God vs evil (with Alex O’Connor, Joe Schmid, and Cameron Bertuzzi)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 ส.ค. 2024
- In this episode Trent shares a conversation he took part in with atheist Alex O’Connor, agnostic Joe Schmid, and Protestant Cameron Bertuzzi on the problem of evil.
To support this channel: / counseloftrent
Cosmic Skeptic: / cosmicskeptic
Capturing Christianity channel: / capturingchristianity
Majesty of Reason: / majestyofreason
A Catholic, a Protestant, an agnostic and atheist walk into a bar.
What the hell?? Why are you bringing up Matt Dillahunty?? lmao. I got the reference immediately. I used to be an atheist and watch The Atheist Experience all the time. I converted and now I watch The Counsel of Trent.
Amazing to hear! Many people say the Atheist Experience is what made them atheist. What convinced you that they are wrong?
@@Seethi_C Roundabout arguements, a misuse of philosophy till a point where there is no philosophy, a very aggresive hatred towards religion from someone like Matt Dillahunty which gives off an unprofessional vibe, an abuse of history and denial of history from their end (even if you don't believe in god there is no denial that Christ for example was a real person that existed, look at History for Atheists for example, Tim from History of Atheists shows that New Atheists just ignore history and make their own worldview, then add in the "Extraordinary Claims need Extraordinary Evidence" as an escape by not defining the terms of extraordinary. Great Atheists exist, Atheists who know their points like Graham Oppy for example, then you have people that just hate god like Matt Dillahunty, the atheists that hate god make it very loud that they don't have good arguements.
I loved this conversation, simply because of disagreement without “over-aggression” . In other words, the Atheist provides hard and tough questions without being off track by providing more and more arguments ( something like a gish gallop ) and the Christian response does the same thing. Super fair and charitable conversation. It also isn’t heavily dominated in one area, as in no one “won” the conversation, and we are left to decide what we would do with the propositions presented. It’s like watching or listening to Jimmy Akin’s Mysterious World
Cameron should convert solely based on his last name
EXACTLY 🇮🇹🤌🏻
italian protestant makes zero sense
@@joshvarges9230 Also Latino protestants
Lol I think he ought to embrace the fullness of the faith not because of his heritage but because it is the fullness of the faith. It would suit his name perfectly.
You mean “come on”?
Alex’s position that a world with no need for bravery is preferable to a world with bravery is not a logical position. It is a value judgement. The fact that Cameron prefers the world with bravery shows Alex’s position is not intuitive as he asserts.
Alex also seems to conflate suffering with evil, but I do not see where he has proven that position.
If there is no need for bravery, then cowardice is the higher value. Got it.........
@@Goodkidjr43 Not quite, in Alex's proposed world, there would be nothing to fear, and therefore nothing to cower over.
However, I would disagree with both Alex and Trent that fear is inherently evil. Sometimes what we fear is misplaced in the face of evil. Contrastly, the fear of Lord is considered a gift of the Holy Spirit. Fear can be pretty healthy and I would almost say it is necessary if in a perfect world one also had to be obedient or perhaps had compassion for their neighbors.
Some sufferings show us the horror of sin, others show us the horror of the punishment. Some seeks to turn us by punishment, some seeks to turn us by appealing to our conscience
Something can be said for God's permissive will which is distinct from his perfect will. In his perfect will, God would never want us to undergo any kind of suffering. But at the same time, God refuses to tie up our free will and turn us into drones who always do good things that result in good consequences. The result of that is that we can either to good or evil of our own volition. That can result in good or bad consequences which God permits through his permissive will. And we're not the only one's affected by those consequences. Others can be catastrophically affected by the actions we take even if they did no wrong to deserve it. However, God is able to take any sin we've used to wreck his perfect plan in our lives and the lives of others, to bring something good, even better than the evil that was caused, out of it. That doesn't justify the evil that we've done. We're still liable for judgement, if we don't repent of that evil. It just proves that God does not abandon us.
Illnesses and diseases which can happen independently of any good or bad actions we take, have more to do with our fallen nature. Because of the fall of our fore father's Adam and Eve, we've had to deal with the consequences of original sin which include, separation from God's covenant community, physical death, illness, disease, suffering, concupiscence, etc. Christ, put all of these things to death in his very own flesh, when he offered his life in atonement for our sins on the Cross. We are living the first fruits of his victory over sin, death, and suffering on the Cross. Through Baptism we are restored to full relationship with God through His Son, Jesus Christ and are able to enter into God's covenant community. God gives us the graces that are necessary to deal with the negative effects of physical death, illness, disease, suffering, and concupiscence. The belief in the Second Coming of Christ includes the promise that all of these things, physical death, illness, disease, suffering, concupiscence, natural disasters, etc. will pass away and God will usher in "a new heavens and new earth." I'm not sure if I've captured the Catholic position well. If any Catholic is on here, please feel free to correct me. I'm not as erudite as Trent Horn.
