I moved, so I hope you like the new background! Let me know what you think. (Also I guess feedback on the philosophical content would be good too, probably.)
A dog or cat can remember the suffering inflicted upon them, and more importantly, remember who did it to them. The notion that they didn’t feel any real pain is just absurd, and frankly, bordering on the psychotic.
Yeah, my childhood pet kept peeing into my dad's wine cellar because my dad sometimes lightly smacked her with a slipper if she did something wrong. She never quite warmed up to him until her death 😕
William Lane Craig spews some of the purest, foulest BS I have ever heard from any source... ever. It's hard to imagine how anyone could ever say something stupider than, "Animals need to be tortured to death, so that they won't starve." I do not feel like trying to restrain my massive disgust.
Exactly, if animals didn’t feel suffering, then animals that have previously been abused wouldn’t have an innate fear not only of their abuser, but also other humans. There’s many stories of how slow going of a process it is to get an animal to trust their new owner after having suffered abuse by a previous owner. If they didn’t suffer, why would they have trauma?
if you scroll your For You recommendations long enough, you'll get it. as well as the commentors sharing approx. four common braincells as a single entity
I really hate such young people, as Alex is, already giving off *ok boomer* deserving vibe. I'm 46, every newest younger people's social/fun interest is The root of (all) evil. It's tiresome. I'm not amused.
there used to be a belief amongst early medical staff maybe a hundred years ago, that babies can't feel pain and so surgeons would operate on them without anaesthesia. just because someone can't tell you about their pain, doesn't mean that you don't feel it. also if animals not experiencing pain and suffering was true, the animal experimentation would be open to anyone without any restrictions
That's likely partially true. Most animals are probably aware of the pain they feel, but it's likely not as acute because they can't analyze it as well as more brainy animals. To the inverse more brainy animals are going to feel more because they have existential dread while they are in physical suffering. But Craig is always confused.
(Anyone who uses meaningless phrases like "necessarily sufficient contingency" is confused but isn't aware they are confused. The rest of us are just confused.)
@@spacedoohicky While it's certainly possible that humans experience pain more acutely than other animals, I don't see why the opposite couldn't also be true. They experience other senses like smell, sight, hearing, etc, far more acutely than we do, so why couldn't this also be true for their experience of pain?
I am a theist who watches your videos to stay non biased, and I just wanna say I love your videos. You don’t straw man, you don’t mock and ridicule, you act very respectable and bring up good points. Thank you for your work!
I do the same on Christian apologist videos. Good on you man. We all should be willing to listen to other peoples views in order to question our own. Its healthy
So what is your response to this and all other arguments Alex is putting out in his videos? Since you haven't change your mind despite beeing exposed to seriously good argumentation and logic you either must have access to even better arguments for your theism or logic and reasoning is just not what you base your theism on and therefore wont be able to change your mind..
Your response to the professor saying that animals can experience pain without being aware of it struck a cord in me. Im in second year of a biology degree and even the most philosophical and thoughtful professors kept saying this when I expressed confusion. We once had an experiment on a frog. The professor would jam a needle through their vertebral canal and paralyze it from the neck down. During it I felt very conflicted, especially since what the experiment was actually after was its throat cilia movements by cutting its face and blocking the jaws in place with paper clips and pins. I kept asking the professor if it didnt feel the pain because I'd expect that the frog would still have sensation in its mouth, but he kept shrugging me off. I still do not know what the correct call was. Presumably, a lot of what we know about biology came from these kind of procedures, and this knowledge prevented suffering.
When I was in High School I did a senior project on Puppy mills, and probably the most disgusting comments were “dogs can’t feel pain” and this lady that cut the vocal cords on all the dogs because she was annoyed with their barking. And if you have any observational skills you should realize that dogs like all animals feel pain because they all have nerves.
It's a spectrum, some animals, like bugs, probably have very little to no awareness of the pain. A reptile probably very little. A deer, probably not a lot. A dog, a lot more, depending on the dog.
making students do it is just for show, they can easily show a video but they chose this method, it definitely is not coming full circle if thats what youre trying to use to cope
If you've ever accidentally stepped on a dog's tail, you know goddamn well they are aware of their own suffering. They even look back at you and feel sad and betrayed you did that.
Ofc this is absolutely obvious to anyone with any honest evaluation of reality would conclude. We can see and instantly intuit through our own experience, it's not and shouldn't even be in question but this is unfortunately what contorting and theistic obfuscation does to the mind. lying is a sin apparently yet they willingly lie for god at any moment albeit knowing they can pray for forgiveness for their sins and hey presto such a shambolic reasoning system. All theists that believe this tripe should be banned from being guardians of animals of any kind.
@@Streetrat23 Only the religious believe in sin remember that, those religions that posit a god, until you can demonstrate a gods existence then we are all at sea without a boat.
@Gabriel Peters “if you were to not sin you would be healthy and immune” Yeah… citation sorely needed, as this is nothing but a supposition you pulled out of your ass
@@rafox66 Oh and what about all the people living in india or some remote island who believe in a different god or don’t know about Christianity? Guess they’re all fucked.
Not only can animals experience pain, they can anticipate pain. I've seen people raise their hand to their dog and seen the dog cringe in anticipation of pain.
in all the most important ways, non human animals are no different from human animals. The main difference is that human animals are capable of rationalizing anything including the most egregious EVIL.
He didn't say that tough He said they suffer to a different degree. I think that's still a shit argument against the animal suffering dilemma, but i felt like alex was misrepresenting his point
How can you be certain that the carrot you are munching on does not experience pain? A leaf of sallat? A bean? While I completely and full agree that we should do better in our animal husbanding... veganism is not the answer. edit: ...not the complete answer...
@@Renegade1100011 So you are saying that carrots have system of steel? Cool and not fazed by things? :-) (attempted joke) My attempted point is; that it does not matter much what does and does not have a nervous system, your distinction for what is what is not food, remains arbitrary. We need to consume other living things to survive. For now. In the future perhaps not. But until then, food is needed and as long as we don't play with our food, or by choice ignore our responsibillity to not cause unnecessary harm, 'eating meat' will remain on the table.
I have a lot of respect for you Alex. I’m a Christian (‘proper’ follower of 2 years) but I appreciate the way you discuss what you believe are the issues of Christianity. So thank you for always being polite and using logical arguments. I’m enjoying hearing your conversations with Cliffe and Stewart.
I never understand why people like you will here something like this and still proudly claim “im a Christian” are you agreeing or disagree with Alex here? And if you agree there’s no reason you should be a Christian
This reminds me of the fact that doctors used to do surgery on on babies without anesthetics in the past. They thought that they couldn't feel pain. Or at least that they dont form memories. Something that would be unthinkable today
Well, for a while, there was this "what if" discussion about anaesthetics - what if they didn't actually prevent us from feeling pain, but simply paralysed us and made us forget everything that happened under their influence (so that nobody would _remember_ going through hours of torture during operations)? Quite a scary thought experiment...
@@blubaylon Yeah, I'm pretty sure that by now, we can be certain that the stuff actually works as intended. But for a while, it was considered a possibility, however unlikely...
Hey that's an interesting point. Babies and fetuses aren't aware of their condition - their consciousnesses have not developed enough yet. Does that mean that we can do to them whatever we want?
Thumbnail looks like Alex is about to drop the hardest Christian Rock album of 2021 Edit: Wow thanks for the likes, Alex Imma collab with you one day 👀 might be a while though 😂
I'm not sure the whip was used physically against the animals buy rather, psychologically. Even the latter can be a form of pain, however. Either way, the whip is a negative reward.
@@souloftheage That's not how conditioning works. At first the animal is whipped several times until the correlation between pain and sound/gesture is established. Only then the psychological effect is set.
Animals are not self-aware of pain even if they can experience it. If they are not self-aware at all they can’t be self-aware of their own pain. Animals do not have a concept of self. Alex jumped right over this point.
one of the most gruesome things i ever saw was some lions eating alive a wildebeest. they were like young and didn't had the strength to suffocate the animal and almost half of the animal they ate and the animal was still alive screaming. it was disturbing to my core. but god has a divine plan. right.
Of course. The wildebeest will be grazing for eternity in heaven and the lions will be burning in a lake of fire for eternity. It's right there in Revelation. ;-)
“An animal can’t experience pain”... Aaaaah. That must be the reason why an animal will avoid places or situations that caused them to be in pain previously. Because they couldn’t experience that pain. Yeah, now I get it!🙄
@@joesifa5235 Self-aware and aware can mean two different things. Also what makes you think that animals aren't aware? After all, many animals share extremely similar brain structure and chemistry to us humans. Behavior of animals like dolphins, monkeys and elephants pretty much speaks for itself.
Tell that to people who experience joy. And we can use it differently too: "Life is pleasure, joy. Anyone who says differently is selling something" And you could also say: Tell that to people who experience pain. It's not black and white. It's a mixture.
I know a dog trainer who specialises in rehabbing abused dogs. They show all the same kinds of long-term trauma that you see in abused humans. If they aren't aware of pain, how can abuse cause chronic stress, depression, phobias? If that's the best argument they've got, it's beyond absurd.
There isn't even any point to talk about it, the first question should be what makes them think, that there is any god at all, we can guess the answer, then what makes them think that their god is the real one, where is the last time that jesus just re-make somenes hand, or make any miracle at all? He said he will, but as we can see, it's bullshit, they can't answer this question, they will say that you have to belive without any proof, they will ignore that in bible's story, jesus did give a lot of proof to them, that he can do miracles.
An excellent and balanced presentation. I have studied philosophy and theology since I entered a Catholic seminary more than 40 years ago. I have yet to see any rational arguments explaining the Problem of Evil in any compelling or satisfying manner. The massive amount of unmerited suffering in the world is simply incompatible with the concept of an all-loving, omnipotent and omniscient deity.
@First Name Last Name So you disagree with Alex's animal suffering load of nonsense and prefer the genocidal load of nonsense. Sweet! You're better off embracing the truth that suffering presents no problem for God. He is God.
Of course animals feel the pain. They also remember the pain, which is obvious by their trying to avoid the painful situation afterwards. And I don't think remembering something without experiencing it is even possible.
How do you know that the animal is not just acting from instinct. Avoiding a past painful experience doesn’t evidence that the animal is succumb to suffering (at least long term) just because it tries to avoid a painful situation that it once had. Animals can defiantly feel pain but how does pain answer the question that animals suffer, at least in the same way a human would. You can’t prove that an animal suffers emotionally that’s for sure. If you are someone that believes in theories such as survival of the fittest then you accept that animals act for majority of their lives acting purely on their instincts and not with great thought or understanding but purely that every action it takes is in order to survive. If an animal can’t think deeply or understand deep concepts then surely it cannot succumb to deep suffering. If it cannot succumb to deep suffering then you can’t argue that God allows animals to suffer deeply and therefore you can’t argue that God himself is evil for allowing animals to suffer deeply. Whether an animal is intelligent enough to suffer deeply or not is subjective and therefore is not a strong enough argument to say that the Christian God is evil for allowing animal suffering. We can only prove that animals experience pain and remember it but we cannot prove that they experience deep suffering. But it’s just peoples opinions on whether you think an animal experiencing pain suggests that God doesn’t exist or not.
@@tomforemanx1079 I never said that you claimed it was good. I simply demonstrated the stupidity of your argument. Let's take this for example: "If an animal can't think deeply or understand deep concepts then surely it cannot succumb to deep suffering. If it cannot succumb to deep suffering then you can't argue that God allows animals to suffer deeply and therefore you can't argue that God himself is evil for allowing animals to suffer deeply." Now replace "God" with "me drowning puppies." "If an animal can't think deeply or understand deep concepts then surely it cannot succumb to deep suffering. If it cannot succumb to deep suffering then you can't argue that me drowning puppies allows animals to suffer deeply and therefore you can't argue that me drowning puppies is evil for allowing animals to suffer deeply." See what I mean? I just demonstrated via your own argument that if I drowned puppies, I would not be evil. Is that the same logic you want to use to defend God Almighty? If so, let's give Him a new title then. "God, The One Who Is Not Evil If You Don't Really Think About It That Much."
@wh4ckyWh4le the point I was making was about God, assuming that God is the one that created animals, not yourself. So replacing yourself with God in my message doesn’t make any sense.
The idea of predators being a merciful solution to starvation is like suggesting the coast guard should drop depth charges on people out at sea instead of lowering a rescue harness.
Your argument here doesn't really hold up. It is easily countered with, "they use anesthesia to keep their patients still." and then your opponent might follow up with some hard to refute comment like, "most vets will tell you animals experience pain differently." WLC may be fighting a futile cause as a Christian Apologist, but he is no nincompoop. Respect for people please.
@@andrewdeller9744 Just to say, as a nurse, I was often sickened by the number of medics that claim "children experience pain differently". Didn't make them right, but you wouldn't know it by the way we often (don't) administer analgesia to kids.
@@andrewdeller9744 That would be an interesting refutation if animals were only administered general anaesthesia. Many times animals are only given local anaesthesia. They are also prescribed painkillers to take after the surgery and many other circumstances.
@@andrewdeller9744 I am a vet and I can tell that it is impossible to counter. Just pull the ear a bit hard of a cat and see how fast you are scratched ! All mammals and birds have the same type of pain as we have. There is no "argument" to be made against.
@@anandsuralkar2947 I think the point of the argument was that suffering is ill-defined sans prefrontal cortex. So without a better definition we could be in danger of equivocation
@@anandsuralkar2947 He confuses sentience with sapience. Sentience is merely the capacity to have experiences (+ pleasant and unpleasant sensations). Sapience is the ability to reason. The latter is not necessary for harm to be experienced, the former is enough. Some higher order animals like dogs, pigs, cats, cows etc demonstrate not only sentience, but an ability to have emotions, like sadness and joy - these are complex enough psychological states that they are on the very border of sapience.
I would like to point out that saying God should have just made a better system without offering a viable alternative is not a strong argument. Our ecosystems and biological creatures are so complex, varied, and interconnected that there are too many moving parts to count. Even if we could start making major changes like the ones briefly mentioned in this video (reducing the fertility of all animals, removing all predators, changing the diets of all insects), we could not possibly know all of the ramifications or correct for them. In short, we have no assurance that the outcome would be better than it already is. Of course one can criticize things, but as the video wore on, I kept feeling like this argument was being used as a crutch, a failsafe to negate any possible response the Christian might come up with. It amounts to saying “I, as a being which is not all-knowing, know for certain that an all-knowing being could have come up with a better system than this”. It’s still an interesting video, though.
hes not saying "why wont god change things?". hes saying "why would god make the world like this?". Sure changing things now would probably screw things up but if, from the start, god had put in the "cosmic contraception" as alex calls it then a lot of suffering would be saved. Also if hes all knowing then he should know a solution that doesnt screw things up and if hes omnipotent then he should be able to implement it.
@@willyroo8570 And every atheist play dumb when they hear "Christ", like God literally offered everyone the solution, for two thousand years we've been told the solution of all suffering of this fallen world, but at the end, I guess everyone is an hypocrite nowadays.
@@omariwashington2570 Did lions kill lambs in the garden of eden? Did Adam and Eve spent their days running away from dinosaurs? If no. then surely that ecosystem is better than what we have when it comes to animals. Honest Christians will admit (and have admitted whenever this is brought up) that animals were corrupted because of the fall of man. Then when someone brings up the problematic implications of precisely that theology, then it's full on denial mode.
Particularly amusing, as in the Roman Catholic Church the pope and a number of archbishops also have among their titles "primate". In the RCC the pope is the highest primate ....
Man is just talking nonsense, bunch of theories that have nothing to do with reality. You said it yourself, we all have seen (unfortunately) animals that have been abused and to claim they don't feel pain is absurd.
We aren’t talking about dogs, we some on the smartest animals in the world bread them. Dogs don’t have the same intelligent levels as let’s say, a wild boar, deer, or squirrel
What does intelligence have to do with this? Stepping on any any animal’s tail will illicit a scream of pain plus a physical reaction. Based on Dr. Craig’s claim, my cat is more intelligent than he is. This shows that animals are fully aware of pain. Luckily, they’re not aware of Dr. Craig.
@@Wrkumlin WLC doesn’t ever say they don’t feel pain. Rather that they aren’t aware of themselves in the way humans are. Animals don’t think “*I* am in pain. *I* am suffering”.
Great video. As a dog owner and prior Christian, my experiences having a dog around inside for years has changed my previous ideas about animal intelligence, feelings, etc. Dogs clearly have emotions and other higher qualities and attributes. More than what many people give them credit for. Though I haven't spent as much time around other animals, I would assume that many others have these same characteristics to varying degrees. To think that they don't know pain and suffering is ridiculous. Animals experience fear, sadness from loss, loneliness, happiness, contentment, boredom, and many others. Many animals also have unique personalities.
