It's like saying... what makes you not go around and slaving people if u r religious? Because that's what x, y etc religion did
even if god could be unreasonable, he would not do it. he would not let us suffer for nothing.
so the question if he can, is "invalid". he wont, except in one place where reason is complete and evil is broken into none....which is not our place today.
@@willemvo7296 Unless he isn't like you think he is, or doesn't exist.
@@Uryvichk according to logic he can be only one way.
Why do you think so?
@@willemvo7296 According to logic he can be any other way. He just happened to be this way. No explanation or justification for his nature!
Does not the gist of kenotic theology--the idea of necessary self-limitation of divine Being in order to engender mortal being, that the all good and only good deity had to create at least a partially evil world in order to create anything other than divine perfection--does not the thrust of such thinking help explain why our world is a blend of order and disorder, joy and suffering, beauty and horror, etc.? And if God does not relate to Creation as a puppeteer pulling the strings of every occurrence, if our world rather has some degree of autonomy and therefore randomness (in accord with kenotic thought), then the problem of evil morphs into a different question, not how the deity can allow a particular evil occurrence but rather whether the world we live in has more evil in it than it had to have in order to exist in the first place. In other words, was Leibniz right or not that we live in the best POSSIBLE world?
If heaven doesn't exist or has no free will, you could be right…if a god exists…which certainly the Christian god does not, so…
And what if heaven could only exist as a redemption or completion of an imperfect world, as a plant is germinated by a seed? But this is speculation well beyond our pay grade, is it not? When it comes to such questions, we are, William James observed, like dogs and cats in a library, staring at shelves of books.
Evil is the effect on creation if God was going to die. In comparison to eternity, it is a brief moment in time. Evil is a state of nature now contrary to what was originally designed. The knowledge of good and evil are experiences beyond the concepts.
The ability to do otherwise given the same circumstances from free will is logically impossible so free will is not a defense. The only way we could do otherwise in the same circumstances is if part of our decision is random. In all cases we cannot help who we are or what we do. Divine judgment is immoral in any form.
Agency is an emergent property of determinism.
I agree with you here but the last bit would need to be defended, lest you risk not moving you interlocutor closer to your position.
@@jmike2039 the last sentence was just poetry. It means exactly the same thing as the part you agree with.
God knows no evil. Evil and Good by any other name smell still of God.
It’s very simple: practically every single action that has been widely condemned as immoral by one culture or society has been deemed moral by some religion or another. Slavery, rape, killing, genocide, theft. All the usual suspects and more have been condoned or even commanded by one religion or another.
It is self-evident that religion does not inhibit immoral acts.
There should be an iq filter for yt comments. Self-evident a posteriory reasoning?
the question of the video wasn't whether religion is good or bad. (i think it's overall bad, but obviously some are worse than others. and there is a fair bit of fuzzyness about what religion even is…)
> practically every single action that has been widely condemned as immoral by one culture or society
that includes an awful lot f things that aren't actually immoral. because people can be mistaken.
> has been deemed moral by some religion or another
that does not imply every religion, or even a majority.
> It is self-evident that religion does not inhibit immoral acts.
what you have established is that some religion endorse what some cultures deem immoral (including some actually immoral things). if you want to make a point on religion overall, you would have to quantify and compare it to irreligion.
In a subtle way Justin Mooney totally destroyed the arguments presented by Dr. Oliveira.
Zizek?!
Evil and good smell still of God.
God does not work
THESE GUYS LACK OF COMMONSENSE THINKING IS STUNNING !
Of course, philosophy is all about relying upon logical reasoning and argument over simply referencing common sense.
@@Rev-bb9ej It seems when they enter university they left their common sense @ the door
@@PaulPereira-l5q Notice that you do not provide any specific examples of where common sense is lacking. This implies to me that you do not actually have anything to contribute to the conversation.
@@FennecUser-ky9vr If I have to make the obvious oblivious then it would not be oblivious to U
@@PaulPereira-l5qit’s actually you who is lacking common sense, and it so embarrassing to see you try and think otherwise 😂
yes everything is permitted cope