Exactly, after living with and studied animals for my entire life, the idea that they don't know they are suffering is patently ridiculous. The book Peterson is referring to is one by a philosopher, not a biologist, and it's understanding of animal experiences and intelligence is out of date.
@@dr.jones.3832 I agree it is inhumane to torture, but I would contend that most of the work scientists do with animals is not cruel or inhumane at all. But I'm sure your mind is firmly made up.
"God needs predetors" If God is omnipotent he doesn't NEED anything. He could just decide to make the world a fair test for everyone and it'd happen. And it SHOULD happen considering he's ultimately good.
Maybe that's exactly what God did with Adam and Eva in paradise. A test for obedience and trust. But human failed and experienced suffering and transience. And that's also exactly what he did for solution. He sent Jesus to suffer so that human can be restored. Ultimately good parents also don't prevent there children from any kind of suffering, but offer solutions (summarized as love) for a deeper relationship. Nevertheless, the argumentation of Craig to this point is bullshit.
Consider a dog that steps on a nail. The dog yelps. When the dog walks on the injured foot, he yelps again. This is pain awareness. How does Dr Craig square why a dog decides to limp? Limping is a conscience effort to avoid discomfort. If the dog wasn't aware it was in pain, why the fuck limp?
Watch Boston Dynamics’ robots getting kicked - why do they stop themselves from falling? I disagree with Dr Craig that this is “useful” to the Christian, but the idea is not so easily dismissed. See “the problem of other minds’
@@MrRyan-wu4jx Imagine you wanted to program a robotic dog. You're like Boston Dynamics, but N years in the future - you also have self-healing tech in your robots. However, the self-healing takes time. Your robotic dog damages his foot. Say in order for the self-healing tech to work efficiently, you shouldn't put additional stress on the damaged foot. A well-programmed robotic-dog would now limp. You could make the same argument about a real-world dog (I'm not saying they are the same, just that this argument could be coherently made). The *appearance* of pain makes perfect sense without the (internal, subjective) *experience* of pain. In philosophy, this is related to the concepts known as "philosophical zombies" and "the problem of other minds" and belongs to the discipline of philosophy of mind. Hope that's helpful!
Of course you may say the "yelp" is harder to explain than the limp, but as long as it has an evolutionary explanation, it makes sense with or without a subjective conscious experience. And if it doesn't have an evolutionary explanation, why do we (and other animals) do it?
@@althenimble I’d argue all that’s irrelevant based on other evidence we have like the Yelp you’ve mentioned and personal experience like watching a cat suffer from cancer or my dogs demeanor when arthritis took over it’s body. I can’t think of any reason my one cat would bite it’s tail to the point we had to put him in a collar other than he was experiencing pain. I really don’t think that idea can be used to definitively state animals don’t feel pain anyway, at best it explains a possibility why they might not, not that they absolutely don’t.
I'm a volunteer rescuer, specifically for cats, of which I have helped rescue literally thousands over the years. I have keenly observed that animals experience not just physical pain, but emotional pain to a heartbreaking degree. On nearly a daily basis, I deal with the horrible consequences of abominable things humans do to cats. You know those late-night SPCA promos that show animals dumped in shelters with empty-eyed, crushed-soul looks on their faces-- those promos that probably cause you to change the channel? That's the look animals get when the realization sets in that the person who meant the world to that animal has just cast them aside as if they meant nothing. It's the expression people grind onto cats' faces with the heels of their heartlessness. People who are not in rescue never see that look but, if you were a rescuer, you'd know that look. I and other rescuers have seen that look hundreds of times, and I've helped heal the wounds, mental and physical, of animals who were so heartlessly dumped by people as though they were nothing. Christians, that Craig seems to be the best you've got exemplifies how weak your position is.
Animals are emitional too! It's a shame that many people don't see this and don't take animal suffering seriously. They can suffer emotionally and psychologically. Trauma can happen in animals too.
As a Christian, I want to thank you for making this video, it is very thought-provoking and is something I would like to consider further 🙏 I wish you all a blessed day
As a passionate Atheist, I'd advise you during your cogitating, you might not want to defenestrate "Jesus". Because when our species created "god" and invented all the religions, it was often done for a specific purpose: Rules--Routine--primarily for community STRUCTURE. Thee other two VITALLY IMPERATIVE reasons we invented religion, is for: Meaning (&) Hope
@@Dream-Eternal87 I think a possible origin for morality is that humans created it as a tool to survive. We are a lot more likely to survive as a pack than as indivituals, so treating each other well is useful to the goals of staying alive and thriving. That is why arguably the most fundamental moral rule that seems to appear in every society is that killing a human being (or what is percieved as a human being, of course there have been socities to consider some inferior for reasons like race) for absolutly no reason, is wrong. Everything else, be it killing people in other scenarios, treatment and value of indivituals belonging to other species, slavery, theft, assault, colonization, discrimination, drugs, alcohol, gun control, sex, freedom, cheating or lying, is far more debated and views on them have shifted a lot more depending on place, time and culture. And of course they have; they aren't as instrumental to our survival as a species. You also said we can determine what is right and what is wrong, and to that I have to ask, can we? Really? Our species has had entire civilizations (so, not a few psychopaths or nut cases, no, entire socities - normal people) that supported slavery, genocides, and war among other things. There are still so, so many things that are extremely debated to this day, the same way things that are now widely accepted to be good or bad were once debated. And who knows? Maybe some of the things that are widely considered to be morally grey now will one day be put in strict black and white boxes too. Maybe morality will change in such a way that our society and the moral codes that are accepted in it will one day be seen as corrupt and twisted the same way we view some past socities. Would any of that extremely broad diversity of opinion be possible if we could so clearly determine an objective right and wrong? I personally don't think so. But because we haven't been given objective answers by some indisputable, flawless force (at least one that we all believe in), there is so much uncertainty, conflict and subjectivity over morality. That got longer than I expected, sorry lol. Kind of got carried away. Anyway, I respect your opinion and I do not want to seem agressive or like I'm coming at you, these are just my thoughts.
@@thebelen2359 You’re 100% right, it’s a useful tool. Hope can be good, but when mixed with the wrong people can turn quite sour (ya know… all the wars and innocents slaughtered…) but yeah, as you were also saying, morality is subjective. There is no “good and bad,” they are made up, actions are actions that have effects and consequences. Morals are really just an opinion on how you should live. Therefore, not objective, definitely subjective lol
@@readynowforever3676 Liam Armstrong is saying how they think the video is thought-provoking. You’re antagonizing does nothing helpful, let people believe and be interested in whatever they want. Your behaviour is partially what can make atheists look bad.
Yeah... The implications of his line of reasoning are incredibly disturbing. We don't know for a fact if animals are self aware or not. We DO know for a fact that babies are not, since we all used to be them, and know we weren't self aware at that time. If there is some moral distinction between experiencing pain, and being self aware of your pain experience.... Then babies would be in the same camp he argues animals are in. I really hope ol' Billy C. doesn't need someone to explain to him that pain suffered by babies is still just as bad as pain suffered by adults...
@@TheSonicShoe Are we even certain that humans are self aware? From what I've come to understand self-awareness develops when we recognise our reflection to be our self. I suspect we're far from self aware. Truth is, you are not allowed to become aware of yourself, when you are born. Every need is provided for. It's anything but a natural birth, which raises the question "is there anything natural about human nature?" Somewhere, in the deepest recesses of your mind is your first ever experience. What do you think it looks like? Not the memory, the experience.
@@TheSonicShoe Actually, I'd argue it's less traumatic. a lot of the trauma is psychological and tougher to overcome for an adult. But let's be honest, who remembers the midwife smacking their arse?
@darkerthanblue9 price that dogs with abusive owners flinch when people go to pet them? Are you saying that isn't true? Ok then... how about shock collars being effective means of training animals? What about animals crying out in pain when their hurt? It's just absolutely asinine to suggest animals aren't aware of pain. Even if it's experienced differently than humans (we're also animals btw) it's still pain. Animals have emotions too; this is easily demonstrable with dogs again when their happy to see their owners, sad when they're left at shelters etc.
“The Patrician took a sip of his beer. “I have told this to few people, gentlemen, and I suspect I never will again, but one day when I was a young boy on holiday in Uberwald I was walking along the bank of a stream when I saw a mother otter with her cubs. A very endearing sight, I’m sure you will agree, and even as I watched, the mother otter dived into the water and came up with a plump salmon, which she subdued and dragged on to a half-submerged log. As she ate it, while of course it was still alive, the body split and I remember to this day the sweet pinkness of its roes as they spilled out, much to the delight of the baby otters, who scrambled over themselves to feed on the delicacy. One of nature’s wonders, gentlemen: mother and children dining on mother and children. And that’s when I first learned about evil. It is built into the nature of the universe. Every world spins in pain. If there is any kind of supreme being, I told myself, it is up to all of us to become his moral superior.” -Terry Pratchett (Unseen Academicals)
I understand your argument, but that example is flawed. Animals live lesser existences than us, and as such trying to find a moral compass in anything outside of what was created in God's image is meaningless. To be even more specific, fishes almost exist to be food for other species, with them having some of the lowest intelligences of any animals
I agree. I was a practicing Catholic. I took animal suffering to the priest and he couldn't give me a answer that meant anything. So I quit being a Catholic.
@@ctylsh1214, I mean, yeah, he could have thought more on the subject. But still, it only takes 1 refutation to refute a thesis. Animal suffering is enough.
@@proculusjulius7035 Islam says that pork is prohibited but it says nothing about what will happen to you if you it a pork sandwich. why would you take a pig or to a mosque when you know that it's holy place and desecrating it will be very offensive and can be considered an act of bigotry . you get your cat in the mosque though.
Craigs point about animals not feeling pain is kind of horrifying. Some people have conditions where they can’t feel pain, yet it would still be immoral to brutally murder them.
So basically if you agree with this video you are saying that dogs🐕 and cats🐈 and birds🦅🐤🐧 and fish🐟🐠🦈 shouldn't exist at all and everything should be grazers🐑🐐🐄🦌 that can have a max of 1 or 2 kids....
@@joesifa5235A god could’ve created a vastly better, more efficient and less gruesome system that didn’t involve excessive pain, death, and suffering. And yet he didn’t, what does that say about the gods character? God chose, CHOSE to have sheep be torn apart in violent excruciating pain.
@@AliceSpeltRight You're right. Here's what God says: “The wolf and the lamb shall graze together, and the lion shall eat straw like the ox; and dust shall be the serpent’s food. They shall do no evil or harm in all My holy mountain,” says the LORD. Isaiah 65:25 (NASB)
@@joesifa5235 I mean snakes don’t eat dust, but that’s not here nor there. I don’t see your point. It’s ok because god said he made the atrocious system? Just because he made it doesn’t make it ok.
Thanks for presenting the Craig/Murray notion of "third order of pain awareness" being missing in animals. I was familiar with C.S. Lewis' treatment of the problem of animal pain (unresolved by him), but not theirs. However, I think that it's true that animals have no anticipation of pain, that is, they cannot imagine it. A deer stands frozen in the headlight of an onrushing train with no notion of what is to happen to it. Animals do have a remembrance of past pain, for example the case of a cowed dog that has been beaten in the past, but it is not vivid, with no reliving of the particular past event in its present consciousness. For humans, that prospect of pain, the reliving of past pain, and the vivid association of those with present sensations not painful in themselves constitutes an essential part of human suffering, in which the psychic aspect of pain inflicts more suffering than the pain itself. Thus there seems to be a vast difference between animal pain and human pain. We rightly condemn inflicting pain on animals, less because of the consequences of their pain and more for the consideration that doing so disfigures us into unsympathetic beings blunted by indifference to pain in fellow animals, including fellow humans.
Yet we have used pain as a method to train animals and the threat of pain to control them. If they have no third order of pain awareness how can the threats of repeated pain be used to motivate them? They would have to be able to recall the particular past event in their present consciousness or the threats of inflicting further pain to gain compliance would not work.
@@theelephantintheroom8016 Of course animals do remember past pain, BUT (1) only when the present threat of pain has a clear sensory association with the past event and (2) without the imaginative recollection and imaginative VIVIDNESS that humans have. And it goes without saying that only in humans can pain awaken a spiritual resolve - which is what C.S. Lewis was getting at. Not being an animal physiologist I am humbly open to instruction on these matters, but to me the difference between human and animal pain is quite stark.
It's possible that animals suffer even more then humans, when they're in pain. maybe they don't have as much capability as humans to distract themselves from the pain and cannot rationalize that the pain will end soon.
And if you think about their senses being like 10 times better than humans in some cases, you start wondering whether or not they may sense more in other areas too (physically), not just eyesight or smell.
"Animals aren't self-aware and thus don't really experience pain the same way we do" is just "Animals don't have souls so their suffering doesn't really count" in another guise
@@BlacksmithTWD You assert that humans and other animals have a "soul". Presence of a soul is not in evidence and is as poorly defined as the term "spiritual". The emergent property of a brain and CNS along the animal kingdom's evolutionary pathways has long since imbued all animal species with the ability to suffer in pain. Assuming that animals feel pain because human beings sinned has got to be the biggest stretch of logic in the annals of Christiandom.
@@wickedguppy3715 No I'm not asserting anything, I merely argue that the word animal is derrived from the latin word for soul. It still could be they don't have a soul but instead are souls. I'm not that familiar with the world vieuw of the first speakers of latin, so I don't know what they meant with it. I would merely argue that there must be some connection. I don't know why you are bringing in concepts like sin and pain experience among animals into the conversation, I certainly didn't mention it. Seems to me that you are the one assuming too much here.
@@mynamemyself5469can you explain how one would defend oneself without violence? If someone attacks me, I will react with all the violence I possibly can.
Now, imagine what we, human beings go through in life. Our suffering is much more deeper and excruciatingly painful. It`s absolutely appalling and mind-boggling that most of the time innocent people go through hell and the only explanation Christianity can offer in this situation is that "those people suffer for other people`s sins" that this world is sinful, etc. So, how can I believe in the existence of a "caring and loving God" if I have to suffer for other people`s sins? What kind of "logic" is this? Moreover, suffering doesn`t end in this life. God is unable to comfort us even in the afterlife. If you go to Heaven but your loved ones go to Hell, how can you be happy in Heaven? How is that even possible?
if a person is in fact truly innocent then they therefore actually dont go to hell because they are in fact innocent. Therefore innocent people dont suffer for other people sins.
@@cyansorcerer6491 They do suffer in this life and I`ve seen many of such people. Quite a few of them were devoted Christians but that didn`t help them a bit. They suffered terribly, never experiencing "divine intervention" in their miserable lives. Even if those people go to Heaven but their loved ones end up in Hell, how are they going to be happy "up there" knowing that their loved one are going to be tormented in Hell forever? Tell me.
@@cyansorcerer6491 You do not have to be a "good" or "innocent" person to get to a heaven, that's what Jesus did(That's why he is often compared to the serpent), you only have to have faith in God. That's what turns me off about Christianity, because even the worse physcopathic murderer can get to be with God(after their sins are repented) but a sinless ignorant or naive person would without a doubt be left to burn in hell. Seems unjust, does it not?
@@GENERATIONALKINGS-rm6zt it's what the Bible says, not me. The Bible does not have exemptions or rules for the naive who do not know of Christ or God at all, or the animals from intelligent apes to "lesser" organisms. Simply assuming they would be fine because of your own idea of a good God is unreliable as evidence for reason, and in fact, assuming the latter would be more logical seeing as God's morality elsewhere is questionable to say the least.
The third level of pain is an interesting concept. Higher reasoning definitely let's us look at pain from a meta perspective, which can itself cause anxiety and discomfort. It objectively allows self aware and rational beings a layered and deeper experience of suffering. However, our higher reasoning and depth to suffering, doesn't mean we're suffering more. We don't immediately panic from every sensation of pain, rationality and understanding pain is rather helpful to enduring it, and even willingly going through it when necessary.
Yes but even the most basic neuron circuits can, after being exposed to constant pain, adapt into being more tolerant to pain by augmenting the threshold of response. Functionally animals experience pain almost equally to us, we may understand it better but the sensation will not change because of our understanding, just because of how neurons work. We only differentiate in being able to prepare for a painful experience beforehand maybe like when going to the doctor to get a vaccine or something.
Can mean we suffer less, too. If we need to be aware of the suffering to experience it, then that explains why people who get injured but don't notice it instantly have varying amounts of delay between the moment of the injury and the moment they feel its repercussions. More to do with a kind of reverse placebo effect imo, but it's at least a bit interesting to dig into that thought, so I'm sharing it.
Circus animals are on constant fear of further pain which is why they perform tricks so they don’t get hurt. They also suffer from mental struggles such as ptsd depression and anxiety.
I understood the 2nd level of pain in a different, but horrifying way. If animals are not self-aware, they're driven by instinct. So when a dog is hungry, it doesn't think "I'm hungry. I should get some food." It just thinks "hungry." If pain is the same for an animal, I'd say it's worse than human pain. They can't try to focus on something else, or reason that pain is not real, or disassociate in any way. Their brain is just screaming "pain."
I disagree I think pain without the cognitive ability to emotionally suffer is basically nothing just another input Obviously animals can emotionally suffer but i find it hard to believe they can emotionally suffer as much as humans Humans are experts at emotional suffering
@@MrBevoRules yeah but im saying physical pain by itself isnt suffering The suffering we experience of physical pain is actually an emotional response If you could switch off emotions pain would be just another sensory input like the rest There would be no distinguishing it from sensations that feel good
@@bradlast7839 Respectful disagree on this one. Animals can experience the same mental illnesses we can. Like Anxiety, Depression, PTSD, and even PPD (postpartum depression, if female ofc). You think a cat cannot feel grave pain and suffering when she looses a kit? Or an Orca feeling suffering because they're trapped in a cage all day without they're family? Animals are smart. Elephants grieve over fallen members of their tribe, they've been seen having funerals. Of course the level of intelligence is a spectrum. A cat is far more intelligent then a gecko. So it kinda depends
@@falcon_arkaig i didnt say they cant feel emotional pain I specified that they cannot to the degree humans can Human suffering knows such depths only theough the high levels of self awareness we have We ad layers of self torture on top of the external i fluences to ourselves in a very unique way
“But death and life, success and failure, pain and pleasure, wealth and poverty, all these happen to good and bad alike, and they are neither noble nor shameful-and hence neither good nor bad.” -Marcus Aurelius (Meditations 2.11) My approach is usually something like this: Natural calamities cannot be morally qualified. In order for something to truly be evil, it must have human moral intentions behind it. This principle is generally accepted (manslaughter vs. murder, medical error vs. malpractice, etc). Survival and natural instincts are neither morally good nor morally evil. Animals do not have the capacity to make moral decisions due to their survival being driven purely by instinct. Humans have surpassed the struggle of survival and therefore are not purely driven by instinct, (in the modern world, we’re primarily driven by moral “instinct”). Humans see a lion brutally killing a gazelle as evil simply because we’ve moved past the need to rely on our survival instincts. If we didn’t, we would see it as part of survival and thus “morally” permissible. To respond to Alex’s objection, a dog killing a dog is not morally evil because there’s no moral intention behind it. But a human killing a dog is evil because there is moral intention behind it. Some people may object and say that animals do have the capacity to be moral agents, but I think this is us simply imposing our view of morality on animal behavior. A dog does not have the capacity to understand the difference between murder and killing, lying and honesty, greed and charity, etc. This idea is relatively new to me and I don’t know if anyone has argued something similar before. I’m sure there are holes in it, but let me know if you guys have any critiques/suggestions.
@Andre Ghio I hope you know this but people are much less likely to listen to you if your attitude is like that. Instead, be patient, pleasant and explain why you think abortion is bad rather than attacking people and insulting them. Hope you have a great day, and more power to you! (Also I'm pretty sure Alura made a joke, so don't be so mad about it)
@Andre Ghio Say one non religious argument against abortion! Heck, say a religious one that isn't fallacious! Else you're just here to attack people and shame them for their lifestyle choices.
@@exploitation_restoration - Bible verses as requested: *Deuteronomy 24 : 16* _Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin._ Yet thar verse is flatly contradicted by the story of the same god killing an innocent baby boy explicitly to punish the baby's father: *2 Samuel 12 : 13 - 18* NIV _Then David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.” Nathan replied, “The Lord has taken away your sin. You are not going to die._ _But because by doing this you have shown utter contempt for the Lord, the son born to you will die.”_ _After Nathan had gone home, the Lord struck the child that Uriah’s wife had borne to David, and he became ill._ _… On the seventh day the child died._ *The road to atheism is paved with Bibles that have actually been **_read._*
And all typically farmed animals too - chickens, cows, pigs, to name a few. Primer on chickens intelligence is "Thinking chickens: a review of cognition, emotion, and behavior in the domestic chicken." by Lori Marino. You can find similar research on cows and especially pigs. I've picked chickens as they are considered stupid by most people.
I had to write a paper on the existence of god in my college philosophy class. One of my biggest arguments against the existence of god was that of suffering. My professor simply wrote at the bottom of my paper, “Who’s to say we have a good/just god” 😂
@@TorianTammas that is a subjective opinion. That's like saying you can't make tamato sauce with tomatoes. My point is that God should not be put in a box. What most atheists do. An intelligent and all-powerful being has the potential to be loving or evil.
@@lisalatham4389 How do you attain this God like power you have? You must be smarter than all humans that ever lived (combined) to be able to determine if another being really knows everything. Timothy 2:12
@@mrsatire9475 Yes, that is the definition of God. If we talk about God's attributes, we should not put God in a box because this contradicts the idea or nature of God.
Obviously Craig never had to take his dog to the vet. A few months ago I had to take my dog to the vet, and because they were still doing COVID protocol I had to wait in my care. I got to see all of the people taking their dogs in. One lady had a large dog in the back seat of her vehicle This lady was pulling on the leash with all her might but the dog would not move. This dog obviously remembered getting her shots, remembered they were painful, and remembered where she got them. Yes, dogs remember locations. My dog loves going to my mother's house because she always gets treats. We live in walking distance and if I tell her to "Go to grandma's house" she knows exactly where to go, on her own, without a leash.
I have a suspicion that Craig misinterpreted the findings of that paper. I have not read it myself, but logically, the only thing I can assume is that, when he read "they don't have the SAME pain awareness", he thought that meant, "Well, then. they don't feel pain." More than likely - and again, I am assuming right now - what Murray meant was that an animal can experience pain, be aware of it, and try to avoid whatever caused said pain, but they probably cannot form any kind of intellectual relationship with it. In other words, they can react to it, but do not think about it beyond the feeling of it, and probably would not be able to decide whether or not enduring it on purpose would be worth it in the way we do when consenting to medical treatments or helping others in danger. That sounds like a much more believable difference to me.
@@TristandeRobillard Well not for medical treatments. That is a bit too abstract of a concept for a dog I imagine. But you could say that they decide to endure it on purpose to do something different like biting their way out of a cage causing their mouth to bleed or to force themselves through a prickly bush to escape something scary, they can choose to walk on rocks that hurt their paws if there's some treat they really want on the other end.
I am Catholic, and I am a believer. This is a very good video. Christians need to grapple and wrestle with these questions. My biggest frustration with religious minded people is that they turn a blind eye to the difficult questions. We must not forget that faith is a real thing, not just blissful ignorance. Good video.
Every Christian I have known in my life have strong "FAITH" in many absurdities and they seem to find bliss in blindness, apathy and wilful ignorance. They all seem to lack CONSCIENCE, COMPASSION AND EMAPTHY, the most important attributes that set fully fledged decent human beings apart from the rest of the animals.
You'll notice Craig admits that "primates", not just human primates, are aware of pain, but just carries on talking about humans hoping you'll quickly forget about the other great apes.
And they've been used for experiments for many decades, with no regard for their suffering. Of course, zoos are no different, they are imprisoned without any regard for the misery it might cause.
A squirrel has 4 legs and a tail. So does a rhino. Does that mean they are relatives? Or that they simply have a similar structure? I'll believe the evolution debate when flamingos design nuclear weapons and wage war against each other's nations.
thank you. Thank you for this video!!!!! As an ex Christian and animal lover and vegan for 35 years you said just what I think For me this is one of the best videos ever!!
Say YWH or any Sky Fairy is real they have to be SUPER PSYCHO EVIL I hate when people get into arguments about this or that, this all I need for this debate.
This is one that really bothers me. People talk about how beautiful nature is, and it is if you view it from far away, but look it up close and it's pretty ugly.
Yes, nature can be beautiful but it also can be very harmful. Nature can wipe out hundreds of thousands of people/animals in seconds. It can destroys buildings, cities in a couple of minutes.
432 hz is beautiful, which occurs naturally in nature. But this could be attributed to biology; we spent 99.9999% of our existence out there in nature, it's literally in our DNA to feel calmed by the crickets and the sound of bee's wings, the rustling of the trees. If there is a god, it would be better to think of it as a consciousness or frequency that is the only constant in the universe; you can tap into it and be healed/righted/whatever. That's my most non-bullshit, least-indoctrinated explanation, almost on an agnostic level. I can tell you there is something to the universe, as I saw a Wiccan ritual where the guy made a street light turn off during his ritual and it only turned back on when it was done... we just don't really know what. God forbid the bible god actually is real and causing all this; there's no 'interdimensional police' in that case to arrest him and punish him for what he does, and no way to overthrow him (allegedly). We really are trapped in eternal torment then.
...it has become ugly over years of pollution and abuse; I doubt it was always that way. A young deer ran out in front of my truck and I accidentally killed it because I was not able to stop in time. From a distance it was a majestic creature, but when I went up to it to check if it was okay I saw it had the mange all over its backside, part of its nose, and under its jawbone. Not a pretty sight, although I have seen deer in a reserve that are strong and healthy. Same with feral cats as compared with domestic well groomed ones that have nothing to do all day but sleep and keep themselves clean...
That's... Not true. If you look solely at instances where a prey gets eaten, sure. But most of the time an animals's existence is far more peaceful than ours. I doubt this type of argument has much substance when it comes to evidence and, despite liking Alex a lot, I do have a problem with this type of ad populum surrounding pain. That's your subjective view at best, not necessarily reality.
Good point. Years ago, I watched a documentary on life on the Serengeti. One of the animals being followed was a wildebeest that couldn't give birth because its young's pelvis was too wide, it couldn't get out. The mother trudging along with the young hanging out of her body until she was exhausted, and was then an easy prey for a predator (which wasn't filmed btw), was a disgusting and really shocking mockery of the miracle of birth. I felt sick after watching that. But the title reminded me of a quip(?) in "I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist": the most serious problem of Christianity are the Christians. And I add: especially defenders of the faith.
Well damn, I honestly thought Craig would’ve said something like “Adrenaline and being in shock mitigates the pain of being eaten” rather than “animals feel a feeling they don’t feel so it’s fine.”
Yea if Craig wasn't already almost the bottom of the barrel in my opinion, he would be now. I mean, I'm not a vegetarian and I know about the suffering of animals. Craig doesn't seem to be even be aware of that.
The first passage I would have expected in response to this subject would be from Romans 8:18-25: 18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us. 19 For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now. 23 And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body. 24 For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he already sees? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it.
Saying animals are not smart enough to understand pain and therefore don't feel it is such a bad argument. Same argument was used to excuse doing unspeakable things to those with neurological or developmental disabilities or differences. Like a similar vein of logic led to a lot of nazi sht.. totally not okay. It's a bad idea that can too easily lead to bad things
@@EllenMJKrog Alex, here, does not address any of Craig's work on the issue of animal suffering outside of this debate. Nor does he address any of Michael Murray's work on the issue, whom Craig references extensively. Simply, none of the arguments being made by Craig or Murray go along the lines of "animals are not smart enough to understand pain and therefore don't feel it." If you are interested in Michael Murray's work, I would refer you to his book Nature Red in Tooth and Claw: Theism and the Problem of Animal Suffering.
@@troycalhoun8438 I am not interested in nonsense. The idea that animals don't feel pain is nonsense. Pain is one of the most adaptive responses imaginable. It is not some recent addition, like the ability to do "philosophy". It is rock bottom basic and ancient. When are we going to get it: people are animals!
@@God-ld6ll let's assume that not believing in God, due to failure from those who claim there is one to provide a single significant piece of evidence to prove it, is a "fallacy". Why exactly do you believe it is the most dangerous?
Wow his opening statement is so true and i was struck by some shock and a little embarrassment that in all my ponderings over religion ive never considered this either. Bravo sir, its so simple yet so important.
CosmicSkeptic: I have an idea, we could introduce wolves to prey on starving people... Me: Looks up wolf breeding... CosmicSkeptic: Who would think this is a good idea...Nobody! Me: Sheepishly cancels search.
I could've accepted his argument as at least something to discuss if he'd said animals don't feel pain the same way humans do. That's at least something we could argue. But we he actually said is so wrong that it falls apart to the most basic of observations. Somebody else mentioned it in the comments. Stepping on a dog's tail. They recoil and yowl and then look at you betrayed, because they felt pain, and were aware of it's cause. They know what part hurt, and why it hurt.
@@mmkw5621 Like Dutta said, if you don't take it "literally" then you can make out of the stories whatever you want, thus making the entire thing even less consistent.
Good point - so according to Dr Ken's theology, torturing babies would be fine because they can't experience pain... His argument is so weak that you have to feel embarrassed for the man. Is he really the best they've got?
I think you both are mistaken, for one the you are missing the point, wlc is not saying animals don't feel any kind of pain, his says they do feel pain, but not in the same way as us. You are on the track with your comment on infants, you have first hand experience of this point. We do feel pain as infants but it is not the same kind of pain. I got boiling hot water poured on me as a toddler but I don't see that as painful experience because I was not self aware, I was in some kind of pain when it happened but was not really aware of that pain. Animals do feel pain but they do not know they are in pain, because they are not knowers, they do not know anything. Also just because a being is not self aware of pain doesn't mean that it is okay to cause pain in that being, that is a ridiculous statement, and no one is making that point unless they are trying to strawman the argument
@@Polarbeardueck I don't think you've had much contact with vertebrate animals. They can be psychologically traumatised by both pain and by fear of pain, and there's growing evidence that many vertebrates can suffer from clinical depression and PTSD. They get stressed when separated from loved ones. They anticipate pain and stress and take pre-emptive action to avoid it. And unlike the Prof's claim, ALL vertebrates do have a prefrontal cortex - he is simply flat wrong about that. The same can be said of infants. Their experience of pain may be different in degree from ours, but it's simply playing with words to say the don't experience pain "because they are not knowers". Only a psychopathic brute would knowingly subject, say, a pet dog to ongoing physical or psychological abuse, and any normal person observing it would intuitively know that something profoundly wrong was happening. Any dog expert knows immediately if they are dealing with an animal that has been abused in the past - it shows in their behaviour. The same with abused infants - the idea that a scalding would leave no psychological scars is simply naïve. So why is it OK for a perfectly compassionate deity to create an ecosystem which is overwhelmingly brutal and dominated by murder, disease and starvation? You can't explain it away by saying "oh it's OK they don't really feel pain". In the same way as it was wrong to justify slavery by saying - "oh it's OK, blacks are just brutes and don't really feel pain". It's the opposite of a straw-man argument - it's a devastating and unanswerable argument. The Prof's position is so weak as to be risible.
@@tullochgorum6323 i was going to respond to Beulah Land's comment but you beat me to it. gah, i swear people could come to these conclusions on their own if they thought about it long enough. this shit is crazy.
@@tullochgorum6323 I completely agree with most of what you said. I agree with everything in your first paragraph and everything you said about abused animals in your second paragraph. Again i think animals do suffer, however like you said it's not how we suffer, your suffering that you experience is vastly greater than that what a dog will experience. You are right to say that the suffering of animals is not justified because they suffer less than us. I am not saying the suffering of an animal is good, it's not, it is an evil. My position on is much more subtle. I would simply point out that it is good for the animal to exist and that the evil that the animal experiences of pain and death, which is not good, does in fact lead to good, such as other animals which are fed and the sustainability of the ecosystem and the evolution of species
From a theistic perspective, I feel like the problem of evil can be resolved from simply acknowledging that suffering occurs, yet it is within God’s plan for the future, and there will always be a greater outcome to it, even if we don’t see it intuitively: A verse that speaks to the idea of God's plans and purposes being ultimately for good, Jeremiah 29:11 (NIV): "For I know the plans I have for you," declares the Lord, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future." This verse emphasizes that God's plans are designed for the overall good and well-being of individuals, offering hope and a positive future within His divine purpose.
This implies a future in which those that have suffered create a future that is better only for a select few, and a significant fewer at that. Which means god is seemingly retarded in this situation. If he plans to do “good” (but only compared to how bad he’s done) in some nondescript distant future where all of us are dead and gone, he is like a child destroying an entire ant colony to use the sand for his little sandcastle that is good for neither the ants nor him.
Matured.?!! He talks like a kid.! All i see is one guy among many who keeps blabbering about how bad the world is and blaming it on God which he did'nt even believe in.! These fools only judge things on how they see without even bothering to study or know more about God.! This is why this world is not meant for us to stay forever.! Us humans are just in the hurry and in greed of having the need of living that beautiful perfect life so much that we think of something foolish to be the answers like this guy.
@@exerpachuau5486 Mhm sure whatever floats your boat. As long as you dont use "god" as an excuse to be shitty to other human beings because of your belief then nobody will have a gripe with you. Oh and this includes hatred for people of different beliefs btw. And just to be sure throw in people who aren't heterosexual. And non white people too, let's not forget those too.
@@exerpachuau5486 he’s not worth worshipping because he’s not real. But if he is, why don’t you ask him what would convince all of us and let us know. He doesn’t reply to me.
When I met God: Me: So God what is the purpose of life? God: To find me! Me: I found you, now what? God: Now go and tell everyone that I exist! Me: Why don't you yourself tell everyone that God: Nah! It's more fun this way.
Animals experience pain along with emotional pain, just yesterday I saw a squirrel drag another squirrel who had been ran over out of the road, despite it being dead meaning that animals aren't as "primal" or immune to all pain as that person was saying in his speech
@Anthony Fuentes I was something similar a few years back. I think I was on my way to a job interview. And while waiting for a bus, I saw a squirrel approach a dead squirrel that had been run over, and it looked to be mourning. And don't even get me started on my dog's separation issues when he was younger. I couldn't leave him alone for a minute without him getting anxious. He got over that as he got older, but when he was little...? We could be separated by merely him sitting on the other side of my bedroom door, and he's lose it. So I won't hear this nonsense about animals not experiencing emotional pain.
@@DemonicRemption And at the same time hawk or stork can kill 1 to 2 own babies to feed a bigger one to survive. They can even just eat their babies themselves during breeding season. They dont feel here any emotional pain.
Alex makes a critical error right at the start of the video by making the false claim that human free will does not explain why animals suffer. In doing so, he ignores (or is not aware of) a central premise of the Christian argument which is based on Genesis 3:17, “cursed is the ground for thy sake”. In other words, the moment Adam disobeyed God, he not only cursed humanity by permanently corrupting the human genome (made us mortal and vulnerable to disease) but he cursed the entire planet. It’s important to note that Adam’s name is אֲדָמָה ('adamah), meaning "earth" in the Hebrew. He was made from the earth and therefore, by sinning, he destroyed the natural order of the entire planet. Prior to this moment, natural disaster, disease and any form of suffering were non-existent (see the garden of Eden). This was the state in which God initially created the world.
I'm afraid this still makes no sense. Why are animals punished for something they didn't do? Why did God have to react so harshly in the first place? Couldn't he have also perhaps put the tree a little higher where humans couldn't reach? Wouldnt this spare immeasurable human and animal suffering?
Chase Blauvelt If God put the fruit of the tree out of reach, he would have been placing our ability to freely reject him out of reach. However, God could never do this because He wanted to create us with the freedom to choose. He did not want to force Adam and Eve to follow him. However, since he knew what was best for mankind and loved humanity, he made it as easy as possible for them to not choose wrongly by eating the fruit of the tree. This is why there was only one tree of the knowledge of good and evil in a garden that could have been thousands of kilometres wide.
I can't remember any pain I had as a baby.. Yet I must of had some discomfort and had a physical response to that discomfort.. Yet up till the age of conscious awareness I don't recall registering any pain
16:00 I'm sorry, did he actually just say that only higher primates and human beings-which ARE higher primates-have a prefrontal cortex? Bitch, what!? Literally all mammals have prefrontal cortices. That's just shockingly dumb.
@@jennoscura2381 Why would he even give us such a natural, sensitive blob? Couldn't we think with the divine power of god? I guess he's just being mysterious, after all why else would he create such fundamental and important parts be naturalistic, while others which are arguably even more important to be an easy "supernatural" cop-out. Maybe it isn't the creator of the universe that creates these narratives, but fallacious humans? But no, that's completely irrational.
@@klondike444 Of course not, they be monke humans, can't feel pain. Human feel pain cuz higher being like human and want human to have free will to suffer. Of course he comes out looking good, it's all great, sound arguments after all. He totally didn't coincidentally promote the factuality of torturing babies, as people often did before modern science(performing operations with no pain reliefs or anesthetics, basically torture), couldn't have done it, because he's following the word of the omnibenevolent creator of the universe(or at least his interpretation of it).
Nevermind human and animal suffering, I want Christianity to explain the problem of TikTok's existence. How can an omni-god and TikTok both exist? Atheism confirmed.
The bit around 16:40 reminds me of the scene in an episode of _Star Trek: The Next Generation_ ("The Battle", 1987) in which Doctor Crusher gives Captain Picard a treatment for his headache, telling him "Feel better." Amazed by the quick effect, he says "The pain's gone." She says "Medical fakery. The pain is actually still there. It's just cloaked." Ridiculous.
@@FA-hb3hf Depends for God said he's the Most Jealous God and Created Evil to allow and give Free Will a Reason . this will determine what Mood Gods in when the time comes.Who controls Good and Evil the Most is the One Who Created it .
@@FA-hb3hf Tell that to some one with way more intelligence and knowledge also know the Book by reading it front to back a few times and be your own Hypocrite.
I’m hugging my puppy while you’re talking about hurting puppies 😢😢😢 of COURSE they experience pain. They also experience a vast array of emotions and have distinct personalities. If you spend a day with an animal you’ll see all of that.
I honestly wonder if the people making the argument that non-human animals don't feel pain or that they are not aware of their pain, whatever that means, ever spent a single second of their life next to any animal. Even spending 5 minutes with a fricking turtle will teach you that humans and by extension mammals are not the only beings capable of complex emotions.
@@skepticalstrom6247 As silly as it might sound, I have no clue, I haven't given the issue any real thought which is understandably a big yikes considering how relevant it is, but there is something inside my head that disagrees with both "sides" on some things but again, having not thought about it beyond it brushing my mind, can't really talk unfortunately
i haven't completed the full video, and i am an (atheist/agnostic/maybe sometimes a desist idk i haven't settled), but i think one way theists can dodge the bullet on this one is saying "well god created us and animals and gave us the capacity to have emotions like love and empathy to ask/raise this question. he also and gave us the capacity to help and care for others and animals, so let's work towards reducing both human and animal suffering as well" and everybody would give a standing ovation
Sounds cool, except that god supposedly created us in his image. So whatever we have, he has. Tell me, kiddo, what does god need emotions like racial hate and depression for? There are no black gods in heaven and he's got nothing to be depressed about. It's not like his landlord can raise his rent. ;-)
@@lepidoptera9337 well that's basically the question of {can god feel emotions?/does god have emotions?}, and while different theists and religions have different answers, at first glance it appears they can bypass the question entirely by just stating {god gave us morality and made suffering so we get to use the morality to stop the suffering, and if it was any other way then there'd be no meaning to anything (regardless of whether or not god feels/has emotions)}... but this doesn't work, since it circles back to {good vs. evil} and {what is meaning?}... so idk
@@ramalshebl60 I do. All religion is bullshit and all religions are Nigerian Prince scams. That's the correct answer. Don't feel sorry for yourself for being fooled. Happens to most people who don't have a working mind. :-)
@@savak1994 Many world views have the same target in mind, wellbeing of everyone and reducing unnecessary suffering, but I doubt our limited minds can find the ultimate answer to do so.
I personally find that antinatalism (along with other methods) offers an effective practical way to avoid adding more unnecessary suffering to the already abundant amount
The second someone [minimizes] animal suffering the way Craig does, they gain the label “possible serial killer”. Just saying. If someone can delegitimize a dog’s pain, they can just as easily do the same for people.
The argument that animals don't feel pain, or experience it on the same level whites do, was also made against people of color to justify their subjugation and cruel treatment. If they didn't feel pain much, then they could be suited for hard and dangerous labor. If they didn't feel pain much, then severe punishments were necessary. If they didn't feel pain much, then they didn't need the same level of medical care as white people. If they didn't feel pain much, then it was okay for doctors to perform medical experiments on them (often without their knowledge and consent). The repercussions of this are still being felt today, and many of those biases are still there.
Corey Trevor bro I don’t know if you’ve realized this but there’s more than two races in the world and white people didn’t just enslave black people. People of color is literally more accurate to history.
I moved, so I hope you like the new background! Let me know what you think. (Also I guess feedback on the philosophical content would be good too, probably.)
Nice beard
Cringe video.
Very symmetrical :)
Love the background.
The new background makes you look more professional
“Watching TH-cam videos to avoid whatever it is you’re supposed to be doing right now”
Please don’t expose me like that again
He destroyed me with facts and logic.
Hahaha!
Oops, I'd better get back to work.
I wasted more time in looking for this kind of comment thread than answering my modules
@@kevinclydeeguia2543 you even saying the term "modules" activated my fight or flight
A dog or cat can remember the suffering inflicted upon them, and more importantly, remember who did it to them. The notion that they didn’t feel any real pain is just absurd, and frankly, bordering on the psychotic.
"A dog or cat can remember the suffering inflicted upon them" Yep. Amazing how many people don't even understand that much.
William Lane Craig is a bit touched i believe
Yeah, my childhood pet kept peeing into my dad's wine cellar because my dad sometimes lightly smacked her with a slipper if she did something wrong. She never quite warmed up to him until her death 😕
William Lane Craig spews some of the purest, foulest BS I have ever heard from any source... ever.
It's hard to imagine how anyone could ever say something stupider than, "Animals need to be tortured to death, so that they won't starve."
I do not feel like trying to restrain my massive disgust.
Exactly, if animals didn’t feel suffering, then animals that have previously been abused wouldn’t have an innate fear not only of their abuser, but also other humans. There’s many stories of how slow going of a process it is to get an animal to trust their new owner after having suffered abuse by a previous owner. If they didn’t suffer, why would they have trauma?
Love how Alex casually inserted "the existence of Tiktok" in his list of the evils of the world
if you scroll your For You recommendations long enough, you'll get it. as well as the commentors sharing approx. four common braincells as a single entity
@Objective Morality
Yeah, I couldn't hear what he was saying due to laughing at that jab. xD
@Darshana Ambulkar Twitter is good too
@Darshana Ambulkar I love goodreads. Not entirely relevant, I know, but yeah
I really hate such young people, as Alex is, already giving off *ok boomer* deserving vibe.
I'm 46, every newest younger people's social/fun interest is The root of (all) evil.
It's tiresome.
I'm not amused.
there used to be a belief amongst early medical staff maybe a hundred years ago, that babies can't feel pain and so surgeons would operate on them without anaesthesia. just because someone can't tell you about their pain, doesn't mean that you don't feel it.
also if animals not experiencing pain and suffering was true, the animal experimentation would be open to anyone without any restrictions
This was not a hundred years ago it happened up until the 80s
"They're in pain, but they aren't AWARE that they are in pain."
I think Craig is confused. But I don't think he is aware that he is confused.
Oh god, you made my day.
That's likely partially true. Most animals are probably aware of the pain they feel, but it's likely not as acute because they can't analyze it as well as more brainy animals. To the inverse more brainy animals are going to feel more because they have existential dread while they are in physical suffering.
But Craig is always confused.
You say that as a joke, but incidentally that perfectly sums up the Kalam Cosmological Argument and other such nonsense.
(Anyone who uses meaningless phrases like "necessarily sufficient contingency" is confused but isn't aware they are confused. The rest of us are just confused.)
@@spacedoohicky While it's certainly possible that humans experience pain more acutely than other animals, I don't see why the opposite couldn't also be true. They experience other senses like smell, sight, hearing, etc, far more acutely than we do, so why couldn't this also be true for their experience of pain?
I am a theist who watches your videos to stay non biased, and I just wanna say I love your videos. You don’t straw man, you don’t mock and ridicule, you act very respectable and bring up good points. Thank you for your work!
I do the same on Christian apologist videos. Good on you man. We all should be willing to listen to other peoples views in order to question our own. Its healthy
Cheers man!
So what is your response to this and all other arguments Alex is putting out in his videos? Since you haven't change your mind despite beeing exposed to seriously good argumentation and logic you either must have access to even better arguments for your theism or logic and reasoning is just not what you base your theism on and therefore wont be able to change your mind..
@@martenjustrell446 easy now. Its a process. Its not as simple as youre trying to make it. It takes time.
You must have strong faith, I can't imagine keeping my faith when exposed to such reasoning
"Watching TH-cam to avoid doing what you're supposed to do"
I feel personally called out
me at work like 👀
I have my dissertation due on Friday... but imma be watching this
I've got a bunch of homework that's due next Monday.
Soooooooo? Does he want us to turn off the video o.0? Jk haha
@@DaPradaGap I mean probably we've all got shit to do so... Let's be responsible adults I guess.
Your response to the professor saying that animals can experience pain without being aware of it struck a cord in me. Im in second year of a biology degree and even the most philosophical and thoughtful professors kept saying this when I expressed confusion.
We once had an experiment on a frog. The professor would jam a needle through their vertebral canal and paralyze it from the neck down. During it I felt very conflicted, especially since what the experiment was actually after was its throat cilia movements by cutting its face and blocking the jaws in place with paper clips and pins. I kept asking the professor if it didnt feel the pain because I'd expect that the frog would still have sensation in its mouth, but he kept shrugging me off.
I still do not know what the correct call was. Presumably, a lot of what we know about biology came from these kind of procedures, and this knowledge prevented suffering.
When I was in High School I did a senior project on Puppy mills, and probably the most disgusting comments were “dogs can’t feel pain” and this lady that cut the vocal cords on all the dogs because she was annoyed with their barking. And if you have any observational skills you should realize that dogs like all animals feel pain because they all have nerves.
It's a spectrum, some animals, like bugs, probably have very little to no awareness of the pain. A reptile probably very little. A deer, probably not a lot. A dog, a lot more, depending on the dog.
Why would a dog be a lot more aware of pain than a deer?@@SnakeWasRight
making students do it is just for show, they can easily show a video but they chose this method, it definitely is not coming full circle if thats what youre trying to use to cope
@@emailvonsour because thats what he wants to believe ig
If you've ever accidentally stepped on a dog's tail, you know goddamn well they are aware of their own suffering. They even look back at you and feel sad and betrayed you did that.
Ofc this is absolutely obvious to anyone with any honest evaluation of reality would conclude.
We can see and instantly intuit through our own experience, it's not and shouldn't even be in question but this is unfortunately what contorting and theistic obfuscation does to the mind.
lying is a sin apparently yet they willingly lie for god at any moment albeit knowing they can pray for forgiveness for their sins and hey presto such a shambolic reasoning system. All theists that believe this tripe should be banned from being guardians of animals of any kind.
@@Streetrat23 Only the religious believe in sin remember that, those religions that posit a god, until you can demonstrate a gods existence then we are all at sea without a boat.
@Gabriel Peters
“if you were to not sin you would be healthy and immune”
Yeah… citation sorely needed, as this is nothing but a supposition you pulled out of your ass
@@Streetrat23 That explains infant mortality, babies should just stop sinning.
@@rafox66 Oh and what about all the people living in india or some remote island who believe in a different god or don’t know about Christianity? Guess they’re all fucked.
Not only can animals experience pain, they can anticipate pain. I've seen people raise their hand to their dog and seen the dog cringe in anticipation of pain.
in all the most important ways, non human animals are no different from human animals. The main difference is that human animals are capable of rationalizing anything including the most egregious EVIL.
Yep, this happened when my mom raised her hand on our dog, he cried like a baby even when he wasn't actually hit
Poor doggo, that’s a learned reaction :(
@@joshwarrey3728
So someone probably hurt him in the past, otherwise he wouldn't have learned a raised hand probably leads to being hit. :/
@@animalsarebeautifulpeople3094 like the nazis did
Someone who thinks that animals don't experience pain is someone who's never accidentally trod on their dog's paw.
Or worse, a psycopath.
He didn't say that tough
He said they suffer to a different degree.
I think that's still a shit argument against the animal suffering dilemma, but i felt like alex was misrepresenting his point
How can you be certain that the carrot you are munching on does not experience pain? A leaf of sallat? A bean?
While I completely and full agree that we should do better in our animal husbanding... veganism is not the answer.
edit: ...not the complete answer...
@@bodan1196 Because a carrot doesn't have a nervous system.
@@Renegade1100011 So you are saying that carrots have system of steel? Cool and not fazed by things? :-) (attempted joke)
My attempted point is; that it does not matter much what does and does not have a nervous system, your distinction for what is what is not food, remains arbitrary.
We need to consume other living things to survive. For now. In the future perhaps not. But until then, food is needed and as long as we don't play with our food, or by choice ignore our responsibillity to not cause unnecessary harm, 'eating meat' will remain on the table.
I have a lot of respect for you Alex. I’m a Christian (‘proper’ follower of 2 years) but I appreciate the way you discuss what you believe are the issues of Christianity. So thank you for always being polite and using logical arguments. I’m enjoying hearing your conversations with Cliffe and Stewart.
I never understand why people like you will here something like this and still proudly claim “im a Christian” are you agreeing or disagree with Alex here? And if you agree there’s no reason you should be a Christian
"Watching TH-cam to avoid doing what you're supposed to do"
I don't tell you how to live your life :(
I have never felt so called out in my life man... holy shit 😂
Procrastination is our all master
hahah the guilt kicked in didnt it
@YoStefan , you were eating animals, weren’t you?
@@tellmelullabies5552 lol!
This reminds me of the fact that doctors used to do surgery on on babies without anesthetics in the past. They thought that they couldn't feel pain. Or at least that they dont form memories. Something that would be unthinkable today
Well, for a while, there was this "what if" discussion about anaesthetics - what if they didn't actually prevent us from feeling pain, but simply paralysed us and made us forget everything that happened under their influence (so that nobody would _remember_ going through hours of torture during operations)? Quite a scary thought experiment...
@@Wolf-ln1ml Wouldn't that leave physcological scars, even if the person doesn't remember anything? Scientists could observe that
@@blubaylon Yeah, I'm pretty sure that by now, we can be certain that the stuff actually works as intended. But for a while, it was considered a possibility, however unlikely...
Hey that's an interesting point. Babies and fetuses aren't aware of their condition - their consciousnesses have not developed enough yet. Does that mean that we can do to them whatever we want?
@@Wolf-ln1ml did you know despite the fact that anesthetic use is so widespread, we have NO idea how it actually works?
“... and the existence of TikTok”
I’m fucking WHEEZING
A turtle doesn't approve the existence of Tik Tok
💀💀
Redit😎😎😎😎 🤣🤣🤣😂😂
😂😂😂
@@TurtleChad1
And a turtle doesn’t presumably know about TikTok.
Smart turtle.
Alex just reminded me to study for my finals that I was supposed to be doing. Thanks Alex
Bro same😂🎉🎉
remember why you study and what's at the top of your hierarchy of values (that's the divine place by definition)
Why would an all-loving God permit the existence of TikTok 😂
Check mate Christian's
Because God allows people to choose what they do.
@@nic8671Well, that is under the assumption that we have free will
@@fnafboy0555 - Yes, I opporate in reality.
@@fnafboy0555 I chose to write this comment. Or was it predetermined
Thumbnail looks like Alex is about to drop the hardest Christian Rock album of 2021
Edit: Wow thanks for the likes, Alex Imma collab with you one day 👀 might be a while though 😂
Fønni!
There's an F word in it
@@SavageHenry777 lol
Eric Cartman already dropped that.
Lol true 😂
The use of a whip by old-timer animal trainers is a compelling indication that animals are aware of pain
I'm not sure the whip was used physically against the animals buy rather, psychologically. Even the latter can be a form of pain, however.
Either way, the whip is a negative reward.
@@souloftheage That's not how conditioning works. At first the animal is whipped several times until the correlation between pain and sound/gesture is established. Only then the psychological effect is set.
Do you have a point captain obvious?
Animals are not self-aware of pain even if they can experience it. If they are not self-aware at all they can’t be self-aware of their own pain. Animals do not have a concept of self. Alex jumped right over this point.
They are evil, they have satan in them
one of the most gruesome things i ever saw was some lions eating alive a wildebeest. they were like young and didn't had the strength to suffocate the animal and almost half of the animal they ate and the animal was still alive screaming. it was disturbing to my core. but god has a divine plan. right.
Of course. The wildebeest will be grazing for eternity in heaven and the lions will be burning in a lake of fire for eternity. It's right there in Revelation. ;-)
I saw a video of a Crocodile or an Alligator ripping a Zebras mouth and nose off completely it fucking disturbed me 😖
@lepidoptera9337 but predators are necessary???? why should the lion go to hell for saving the ecosystem.... as Craig claims
“An animal can’t experience pain”...
Aaaaah. That must be the reason why an animal will avoid places or situations that caused them to be in pain previously. Because they couldn’t experience that pain. Yeah, now I get it!🙄
bUt BuT bUt... iNsTiNcT!
So y'all don't know what awareness is
@@joesifa5235 are animals not aware?
@@curranbrownlee9671 they're not self aware. Not as human beings are
@@joesifa5235 Self-aware and aware can mean two different things. Also what makes you think that animals aren't aware? After all, many animals share extremely similar brain structure and chemistry to us humans. Behavior of animals like dolphins, monkeys and elephants pretty much speaks for itself.
“Life is pain, highness. Anyone who says differently is selling something.” -The Princess Bride
1. Perfect quote.
2. Niv Mizzet's a bitch, go Lazav!
Tell that to people who experience joy.
And we can use it differently too: "Life is pleasure, joy. Anyone who says differently is selling something"
And you could also say: Tell that to people who experience pain.
It's not black and white. It's a mixture.
aha great memories 😂
@@mism847 Sounds like bullshit
@@jaredmartin7040 Be honest with yourself.
I know a dog trainer who specialises in rehabbing abused dogs. They show all the same kinds of long-term trauma that you see in abused humans. If they aren't aware of pain, how can abuse cause chronic stress, depression, phobias? If that's the best argument they've got, it's beyond absurd.
There isn't even any point to talk about it, the first question should be what makes them think, that there is any god at all, we can guess the answer, then what makes them think that their god is the real one, where is the last time that jesus just re-make somenes hand, or make any miracle at all?
He said he will, but as we can see, it's bullshit, they can't answer this question, they will say that you have to belive without any proof, they will ignore that in bible's story, jesus did give a lot of proof to them, that he can do miracles.
Tullochgorum, Good point
Right?? Like how do you think no animals are capable of being aware of their own pain when parrots can straight up have ptsd?
They feel pain because we let the devil into our lives. But youre ignorant
@@professionalgambling6783 One of the miracles being casting the nets on the Sea of Galilee to kill lots of fish.
An excellent and balanced presentation. I have studied philosophy and theology since I entered a Catholic seminary more than 40 years ago. I have yet to see any rational arguments explaining the Problem of Evil in any compelling or satisfying manner. The massive amount of unmerited suffering in the world is simply incompatible with the concept of an all-loving, omnipotent and omniscient deity.
In South Park while killing animals wantonly they said," We have to kill them otherwise they would die". 😂😂
Brilliant! Thanks for the laugh, as I rarely see South Park.
Reminds me of the line from Over the Hedge.
“See? This is why I called an exterminator. To kill them, before they get hurt like this.”
It's coming right for us!
@First Name Last Name So you disagree with Alex's animal suffering load of nonsense and prefer the genocidal load of nonsense. Sweet! You're better off embracing the truth that suffering presents no problem for God. He is God.
Of course animals feel the pain. They also remember the pain, which is obvious by their trying to avoid the painful situation afterwards. And I don't think remembering something without experiencing it is even possible.
How do you know that the animal is not just acting from instinct. Avoiding a past painful experience doesn’t evidence that the animal is succumb to suffering (at least long term) just because it tries to avoid a painful situation that it once had. Animals can defiantly feel pain but how does pain answer the question that animals suffer, at least in the same way a human would. You can’t prove that an animal suffers emotionally that’s for sure. If you are someone that believes in theories such as survival of the fittest then you accept that animals act for majority of their lives acting purely on their instincts and not with great thought or understanding but purely that every action it takes is in order to survive. If an animal can’t think deeply or understand deep concepts then surely it cannot succumb to deep suffering. If it cannot succumb to deep suffering then you can’t argue that God allows animals to suffer deeply and therefore you can’t argue that God himself is evil for allowing animals to suffer deeply. Whether an animal is intelligent enough to suffer deeply or not is subjective and therefore is not a strong enough argument to say that the Christian God is evil for allowing animal suffering. We can only prove that animals experience pain and remember it but we cannot prove that they experience deep suffering. But it’s just peoples opinions on whether you think an animal experiencing pain suggests that God doesn’t exist or not.
@wh4ckyWh4le Never once said it was good to purposely put them in pain. Just that we can’t prove whether they suffer in the way that Alex points out.
@@tomforemanx1079 I never said that you claimed it was good. I simply demonstrated the stupidity of your argument. Let's take this for example:
"If an animal can't think deeply or understand deep concepts then surely it cannot succumb to deep suffering. If it cannot succumb to deep suffering then you can't argue that God allows animals to suffer deeply and therefore you can't argue that God himself is evil for allowing animals to suffer deeply."
Now replace "God" with "me drowning puppies."
"If an animal can't think deeply or understand deep concepts then surely it cannot succumb to deep suffering. If it cannot succumb to deep suffering then you can't argue that me drowning puppies allows animals to suffer deeply and therefore you can't argue that me drowning puppies is evil for allowing animals to suffer deeply."
See what I mean? I just demonstrated via your own argument that if I drowned puppies, I would not be evil. Is that the same logic you want to use to defend God Almighty? If so, let's give Him a new title then. "God, The One Who Is Not Evil If You Don't Really Think About It That Much."
@wh4ckyWh4le the point I was making was about God, assuming that God is the one that created animals, not yourself. So replacing yourself with God in my message doesn’t make any sense.
@@tomforemanx1079 so if I created the puppies I drowned, that would make me less/not evil?
The idea of predators being a merciful solution to starvation is like suggesting the coast guard should drop depth charges on people out at sea instead of lowering a rescue harness.
I wonder why vets use anesthesia when they operate...
It's like they know something that this nincompoop doesn't 😃
Your argument here doesn't really hold up. It is easily countered with, "they use anesthesia to keep their patients still." and then your opponent might follow up with some hard to refute comment like, "most vets will tell you animals experience pain differently." WLC may be fighting a futile cause as a Christian Apologist, but he is no nincompoop. Respect for people please.
@@andrewdeller9744 Just to say, as a nurse, I was often sickened by the number of medics that claim "children experience pain differently". Didn't make them right, but you wouldn't know it by the way we often (don't) administer analgesia to kids.
@@andrewdeller9744 That would be an interesting refutation if animals were only administered general anaesthesia. Many times animals are only given local anaesthesia. They are also prescribed painkillers to take after the surgery and many other circumstances.
@@andrewdeller9744 I am a vet and I can tell that it is impossible to counter. Just pull the ear a bit hard of a cat and see how fast you are scratched ! All mammals and birds have the same type of pain as we have. There is no "argument" to be made against.
Damn I remember back when we had baby face Alex. Look at how our boy has grown
he handsome
The good old days of Christian debunking
@@darklightmotion5534 Don't be gay
@@georgewashingtom6516 bitch Im bi
also you out here assuming my gender? How ya know Im male?
@@darklightmotion5534 lmao right? Wtf
The same “reasoning” regarding the reduced suffering of animals was commonly used to justify mistreatment of humans that were of a different group.
This is true. However, it doesn't make the arrangement false. It is possible to be true for animals that lack prefrontal cortex
@@Superman111181 yes..and still animals suffer.its not that simple
@@anandsuralkar2947 I think the point of the argument was that suffering is ill-defined sans prefrontal cortex. So without a better definition we could be in danger of equivocation
@@anandsuralkar2947 He confuses sentience with sapience. Sentience is merely the capacity to have experiences (+ pleasant and unpleasant sensations). Sapience is the ability to reason. The latter is not necessary for harm to be experienced, the former is enough. Some higher order animals like dogs, pigs, cats, cows etc demonstrate not only sentience, but an ability to have emotions, like sadness and joy - these are complex enough psychological states that they are on the very border of sapience.
Yoh
I would like to point out that saying God should have just made a better system without offering a viable alternative is not a strong argument. Our ecosystems and biological creatures are so complex, varied, and interconnected that there are too many moving parts to count. Even if we could start making major changes like the ones briefly mentioned in this video (reducing the fertility of all animals, removing all predators, changing the diets of all insects), we could not possibly know all of the ramifications or correct for them. In short, we have no assurance that the outcome would be better than it already is.
Of course one can criticize things, but as the video wore on, I kept feeling like this argument was being used as a crutch, a failsafe to negate any possible response the Christian might come up with. It amounts to saying “I, as a being which is not all-knowing, know for certain that an all-knowing being could have come up with a better system than this”. It’s still an interesting video, though.
hes not saying "why wont god change things?". hes saying "why would god make the world like this?". Sure changing things now would probably screw things up but if, from the start, god had put in the "cosmic contraception" as alex calls it then a lot of suffering would be saved. Also if hes all knowing then he should know a solution that doesnt screw things up and if hes omnipotent then he should be able to implement it.
Well if God is all knowing and all powerful he should easily be able to come up with a better system
@@RichardsGaySonor maybe this is the best solution
@@willyroo8570 And every atheist play dumb when they hear "Christ", like God literally offered everyone the solution, for two thousand years we've been told the solution of all suffering of this fallen world, but at the end, I guess everyone is an hypocrite nowadays.
@@omariwashington2570 Did lions kill lambs in the garden of eden? Did Adam and Eve spent their days running away from dinosaurs? If no. then surely that ecosystem is better than what we have when it comes to animals. Honest Christians will admit (and have admitted whenever this is brought up) that animals were corrupted because of the fall of man. Then when someone brings up the problematic implications of precisely that theology, then it's full on denial mode.
"Higher primates...AND human beings"
Was he not comfortable just saying that human beings _are_ higher primates?
Particularly amusing, as in the Roman Catholic Church the pope and a number of archbishops also have among their titles "primate". In the RCC the pope is the highest primate ....
Humans are also animals, and he separated that too. He also forgot dolphins.
That would offend a lot of his listeners.
Are you uncomfortable with his freedom of expression?
Almost got me with that pfp lmao
Dogs aren't aware of their pain!?!? Has this man never seen an abused dog!?!?
Man is just talking nonsense, bunch of theories that have nothing to do with reality. You said it yourself, we all have seen (unfortunately) animals that have been abused and to claim they don't feel pain is absurd.
We aren’t talking about dogs, we some on the smartest animals in the world bread them. Dogs don’t have the same intelligent levels as let’s say, a wild boar, deer, or squirrel
What does intelligence have to do with this? Stepping on any any animal’s tail will illicit a scream of pain plus a physical reaction. Based on Dr. Craig’s claim, my cat is more intelligent than he is. This shows that animals are fully aware of pain. Luckily, they’re not aware of Dr. Craig.
@@Wrkumlin WLC doesn’t ever say they don’t feel pain. Rather that they aren’t aware of themselves in the way humans are. Animals don’t think “*I* am in pain. *I* am suffering”.
Are u south African
Great video. As a dog owner and prior Christian, my experiences having a dog around inside for years has changed my previous ideas about animal intelligence, feelings, etc. Dogs clearly have emotions and other higher qualities and attributes. More than what many people give them credit for. Though I haven't spent as much time around other animals, I would assume that many others have these same characteristics to varying degrees. To think that they don't know pain and suffering is ridiculous. Animals experience fear, sadness from loss, loneliness, happiness, contentment, boredom, and many others. Many animals also have unique personalities.
Exactly, after living with and studied animals for my entire life, the idea that they don't know they are suffering is patently ridiculous. The book Peterson is referring to is one by a philosopher, not a biologist, and it's understanding of animal experiences and intelligence is out of date.
@@dr.jones.3832 You do realize that we need to conduct some experiments on animals in order to save other animals and humans?
@@dr.jones.3832 I agree it is inhumane to torture, but I would contend that most of the work scientists do with animals is not cruel or inhumane at all. But I'm sure your mind is firmly made up.
Why are animals so easy to love when people are such pains in the ars. ??? Ask. God heknows.
@@michaelpond813 God never picks up when I call him. I guess he's just holy ghosting me.
"God needs predetors"
If God is omnipotent he doesn't NEED anything. He could just decide to make the world a fair test for everyone and it'd happen. And it SHOULD happen considering he's ultimately good.
Maybe that's exactly what God did with Adam and Eva in paradise. A test for obedience and trust. But human failed and experienced suffering and transience.
And that's also exactly what he did for solution. He sent Jesus to suffer so that human can be restored.
Ultimately good parents also don't prevent there children from any kind of suffering, but offer solutions (summarized as love) for a deeper relationship.
Nevertheless, the argumentation of Craig to this point is bullshit.
Consider a dog that steps on a nail. The dog yelps. When the dog walks on the injured foot, he yelps again. This is pain awareness. How does Dr Craig square why a dog decides to limp? Limping is a conscience effort to avoid discomfort. If the dog wasn't aware it was in pain, why the fuck limp?
Watch Boston Dynamics’ robots getting kicked - why do they stop themselves from falling? I disagree with Dr Craig that this is “useful” to the Christian, but the idea is not so easily dismissed. See “the problem of other minds’
@@althenimble I don’t understand your robot falling example can you expand?
@@MrRyan-wu4jx Imagine you wanted to program a robotic dog. You're like Boston Dynamics, but N years in the future - you also have self-healing tech in your robots. However, the self-healing takes time. Your robotic dog damages his foot. Say in order for the self-healing tech to work efficiently, you shouldn't put additional stress on the damaged foot. A well-programmed robotic-dog would now limp. You could make the same argument about a real-world dog (I'm not saying they are the same, just that this argument could be coherently made). The *appearance* of pain makes perfect sense without the (internal, subjective) *experience* of pain. In philosophy, this is related to the concepts known as "philosophical zombies" and "the problem of other minds" and belongs to the discipline of philosophy of mind. Hope that's helpful!
Of course you may say the "yelp" is harder to explain than the limp, but as long as it has an evolutionary explanation, it makes sense with or without a subjective conscious experience. And if it doesn't have an evolutionary explanation, why do we (and other animals) do it?
@@althenimble I’d argue all that’s irrelevant based on other evidence we have like the Yelp you’ve mentioned and personal experience like watching a cat suffer from cancer or my dogs demeanor when arthritis took over it’s body. I can’t think of any reason my one cat would bite it’s tail to the point we had to put him in a collar other than he was experiencing pain. I really don’t think that idea can be used to definitively state animals don’t feel pain anyway, at best it explains a possibility why they might not, not that they absolutely don’t.
I'm a volunteer rescuer, specifically for cats, of which I have helped rescue literally thousands over the years. I have keenly observed that animals experience not just physical pain, but emotional pain to a heartbreaking degree. On nearly a daily basis, I deal with the horrible consequences of abominable things humans do to cats. You know those late-night SPCA promos that show animals dumped in shelters with empty-eyed, crushed-soul looks on their faces-- those promos that probably cause you to change the channel? That's the look animals get when the realization sets in that the person who meant the world to that animal has just cast them aside as if they meant nothing. It's the expression people grind onto cats' faces with the heels of their heartlessness. People who are not in rescue never see that look but, if you were a rescuer, you'd know that look. I and other rescuers have seen that look hundreds of times, and I've helped heal the wounds, mental and physical, of animals who were so heartlessly dumped by people as though they were nothing.
Christians, that Craig seems to be the best you've got exemplifies how weak your position is.
Animals are emitional too!
It's a shame that many people don't see this and don't take animal suffering seriously. They can suffer emotionally and psychologically. Trauma can happen in animals too.
Do your cats eat meat products by any chance..?
@@panchopuskas1 Oddly enough, they do.
@@roybarrows9733 Almost like they’re omnivores 0.o
Craig is FAR from being the best we've got. I would recommend you to read "The sound of life's unspeakable beauty" by Martin Schleske.
As a Christian, I want to thank you for making this video, it is very thought-provoking and is something I would like to consider further 🙏 I wish you all a blessed day
As a passionate Atheist, I'd advise you during your cogitating, you might not want to defenestrate "Jesus".
Because when our species created "god" and invented all the religions, it was often done for a specific purpose:
Rules--Routine--primarily for community STRUCTURE.
Thee other two VITALLY IMPERATIVE reasons we invented religion, is for:
Meaning (&)
Hope
@@Dream-Eternal87
I think a possible origin for morality is that humans created it as a tool to survive. We are a lot more likely to survive as a pack than as indivituals, so treating each other well is useful to the goals of staying alive and thriving. That is why arguably the most fundamental moral rule that seems to appear in every society is that killing a human being (or what is percieved as a human being, of course there have been socities to consider some inferior for reasons like race) for absolutly no reason, is wrong. Everything else, be it killing people in other scenarios, treatment and value of indivituals belonging to other species, slavery, theft, assault, colonization, discrimination, drugs, alcohol, gun control, sex, freedom, cheating or lying, is far more debated and views on them have shifted a lot more depending on place, time and culture. And of course they have; they aren't as instrumental to our survival as a species.
You also said we can determine what is right and what is wrong, and to that I have to ask, can we? Really? Our species has had entire civilizations (so, not a few psychopaths or nut cases, no, entire socities - normal people) that supported slavery, genocides, and war among other things. There are still so, so many things that are extremely debated to this day, the same way things that are now widely accepted to be good or bad were once debated. And who knows? Maybe some of the things that are widely considered to be morally grey now will one day be put in strict black and white boxes too. Maybe morality will change in such a way that our society and the moral codes that are accepted in it will one day be seen as corrupt and twisted the same way we view some past socities. Would any of that extremely broad diversity of opinion be possible if we could so clearly determine an objective right and wrong? I personally don't think so. But because we haven't been given objective answers by some indisputable, flawless force (at least one that we all believe in), there is so much uncertainty, conflict and subjectivity over morality.
That got longer than I expected, sorry lol. Kind of got carried away. Anyway, I respect your opinion and I do not want to seem agressive or like I'm coming at you, these are just my thoughts.
Craig is in denial & in delusion.Animals suffer actually as do we.
@@thebelen2359 You’re 100% right, it’s a useful tool. Hope can be good, but when mixed with the wrong people can turn quite sour (ya know… all the wars and innocents slaughtered…) but yeah, as you were also saying, morality is subjective. There is no “good and bad,” they are made up, actions are actions that have effects and consequences. Morals are really just an opinion on how you should live. Therefore, not objective, definitely subjective lol
@@readynowforever3676 Liam Armstrong is saying how they think the video is thought-provoking. You’re antagonizing does nothing helpful, let people believe and be interested in whatever they want. Your behaviour is partially what can make atheists look bad.
Great video Alex and a thoughtful and forensic take-down of that oaf Craig...and love that you have a copy of Hitch 22 on your shelf!
"Animals aren't aware they're in pain"
Have you ever seen a dog with an abusive owner flinch when someone goes to pet it? Yeah they're aware of pain
Yeah... The implications of his line of reasoning are incredibly disturbing.
We don't know for a fact if animals are self aware or not.
We DO know for a fact that babies are not, since we all used to be them, and know we weren't self aware at that time.
If there is some moral distinction between experiencing pain, and being self aware of your pain experience.... Then babies would be in the same camp he argues animals are in.
I really hope ol' Billy C. doesn't need someone to explain to him that pain suffered by babies is still just as bad as pain suffered by adults...
@@TheSonicShoe Are we even certain that humans are self aware? From what I've come to understand self-awareness develops when we recognise our reflection to be our self. I suspect we're far from self aware.
Truth is, you are not allowed to become aware of yourself, when you are born. Every need is provided for. It's anything but a natural birth, which raises the question "is there anything natural about human nature?"
Somewhere, in the deepest recesses of your mind is your first ever experience. What do you think it looks like? Not the memory, the experience.
@@TheSonicShoe Actually, I'd argue it's less traumatic. a lot of the trauma is psychological and tougher to overcome for an adult.
But let's be honest, who remembers the midwife smacking their arse?
Prove it
@darkerthanblue9 price that dogs with abusive owners flinch when people go to pet them? Are you saying that isn't true? Ok then... how about shock collars being effective means of training animals? What about animals crying out in pain when their hurt? It's just absolutely asinine to suggest animals aren't aware of pain. Even if it's experienced differently than humans (we're also animals btw) it's still pain. Animals have emotions too; this is easily demonstrable with dogs again when their happy to see their owners, sad when they're left at shelters etc.
“The Patrician took a sip of his beer. “I have told this to few people, gentlemen, and I suspect I never will again, but one day when I was a young boy on holiday in Uberwald I was walking along the bank of a stream when I saw a mother otter with her cubs. A very endearing sight, I’m sure you will agree, and even as I watched, the mother otter dived into the water and came up with a plump salmon, which she subdued and dragged on to a half-submerged log. As she ate it, while of course it was still alive, the body split and I remember to this day the sweet pinkness of its roes as they spilled out, much to the delight of the baby otters, who scrambled over themselves to feed on the delicacy. One of nature’s wonders, gentlemen: mother and children dining on mother and children. And that’s when I first learned about evil. It is built into the nature of the universe. Every world spins in pain. If there is any kind of supreme being, I told myself, it is up to all of us to become his moral superior.”
-Terry Pratchett
(Unseen Academicals)
Excellent 👍
Anyone who doesn't agree isn't thinking with a clear mind.
Thank you for this most intelligent comment.
@@debhurd8898 so someone who disagrees doesn't have a clear mind ..wow
I understand your argument, but that example is flawed. Animals live lesser existences than us, and as such trying to find a moral compass in anything outside of what was created in God's image is meaningless. To be even more specific, fishes almost exist to be food for other species, with them having some of the lowest intelligences of any animals
@@jpraise6771 WoW
🙃
Nonsense to associate this with evil.
“....existence of tiktok” dead😹😭
he is RIGHT
The darkest blot of human creativity!
Didn’t know Alex was a redditor
TikTok doesn't exists.
Snyone else that looked down to chat to find this comment?
I agree. I was a practicing Catholic. I took animal suffering to the priest and he couldn't give me a answer that meant anything. So I quit being a Catholic.
thats all? what a lack of thinking on your part
@@ctylsh1214provide a rebuttal to the argument then
@@Maxbronx4122 If i wanted to i would've done that in my previous comment nerd
@@ctylsh1214, I mean, yeah, he could have thought more on the subject. But still, it only takes 1 refutation to refute a thesis. Animal suffering is enough.
@@yannstaquet5522 Yo mama
I'd love to see the "Islam's biggest problem" version
Just order a bacon sandwich and eat it near a mosque 😂😂😂
@@proculusjulius7035 that's more of a problem of Muslims then of islam .
@@costas1032 oh so it's Muslims who say that pork is haram and therefore there's nothing wrong if I take my pig for a walk in the mosque eh?
@@proculusjulius7035 Islam says that pork is prohibited but it says nothing about what will happen to you if you it a pork sandwich.
why would you take a pig or to a mosque when you know that it's holy place and desecrating it will be very offensive and can be considered an act of bigotry .
you get your cat in the mosque though.
Since Muslims tend to just ineptly mimic Christian apologetic arguments, this is kind of a two-for-one video.
Craigs point about animals not feeling pain is kind of horrifying. Some people have conditions where they can’t feel pain, yet it would still be immoral to brutally murder them.
He just want to avoid the problem of God allowing animals to suffer so he simply makes the absurd assumption of course
So basically if you agree with this video you are saying that dogs🐕 and cats🐈 and birds🦅🐤🐧 and fish🐟🐠🦈 shouldn't exist at all and everything should be grazers🐑🐐🐄🦌 that can have a max of 1 or 2 kids....
@@joesifa5235A god could’ve created a vastly better, more efficient and less gruesome system that didn’t involve excessive pain, death, and suffering. And yet he didn’t, what does that say about the gods character?
God chose, CHOSE to have sheep be torn apart in violent excruciating pain.
@@AliceSpeltRight You're right. Here's what God says:
“The wolf and the lamb shall graze together, and the lion shall eat straw like the ox; and dust shall be the serpent’s food. They shall do no evil or harm in all My holy mountain,” says the LORD. Isaiah 65:25 (NASB)
@@joesifa5235 I mean snakes don’t eat dust, but that’s not here nor there. I don’t see your point. It’s ok because god said he made the atrocious system? Just because he made it doesn’t make it ok.
"Watching TH-cam videos to avoid... whatever it is you're supposed to be doing right now."
I feel attacked.
Yeah, let's report this channel.. 😅😅😅
I am avoiding my studies XD I laughed out loud
Same.
Thanks for presenting the Craig/Murray notion of "third order of pain awareness" being missing in animals. I was familiar with C.S. Lewis' treatment of the problem of animal pain (unresolved by him), but not theirs. However, I think that it's true that animals have no anticipation of pain, that is, they cannot imagine it. A deer stands frozen in the headlight of an onrushing train with no notion of what is to happen to it. Animals do have a remembrance of past pain, for example the case of a cowed dog that has been beaten in the past, but it is not vivid, with no reliving of the particular past event in its present consciousness. For humans, that prospect of pain, the reliving of past pain, and the vivid association of those with present sensations not painful in themselves constitutes an essential part of human suffering, in which the psychic aspect of pain inflicts more suffering than the pain itself.
Thus there seems to be a vast difference between animal pain and human pain. We rightly condemn inflicting pain on animals, less because of the consequences of their pain and more for the consideration that doing so disfigures us into unsympathetic beings blunted by indifference to pain in fellow animals, including fellow humans.
ooooh very nicely put.
Yet we have used pain as a method to train animals and the threat of pain to control them. If they have no third order of pain awareness how can the threats of repeated pain be used to motivate them? They would have to be able to recall the particular past event in their present consciousness or the threats of inflicting further pain to gain compliance would not work.
@@theelephantintheroom8016 Of course animals do remember past pain, BUT (1) only when the present threat of pain has a clear sensory association with the past event and (2) without the imaginative recollection and imaginative VIVIDNESS that humans have. And it goes without saying that only in humans can pain awaken a spiritual resolve - which is what C.S. Lewis was getting at.
Not being an animal physiologist I am humbly open to instruction on these matters, but to me the difference between human and animal pain is quite stark.
It's possible that animals suffer even more then humans, when they're in pain. maybe they don't have as much capability as humans to distract themselves from the pain and cannot rationalize that the pain will end soon.
Comparable to children in some ways.
@@tangerinetangerine4400 That's what I was thinking.
And if you think about their senses being like 10 times better than humans in some cases, you start wondering whether or not they may sense more in other areas too (physically), not just eyesight or smell.
@@tangerinetangerine4400 yeah. What about children in the womb? Do they suffer if they are aborted?
@@Superman111181depending on how old the fetus is, no.
"Animals aren't self-aware and thus don't really experience pain the same way we do" is just "Animals don't have souls so their suffering doesn't really count" in another guise
My version of this argument is.... They are not human let them di
@@armando429046 Why is this guy not talking about hurting plants. Isn't that Vegan diet?
The word 'anima' literally means 'soul', hence to argue that "animals don't have souls" is just being foolish at best.
@@BlacksmithTWD You assert that humans and other animals have a "soul". Presence of a soul is not in evidence and is as poorly defined as the term "spiritual". The emergent property of a brain and CNS along the animal kingdom's evolutionary pathways has long since imbued all animal species with the ability to suffer in pain. Assuming that animals feel pain because human beings sinned has got to be the biggest stretch of logic in the annals of Christiandom.
@@wickedguppy3715
No I'm not asserting anything, I merely argue that the word animal is derrived from the latin word for soul. It still could be they don't have a soul but instead are souls. I'm not that familiar with the world vieuw of the first speakers of latin, so I don't know what they meant with it. I would merely argue that there must be some connection.
I don't know why you are bringing in concepts like sin and pain experience among animals into the conversation, I certainly didn't mention it. Seems to me that you are the one assuming too much here.
The fact that Craig can't imagine violence not being a solution in any capacity is a disturbing statement about his mind.
Violence is okay in terms of defense of self/home family and others safety of others
@@SmartAss4123 get a dictionary, violence and self defense are two different thing not the same.
@@mynamemyself5469 If I act in self defense I will do so violently. How about that
@@mynamemyself5469can you explain how one would defend oneself without violence? If someone attacks me, I will react with all the violence I possibly can.
First, violence is not only physical...
Now, imagine what we, human beings go through in life. Our suffering is much more deeper and excruciatingly painful. It`s absolutely appalling and mind-boggling that most of the time innocent people go through hell and the only explanation Christianity can offer in this situation is that "those people suffer for other people`s sins" that this world is sinful, etc. So, how can I believe in the existence of a "caring and loving God" if I have to suffer for other people`s sins? What kind of "logic" is this? Moreover, suffering doesn`t end in this life. God is unable to comfort us even in the afterlife. If you go to Heaven but your loved ones go to Hell, how can you be happy in Heaven? How is that even possible?
if a person is in fact truly innocent then they therefore actually dont go to hell because they are in fact innocent. Therefore innocent people dont suffer for other people sins.
@@cyansorcerer6491 They do suffer in this life and I`ve seen many of such people. Quite a few of them were devoted Christians but that didn`t help them a bit. They suffered terribly, never experiencing "divine intervention" in their miserable lives. Even if those people go to Heaven but their loved ones end up in Hell, how are they going to be happy "up there" knowing that their loved one are going to be tormented in Hell forever? Tell me.
@@cyansorcerer6491 You do not have to be a "good" or "innocent" person to get to a heaven, that's what Jesus did(That's why he is often compared to the serpent), you only have to have faith in God. That's what turns me off about Christianity, because even the worse physcopathic murderer can get to be with God(after their sins are repented) but a sinless ignorant or naive person would without a doubt be left to burn in hell. Seems unjust, does it not?
@@jeremycamacho8864what about the people who don’t even know that?
@@GENERATIONALKINGS-rm6zt it's what the Bible says, not me. The Bible does not have exemptions or rules for the naive who do not know of Christ or God at all, or the animals from intelligent apes to "lesser" organisms. Simply assuming they would be fine because of your own idea of a good God is unreliable as evidence for reason, and in fact, assuming the latter would be more logical seeing as God's morality elsewhere is questionable to say the least.
The third level of pain is an interesting concept.
Higher reasoning definitely let's us look at pain from a meta perspective, which can itself cause anxiety and discomfort. It objectively allows self aware and rational beings a layered and deeper experience of suffering. However, our higher reasoning and depth to suffering, doesn't mean we're suffering more. We don't immediately panic from every sensation of pain, rationality and understanding pain is rather helpful to enduring it, and even willingly going through it when necessary.
This is one of the main concepts behind stoic philosophy
Yes but even the most basic neuron circuits can, after being exposed to constant pain, adapt into being more tolerant to pain by augmenting the threshold of response. Functionally animals experience pain almost equally to us, we may understand it better but the sensation will not change because of our understanding, just because of how neurons work. We only differentiate in being able to prepare for a painful experience beforehand maybe like when going to the doctor to get a vaccine or something.
One day advanced aliens arrive and decide to poke about inside our brains and bodies because, hey, we’re way down in on the hierarchy of pain…
Can mean we suffer less, too. If we need to be aware of the suffering to experience it, then that explains why people who get injured but don't notice it instantly have varying amounts of delay between the moment of the injury and the moment they feel its repercussions.
More to do with a kind of reverse placebo effect imo, but it's at least a bit interesting to dig into that thought, so I'm sharing it.
Circus animals are on constant fear of further pain which is why they perform tricks so they don’t get hurt. They also suffer from mental struggles such as ptsd depression and anxiety.
I understood the 2nd level of pain in a different, but horrifying way. If animals are not self-aware, they're driven by instinct. So when a dog is hungry, it doesn't think "I'm hungry. I should get some food." It just thinks "hungry." If pain is the same for an animal, I'd say it's worse than human pain. They can't try to focus on something else, or reason that pain is not real, or disassociate in any way. Their brain is just screaming "pain."
I disagree
I think pain without the cognitive ability to emotionally suffer is basically nothing just another input
Obviously animals can emotionally suffer but i find it hard to believe they can emotionally suffer as much as humans
Humans are experts at emotional suffering
@@bradlast7839 I would agree that heartbreak, worry, and other emotional pain are (mostly) human issues, but I was talking about physical pain.
@@MrBevoRules yeah but im saying physical pain by itself isnt suffering
The suffering we experience of physical pain is actually an emotional response
If you could switch off emotions pain would be just another sensory input like the rest
There would be no distinguishing it from sensations that feel good
@@bradlast7839 Respectful disagree on this one. Animals can experience the same mental illnesses we can. Like Anxiety, Depression, PTSD, and even PPD (postpartum depression, if female ofc). You think a cat cannot feel grave pain and suffering when she looses a kit? Or an Orca feeling suffering because they're trapped in a cage all day without they're family? Animals are smart. Elephants grieve over fallen members of their tribe, they've been seen having funerals. Of course the level of intelligence is a spectrum. A cat is far more intelligent then a gecko. So it kinda depends
@@falcon_arkaig i didnt say they cant feel emotional pain
I specified that they cannot to the degree humans can
Human suffering knows such depths only theough the high levels of self awareness we have
We ad layers of self torture on top of the external i fluences to ourselves in a very unique way
I'm sure we are all so proud of Alex.
@First Name Last Name Cringe.
@@seraphim-kpopdreamcorpsear5255 Why? It's a true statement.
@First Name Last Name no doubt Christianity is curse to humanity and this entire planet.
Alex Jones ?
Yes, that beard really is something
“But death and life, success and failure, pain and pleasure, wealth and poverty, all these happen to good and bad alike, and they are neither noble nor shameful-and hence neither good nor bad.” -Marcus Aurelius (Meditations 2.11)
My approach is usually something like this:
Natural calamities cannot be morally qualified. In order for something to truly be evil, it must have human moral intentions behind it. This principle is generally accepted (manslaughter vs. murder, medical error vs. malpractice, etc).
Survival and natural instincts are neither morally good nor morally evil. Animals do not have the capacity to make moral decisions due to their survival being driven purely by instinct. Humans have surpassed the struggle of survival and therefore are not purely driven by instinct, (in the modern world, we’re primarily driven by moral “instinct”). Humans see a lion brutally killing a gazelle as evil simply because we’ve moved past the need to rely on our survival instincts. If we didn’t, we would see it as part of survival and thus “morally” permissible.
To respond to Alex’s objection, a dog killing a dog is not morally evil because there’s no moral intention behind it. But a human killing a dog is evil because there is moral intention behind it.
Some people may object and say that animals do have the capacity to be moral agents, but I think this is us simply imposing our view of morality on animal behavior. A dog does not have the capacity to understand the difference between murder and killing, lying and honesty, greed and charity, etc.
This idea is relatively new to me and I don’t know if anyone has argued something similar before. I’m sure there are holes in it, but let me know if you guys have any critiques/suggestions.
If you ever become an antinatalist you should rename your channel to CosmicContraception
just found my new channel name thanks a lot
Haha
@Andre Ghio I hope you know this but people are much less likely to listen to you if your attitude is like that. Instead, be patient, pleasant and explain why you think abortion is bad rather than attacking people and insulting them. Hope you have a great day, and more power to you!
(Also I'm pretty sure Alura made a joke, so don't be so mad about it)
@Andre Ghio not wanting children doesn't mean I support abortion
@Andre Ghio Say one non religious argument against abortion! Heck, say a religious one that isn't fallacious! Else you're just here to attack people and shame them for their lifestyle choices.
Original sin. Some microbe offended God in the dawn of time and since then we are all punished.
@mr.anonymous it's kind of the opposite though...? The father's sins are heaped upon the heads of his children-
@@ohdeerheavens You'll find both in the bible.
@@onigbajamo can u give me the scriptures for that pls
@@exploitation_restoration - Bible verses as requested:
*Deuteronomy 24 : 16*
_Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin._
Yet thar verse is flatly contradicted by the story of the same god killing an innocent baby boy explicitly to punish the baby's father:
*2 Samuel 12 : 13 - 18* NIV
_Then David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.” Nathan replied, “The Lord has taken away your sin. You are not going to die._
_But because by doing this you have shown utter contempt for the Lord, the son born to you will die.”_
_After Nathan had gone home, the Lord struck the child that Uriah’s wife had borne to David, and he became ill._
_… On the seventh day the child died._
*The road to atheism is paved with Bibles that have actually been **_read._*
He litterly just disproved your god lol
There are many animals that have been observed as being “self-aware”, including dolphins. Craig’s argument was awful
How did they find this out? Do you have a source for that?
Yeah, magpies can tell their own reflection from the faces of others
And all typically farmed animals too - chickens, cows, pigs, to name a few.
Primer on chickens intelligence is "Thinking chickens: a review of cognition, emotion, and behavior in the domestic chicken." by Lori Marino. You can find similar research on cows and especially pigs. I've picked chickens as they are considered stupid by most people.
Isn't that literally the definition of sentience?
@@NateROCKS112 not necessarily.
I had to write a paper on the existence of god in my college philosophy class. One of my biggest arguments against the existence of god was that of suffering. My professor simply wrote at the bottom of my paper, “Who’s to say we have a good/just god” 😂
The simple definition of god as all powerful all knowing and all caring we often herr. This alone makes him/her/it impossible to exist.
@@TorianTammas that is a subjective opinion. That's like saying you can't make tamato sauce with tomatoes. My point is that God should not be put in a box. What most atheists do. An intelligent and all-powerful being has the potential to be loving or evil.
@@lisalatham4389 How do you attain this God like power you have?
You must be smarter than all humans that ever lived (combined) to be able to determine if another being really knows everything.
Timothy 2:12
@@mrsatire9475 I don't claim to be smart or intelligent. I am simply asserting or saying this based on research and common sense.
@@mrsatire9475 Yes, that is the definition of God. If we talk about God's attributes, we should not put God in a box because this contradicts the idea or nature of God.
Obviously Craig never had to take his dog to the vet. A few months ago I had to take my dog to the vet, and because they were still doing COVID protocol I had to wait in my care. I got to see all of the people taking their dogs in. One lady had a large dog in the back seat of her vehicle This lady was pulling on the leash with all her might but the dog would not move. This dog obviously remembered getting her shots, remembered they were painful, and remembered where she got them. Yes, dogs remember locations. My dog loves going to my mother's house because she always gets treats. We live in walking distance and if I tell her to "Go to grandma's house" she knows exactly where to go, on her own, without a leash.
I have a suspicion that Craig misinterpreted the findings of that paper. I have not read it myself, but logically, the only thing I can assume is that, when he read "they don't have the SAME pain awareness", he thought that meant, "Well, then. they don't feel pain."
More than likely - and again, I am assuming right now - what Murray meant was that an animal can experience pain, be aware of it, and try to avoid whatever caused said pain, but they probably cannot form any kind of intellectual relationship with it. In other words, they can react to it, but do not think about it beyond the feeling of it, and probably would not be able to decide whether or not enduring it on purpose would be worth it in the way we do when consenting to medical treatments or helping others in danger. That sounds like a much more believable difference to me.
@@TristandeRobillard Well not for medical treatments. That is a bit too abstract of a concept for a dog I imagine. But you could say that they decide to endure it on purpose to do something different like biting their way out of a cage causing their mouth to bleed or to force themselves through a prickly bush to escape something scary, they can choose to walk on rocks that hurt their paws if there's some treat they really want on the other end.
@@GoldenMechaTiger That makes perfect sense to me, yes. That whole claim that Craig makes honestly holds up less and less the more you think about it.
I am Catholic, and I am a believer. This is a very good video. Christians need to grapple and wrestle with these questions. My biggest frustration with religious minded people is that they turn a blind eye to the difficult questions. We must not forget that faith is a real thing, not just blissful ignorance. Good video.
Yup
Every Christian I have known in my life have strong "FAITH" in many absurdities and they seem to find bliss in blindness, apathy and wilful ignorance.
They all seem to lack CONSCIENCE, COMPASSION AND EMAPTHY, the most important attributes that set fully fledged decent human beings apart from the rest of the animals.
@@lawratify I agree with you. Christ brought me peace, but that doesn't mean I am better than anyone else. I try to love everyone the best I can.
@@charlesmhorn You're one of the very very few Christians I've seen say these things. The kind of Christian I'd like to talk to
You'll notice Craig admits that "primates", not just human primates, are aware of pain, but just carries on talking about humans hoping you'll quickly forget about the other great apes.
I caught this, as well. Guess we're just throwing chimpanzees under the bus?
And they've been used for experiments for many decades, with no regard for their suffering. Of course, zoos are no different, they are imprisoned without any regard for the misery it might cause.
A squirrel has 4 legs and a tail. So does a rhino. Does that mean they are relatives? Or that they simply have a similar structure? I'll believe the evolution debate when flamingos design nuclear weapons and wage war against each other's nations.
@YouOnlyLiveTwice Exactly my point
Right. And of course he doesn’t say much about souls since those are the most debunked theological concept.
thank you. Thank you for this video!!!!! As an ex Christian and animal lover and vegan for 35 years you said just what I think For me this is one of the best videos ever!!
Say YWH or any Sky Fairy is real they have to be SUPER PSYCHO EVIL I hate when people get into arguments about this or that, this all I need for this debate.
So Alex is officially an old man now. He just called Tik tok evil.
@@MindsElectric hail seitan
@@MindsElectric yup just like Satan created language so we can spend time talking and praising the lord.
@@MindsElectric That's why TH-cam is better.
Fuck TikTok, reddit forever!
Boomer energy.
This is one that really bothers me. People talk about how beautiful nature is, and it is if you view it from far away, but look it up close and it's pretty ugly.
Yes, nature can be beautiful but it also can be very harmful. Nature can wipe out hundreds of thousands of people/animals in seconds. It can destroys buildings, cities in a couple of minutes.
432 hz is beautiful, which occurs naturally in nature. But this could be attributed to biology; we spent 99.9999% of our existence out there in nature, it's literally in our DNA to feel calmed by the crickets and the sound of bee's wings, the rustling of the trees. If there is a god, it would be better to think of it as a consciousness or frequency that is the only constant in the universe; you can tap into it and be healed/righted/whatever. That's my most non-bullshit, least-indoctrinated explanation, almost on an agnostic level. I can tell you there is something to the universe, as I saw a Wiccan ritual where the guy made a street light turn off during his ritual and it only turned back on when it was done... we just don't really know what. God forbid the bible god actually is real and causing all this; there's no 'interdimensional police' in that case to arrest him and punish him for what he does, and no way to overthrow him (allegedly). We really are trapped in eternal torment then.
Unless you're a sadomasochistic Social Darwinist, then it's glorious.
...it has become ugly over years of pollution and abuse; I doubt it was always that way. A young deer ran out in front of my truck and I accidentally killed it because I was not able to stop in time. From a distance it was a majestic creature, but when I went up to it to check if it was okay I saw it had the mange all over its backside, part of its nose, and under its jawbone. Not a pretty sight, although I have seen deer in a reserve that are strong and healthy. Same with feral cats as compared with domestic well groomed ones that have nothing to do all day but sleep and keep themselves clean...
That's... Not true.
If you look solely at instances where a prey gets eaten, sure. But most of the time an animals's existence is far more peaceful than ours.
I doubt this type of argument has much substance when it comes to evidence and, despite liking Alex a lot, I do have a problem with this type of ad populum surrounding pain.
That's your subjective view at best, not necessarily reality.
Craig's argument is what I like to call the "Thanos argument."
When Thanos killed, living did not suffer pain, just fear.
Good point. Years ago, I watched a documentary on life on the Serengeti. One of the animals being followed was a wildebeest that couldn't give birth because its young's pelvis was too wide, it couldn't get out. The mother trudging along with the young hanging out of her body until she was exhausted, and was then an easy prey for a predator (which wasn't filmed btw), was a disgusting and really shocking mockery of the miracle of birth. I felt sick after watching that.
But the title reminded me of a quip(?) in "I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist": the most serious problem of Christianity are the Christians. And I add: especially defenders of the faith.
Well damn, I honestly thought Craig would’ve said something like “Adrenaline and being in shock mitigates the pain of being eaten” rather than “animals feel a feeling they don’t feel so it’s fine.”
Yea if Craig wasn't already almost the bottom of the barrel in my opinion, he would be now.
I mean, I'm not a vegetarian and I know about the suffering of animals. Craig doesn't seem to be even be aware of that.
The first passage I would have expected in response to this subject would be from Romans 8:18-25:
18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us.
19 For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God.
20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope
21 that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God.
22 For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now.
23 And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body.
24 For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he already sees?
25 But if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it.
Saying animals are not smart enough to understand pain and therefore don't feel it is such a bad argument. Same argument was used to excuse doing unspeakable things to those with neurological or developmental disabilities or differences. Like a similar vein of logic led to a lot of nazi sht.. totally not okay. It's a bad idea that can too easily lead to bad things
@@EllenMJKrog Alex, here, does not address any of Craig's work on the issue of animal suffering outside of this debate. Nor does he address any of Michael Murray's work on the issue, whom Craig references extensively. Simply, none of the arguments being made by Craig or Murray go along the lines of "animals are not smart enough to understand pain and therefore don't feel it."
If you are interested in Michael Murray's work, I would refer you to his book Nature Red in Tooth and Claw: Theism and the Problem of Animal Suffering.
@@troycalhoun8438 I am not interested in nonsense. The idea that animals don't feel pain is nonsense. Pain is one of the most adaptive responses imaginable. It is not some recent addition, like the ability to do "philosophy". It is rock bottom basic and ancient. When are we going to get it: people are animals!
"Unpredictable diseases, miscarriages, natural disasters and the existence of Tiktok" LMAO
😂😂😂😂😂
atheism is the most dangerous fallacy
@@God-ld6ll let's assume that not believing in God, due to failure from those who claim there is one to provide a single significant piece of evidence to prove it, is a "fallacy". Why exactly do you believe it is the most dangerous?
@@NaderAbusaada90because it leads to unpredictable diseases, miscarriages, natural disasters and the existence of Tiktok.
@@God-ld6ll lol
Perfect men do not exi-
Simp
@@josiahwashington1882 If she were a boy it would be disgusting
@@georgewashingtom6516 not really but I was joking tho
That’s not perfect tbh
@@georgewashingtom6516 Simping is fine as long as it doesn't become a way of life.
Wow his opening statement is so true and i was struck by some shock and a little embarrassment that in all my ponderings over religion ive never considered this either. Bravo sir, its so simple yet so important.
As a Christian, I just have to tell you one thing.... I love your beards bro
Twinky daddy vibe
CosmicSkeptic: I have an idea, we could introduce wolves to prey on starving people...
Me: Looks up wolf breeding...
CosmicSkeptic: Who would think this is a good idea...Nobody!
Me: Sheepishly cancels search.
Christian: "God could have his reasons for suffering, even for the death of infants"
Atheist: "what about tik tok?"
Christian: "you win"
He could have just made his video about that. That seems like a great point
Ahh yes I am sickened that it exist but as you know I Jesus gave free will blah blah blah
@@yeshuachrist2300 LMAO, I loved you once upon a time jeebus.
"Checkmate, Christians."
I'm a Christian and yes, that argument is valid. I give up. XDDDD
I could've accepted his argument as at least something to discuss if he'd said animals don't feel pain the same way humans do. That's at least something we could argue.
But we he actually said is so wrong that it falls apart to the most basic of observations. Somebody else mentioned it in the comments. Stepping on a dog's tail. They recoil and yowl and then look at you betrayed, because they felt pain, and were aware of it's cause. They know what part hurt, and why it hurt.
If you've ever stepped on a dog's foot, it knows it's suffering, and you know it's suffering.
"None of this makes any sense..."
Religion in a nutshell lol
Yeah if you take it litteraly it doesn’t make sense🤦🏻♂️
@@mmkw5621 You can deduce any meaning from any words if you go far enough "metaphorically".
@@mmkw5621 Like Dutta said, if you don't take it "literally" then you can make out of the stories whatever you want, thus making the entire thing even less consistent.
LOL true
@@rritobakdutta8730 you can learn much more about human psychology by reading the Bible than reading some random fairytale.
Infants lack self awareness. Does that mean that they cannot "really" feel pain?
18:25 may be the stupidest thing I've heard today.
Good point - so according to Dr Ken's theology, torturing babies would be fine because they can't experience pain... His argument is so weak that you have to feel embarrassed for the man. Is he really the best they've got?
I think you both are mistaken, for one the you are missing the point, wlc is not saying animals don't feel any kind of pain, his says they do feel pain, but not in the same way as us. You are on the track with your comment on infants, you have first hand experience of this point. We do feel pain as infants but it is not the same kind of pain. I got boiling hot water poured on me as a toddler but I don't see that as painful experience because I was not self aware, I was in some kind of pain when it happened but was not really aware of that pain. Animals do feel pain but they do not know they are in pain, because they are not knowers, they do not know anything. Also just because a being is not self aware of pain doesn't mean that it is okay to cause pain in that being, that is a ridiculous statement, and no one is making that point unless they are trying to strawman the argument
@@Polarbeardueck I don't think you've had much contact with vertebrate animals. They can be psychologically traumatised by both pain and by fear of pain, and there's growing evidence that many vertebrates can suffer from clinical depression and PTSD. They get stressed when separated from loved ones. They anticipate pain and stress and take pre-emptive action to avoid it. And unlike the Prof's claim, ALL vertebrates do have a prefrontal cortex - he is simply flat wrong about that. The same can be said of infants.
Their experience of pain may be different in degree from ours, but it's simply playing with words to say the don't experience pain "because they are not knowers". Only a psychopathic brute would knowingly subject, say, a pet dog to ongoing physical or psychological abuse, and any normal person observing it would intuitively know that something profoundly wrong was happening. Any dog expert knows immediately if they are dealing with an animal that has been abused in the past - it shows in their behaviour. The same with abused infants - the idea that a scalding would leave no psychological scars is simply naïve.
So why is it OK for a perfectly compassionate deity to create an ecosystem which is overwhelmingly brutal and dominated by murder, disease and starvation? You can't explain it away by saying "oh it's OK they don't really feel pain". In the same way as it was wrong to justify slavery by saying - "oh it's OK, blacks are just brutes and don't really feel pain".
It's the opposite of a straw-man argument - it's a devastating and unanswerable argument. The Prof's position is so weak as to be risible.
@@tullochgorum6323 i was going to respond to Beulah Land's comment but you beat me to it. gah, i swear people could come to these conclusions on their own if they thought about it long enough. this shit is crazy.
@@tullochgorum6323 I completely agree with most of what you said. I agree with everything in your first paragraph and everything you said about abused animals in your second paragraph. Again i think animals do suffer, however like you said it's not how we suffer, your suffering that you experience is vastly greater than that what a dog will experience. You are right to say that the suffering of animals is not justified because they suffer less than us. I am not saying the suffering of an animal is good, it's not, it is an evil. My position on is much more subtle. I would simply point out that it is good for the animal to exist and that the evil that the animal experiences of pain and death, which is not good, does in fact lead to good, such as other animals which are fed and the sustainability of the ecosystem and the evolution of species
From a theistic perspective, I feel like the problem of evil can be resolved from simply acknowledging that suffering occurs, yet it is within God’s plan for the future, and there will always be a greater outcome to it, even if we don’t see it intuitively:
A verse that speaks to the idea of God's plans and purposes being ultimately for good, Jeremiah 29:11 (NIV):
"For I know the plans I have for you," declares the Lord, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future."
This verse emphasizes that God's plans are designed for the overall good and well-being of individuals, offering hope and a positive future within His divine purpose.
This implies a future in which those that have suffered create a future that is better only for a select few, and a significant fewer at that. Which means god is seemingly retarded in this situation. If he plans to do “good” (but only compared to how bad he’s done) in some nondescript distant future where all of us are dead and gone, he is like a child destroying an entire ant colony to use the sand for his little sandcastle that is good for neither the ants nor him.
Watching your videos for so many years I've come to realize how much you've matured both mentally in depth and physically.
Matured.?!! He talks like a kid.! All i see is one guy among many who keeps blabbering about how bad the world is and blaming it on God which he did'nt even believe in.! These fools only judge things on how they see without even bothering to study or know more about God.! This is why this world is not meant for us to stay forever.! Us humans are just in the hurry and in greed of having the need of living that beautiful perfect life so much that we think of something foolish to be the answers like this guy.
@@exerpachuau5486 Mhm sure whatever floats your boat. As long as you dont use "god" as an excuse to be shitty to other human beings because of your belief then nobody will have a gripe with you. Oh and this includes hatred for people of different beliefs btw. And just to be sure throw in people who aren't heterosexual. And non white people too, let's not forget those too.
@@exerpachuau5486 100% cosmic skeptic has read about and studied “God” far more than you have.
@@GalaxyHRW Still by human minds,if God is small enough to be understood by your 3.pound brain...,then He is not worth worshiping.
@@exerpachuau5486 he’s not worth worshipping because he’s not real. But if he is, why don’t you ask him what would convince all of us and let us know. He doesn’t reply to me.
When I met God:
Me: So God what is the purpose of life?
God: To find me!
Me: I found you, now what?
God: Now go and tell everyone that I exist!
Me: Why don't you yourself tell everyone that
God: Nah! It's more fun this way.
@@Mich-G you are assuming that’s bad yet would have to have a standard to assume that’s bad
Animals experience pain along with emotional pain, just yesterday I saw a squirrel drag another squirrel who had been ran over out of the road, despite it being dead meaning that animals aren't as "primal" or immune to all pain as that person was saying in his speech
@Anthony Fuentes
I was something similar a few years back. I think I was on my way to a job interview. And while waiting for a bus, I saw a squirrel approach a dead squirrel that had been run over, and it looked to be mourning.
And don't even get me started on my dog's separation issues when he was younger. I couldn't leave him alone for a minute without him getting anxious. He got over that as he got older, but when he was little...? We could be separated by merely him sitting on the other side of my bedroom door, and he's lose it.
So I won't hear this nonsense about animals not experiencing emotional pain.
@@DemonicRemption And at the same time hawk or stork can kill 1 to 2 own babies to feed a bigger one to survive. They can even just eat their babies themselves during breeding season. They dont feel here any emotional pain.
Alex makes a critical error right at the start of the video by making the false claim that human free will does not explain why animals suffer. In doing so, he ignores (or is not aware of) a central premise of the Christian argument which is based on Genesis 3:17, “cursed is the ground for thy sake”. In other words, the moment Adam disobeyed God, he not only cursed humanity by permanently corrupting the human genome (made us mortal and vulnerable to disease) but he cursed the entire planet. It’s important to note that Adam’s name is אֲדָמָה ('adamah), meaning "earth" in the Hebrew. He was made from the earth and therefore, by sinning, he destroyed the natural order of the entire planet. Prior to this moment, natural disaster, disease and any form of suffering were non-existent (see the garden of Eden). This was the state in which God initially created the world.
I'm afraid this still makes no sense. Why are animals punished for something they didn't do? Why did God have to react so harshly in the first place? Couldn't he have also perhaps put the tree a little higher where humans couldn't reach? Wouldnt this spare immeasurable human and animal suffering?
Chase Blauvelt If God put the fruit of the tree out of reach, he would have been placing our ability to freely reject him out of reach. However, God could never do this because He wanted to create us with the freedom to choose. He did not want to force Adam and Eve to follow him. However, since he knew what was best for mankind and loved humanity, he made it as easy as possible for them to not choose wrongly by eating the fruit of the tree. This is why there was only one tree of the knowledge of good and evil in a garden that could have been thousands of kilometres wide.
I can't remember any pain I had as a baby.. Yet I must of had some discomfort and had a physical response to that discomfort.. Yet up till the age of conscious awareness I don't recall registering any pain
16:00 I'm sorry, did he actually just say that only higher primates and human beings-which ARE higher primates-have a prefrontal cortex?
Bitch, what!? Literally all mammals have prefrontal cortices. That's just shockingly dumb.
Even if he were correct, that just makes humans less special. If we are god's special creation, why wouldn't he give us a special brain?
@@jennoscura2381 Why would he even give us such a natural, sensitive blob? Couldn't we think with the divine power of god? I guess he's just being mysterious, after all why else would he create such fundamental and important parts be naturalistic, while others which are arguably even more important to be an easy "supernatural" cop-out. Maybe it isn't the creator of the universe that creates these narratives, but fallacious humans? But no, that's completely irrational.
So is the pain suffered by other higher primates of no importance? Does Craig ever come out of a debate looking good?
@@klondike444 Of course not, they be monke humans, can't feel pain. Human feel pain cuz higher being like human and want human to have free will to suffer. Of course he comes out looking good, it's all great, sound arguments after all. He totally didn't coincidentally promote the factuality of torturing babies, as people often did before modern science(performing operations with no pain reliefs or anesthetics, basically torture), couldn't have done it, because he's following the word of the omnibenevolent creator of the universe(or at least his interpretation of it).
Wow the last time I was this early I was still a Christian.
@The Christ, who is God over all Pictures or it didn’t happen
@The Christ, who is God over all ok (the meme one)
And i was a muslim 🙂
@The Christ, who is God over all lol
@@asathelogiclaman637 Hahaha sweet
Nevermind human and animal suffering, I want Christianity to explain the problem of TikTok's existence. How can an omni-god and TikTok both exist?
Atheism confirmed.
Hah, but if serious its can help you to understand this issue
th-cam.com/video/6CGhSY_3Td8/w-d-xo.html
What's wrong with tiktok?
@@mabd7340 “You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy”
-Obi Wan Kenobi
The bit around 16:40 reminds me of the scene in an episode of _Star Trek: The Next Generation_ ("The Battle", 1987) in which Doctor Crusher gives Captain Picard a treatment for his headache, telling him "Feel better." Amazed by the quick effect, he says "The pain's gone." She says "Medical fakery. The pain is actually still there. It's just cloaked." Ridiculous.
A quote from a prisoner in the Holocaust comes to mind: “If God exists, he will have to beg my forgiveness.”
@@FA-hb3hf except the Christian god would send the Holocaust prisoner to hell as they rejected him.
@@FA-hb3hf Depends for God said he's the Most Jealous God and Created Evil to allow and give Free Will a Reason . this will determine what Mood Gods in when the time comes.Who controls Good and Evil the Most is the One Who Created it .
@@FA-hb3hf You know you worry about your behaving in a book. Read it in context really all of it befor you start making statements on Behaving.
@@FA-hb3hf Repent
@@FA-hb3hf Tell that to some one with way more intelligence and knowledge also know the Book by reading it front to back a few times and be your own Hypocrite.
Alex has now become dark and mysterious with that facial hair 😆
hahaha nailed it 😂
I was looking for this coment. Love the new look
I’m hugging my puppy while you’re talking about hurting puppies 😢😢😢 of COURSE they experience pain. They also experience a vast array of emotions and have distinct personalities. If you spend a day with an animal you’ll see all of that.
Do you know the gospel?
Hello gorgeous
I honestly wonder if the people making the argument that non-human animals don't feel pain or that they are not aware of their pain, whatever that means, ever spent a single second of their life next to any animal. Even spending 5 minutes with a fricking turtle will teach you that humans and by extension mammals are not the only beings capable of complex emotions.
@@iwankozowski5621-Just curious, are you pro life or pro choice?
@@skepticalstrom6247 As silly as it might sound, I have no clue, I haven't given the issue any real thought which is understandably a big yikes considering how relevant it is, but there is something inside my head that disagrees with both "sides" on some things but again, having not thought about it beyond it brushing my mind, can't really talk unfortunately
i haven't completed the full video, and i am an (atheist/agnostic/maybe sometimes a desist idk i haven't settled), but i think one way theists can dodge the bullet on this one is saying "well god created us and animals and gave us the capacity to have emotions like love and empathy to ask/raise this question. he also and gave us the capacity to help and care for others and animals, so let's work towards reducing both human and animal suffering as well" and everybody would give a standing ovation
Sounds cool, except that god supposedly created us in his image. So whatever we have, he has. Tell me, kiddo, what does god need emotions like racial hate and depression for? There are no black gods in heaven and he's got nothing to be depressed about. It's not like his landlord can raise his rent. ;-)
@@lepidoptera9337 well that's basically the question of {can god feel emotions?/does god have emotions?}, and while different theists and religions have different answers, at first glance it appears they can bypass the question entirely by just stating {god gave us morality and made suffering so we get to use the morality to stop the suffering, and if it was any other way then there'd be no meaning to anything (regardless of whether or not god feels/has emotions)}... but this doesn't work, since it circles back to {good vs. evil} and {what is meaning?}... so idk
@@ramalshebl60 I do. All religion is bullshit and all religions are Nigerian Prince scams. That's the correct answer. Don't feel sorry for yourself for being fooled. Happens to most people who don't have a working mind. :-)
My dog is definitely aware of suffering, I haven't smoothed him in a full 3 seconds and he's proper pissed off about it
"smoothed" him? XD
@@wesleythompson3917 thats a British thing, stroked/petted/smoothed are the same thing lol
This comment is so aggressively British lmao
@@MarshTheDarsh haven’t heard that haha
@@erinwhipple4666 haha, apologies if it came off as aggressive, I’d just had a crumpet and my first can of scrumpy for the day!
"existence is defined by suffering" You sound a lot like agent Smith from Matrix.
Or Buddha
@@savak1994 Many world views have the same target in mind, wellbeing of everyone and reducing unnecessary suffering, but I doubt our limited minds can find the ultimate answer to do so.
I personally find that antinatalism (along with other methods) offers an effective practical way to avoid adding more unnecessary suffering to the already abundant amount
And here was WLC saying there is no spoon.
Or every emo teen
The second someone [minimizes] animal suffering the way Craig does, they gain the label “possible serial killer”. Just saying. If someone can delegitimize a dog’s pain, they can just as easily do the same for people.
Excellent point.
Have you considered reading or discussing Bentley Heart on this? His response to the suffering in nature is quite convincing to me.
The argument that animals don't feel pain, or experience it on the same level whites do, was also made against people of color to justify their subjugation and cruel treatment. If they didn't feel pain much, then they could be suited for hard and dangerous labor. If they didn't feel pain much, then severe punishments were necessary. If they didn't feel pain much, then they didn't need the same level of medical care as white people. If they didn't feel pain much, then it was okay for doctors to perform medical experiments on them (often without their knowledge and consent).
The repercussions of this are still being felt today, and many of those biases are still there.
People of colour is racist terminology, stop using black people as props for your confused, fake outrage.
Corey Trevor bro I don’t know if you’ve realized this but there’s more than two races in the world and white people didn’t just enslave black people. People of color is literally more accurate to history.
@@coreytrevor1262 get dunked on
"You can't be in pain if you don't feel pain." And with that gem, Craig demolishes the idea of suffering in the afterlife. Well done, sir.
“Watching TH-cam videos to avoid whatever you’re supposed to be doing right now”.... that hit hard.
Really hard
At 15:30 onwards, William Lane Craig uses an argument which will unintentionally make him the greatest pro-abortion activist in Christendom...