In my personal experience it seems that the role of evil/suffering is such that they bring to light a deeper understanding and appreciation of the good that is absent. The negation of the good enhances the good. I am grateful for the trials I have gone through as I do not believe I would have been able to appreciate the importance of love, forgiveness etc if I did not experience the lack thereof.
I was thinking that, it does seem that the contrast evil provides makes the good that is present comparatively more luminous so to speak, this secondary effect clearly does rely upon a comparison which, requires a contrast to reflect it. Another thing to consider is that, at least for rational creatures in Christianity that communion with God is the highest possible good, that God, Who is Goodness Himself is our end. This is the upper bound for the system period, but it may not necessarily be so for say a lower creature where the natural condition is in fact its optimal and deal condition and that eternality or infinity is simply incompatible with its existence and that this can on the whole serve a contrasting role without saying God made a moral evil by making them this way.
It is often overlooked, but in the Christian system there is the factor of the fallen angels to serve as an explanation for even some natural suffering. This can be an explanation of some seeming injustice on the part of animals even before the fall of humanity. If we believe they cause we humans to suffer for hatred of God, why would we not expect the same from them for the lower orders of creation? There does indeed seem to be a universal of-setting of everything in the natural world where it is just so much off-target. I consider entropy and the potential eventual heat death of the universe here along with how all systems work but seem slightly deficient and "leaky" at the whole. If the angels were made and fell in the beginning of creation, a ubiquitous but parasitic off-setting from the ideal seems a likely outcome if the dignity of created things individually and as a system with their own robust role as a secondary contingency is considered a good. This must be on some level true for free will to make sense and rational moral agents to be truly free and our choices meaningful.
@@LostArchivist well said, further to that by knowing the good that is absent it seems to confirm the ontological status of the good over the evil (which is its negation). The good is natural, evil is unnatural. We can know the good independent of evil but cannot know evil without a framework of what should have been - the good.
@@antonymclellan4427 I would be careful about where one applies that definition. If we are speaking morally, of course it is so. But say a bacteria is eaten by a paramecium and is digested. Well certainly for the bacteria this is an evil as it dies, were there not such consumptions, the biosphere would be entirely bacteria from sheer replication rate. This is not necessarily unnatural though it is very difficult to know where one ought to begin considering the death of an organism a moral evil in the proper sense, (assuming we don't just cut the Gordian Knot and say all non-ration organisms have no moral worth, but this seems to counter our experience that they indeed suffer and our own reactions to causing unnecessary suffering.
Or say is a branch being sawed off a tree to promote grown and ultimately a greater flourishing of the tree a form of evil in any sense? (Plants do react to damage at least chemically, so a mechanism of some acknowledgement by the plant is present).
I suppose one could find questioning border example for any definition of evil, I do like yours though it expresses it clearly and is elegant and simple and your point about good still stands. And the ultimate example of this would be that we know annihilation is preeminently among possible evils based on the good of existence without which, well no considerations are possible.
@@LostArchivist yea speaking strictly from human morality, friend.
@@antonymclellan4427 Oh yeah, yeah, yeah. Then it is perfect then. Nice job! God bless you, my brother in Christ, through Our Blessed Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Amen.
I'm an ex-atheist millennial. Now Catholic. This is why I love Pascal. These debates about religion are endless. At the end of the day, we ALL make a bet with our lives. Atheists just can't win unless there is a God that rewards atheists but they don't believe that or else they wouldn't be atheists by definition. :)
Awesome! I'm a 40 year old ex agnostic now Catholic.
@@choosejesus1910 I'll say a rosary for you.
Just because atheists don't believe in that God doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It is entirely possible that a God exists that rewards atheists and punishes theists, as well as any other combination of reward/punishment you can think of.
th-cam.com/video/fZpJ7yUPwdU/w-d-xo.html
I appreciate the sentiment brother, but God doesn't want us to take a bet on Him in the sense of a risky trade. The theological virtues of Faith and Hope have a certainty to the exclusion of any doubt or guess-work according to St. Thomas.
God bless!
@@affel6559 the bet begins by attending Church and living the Christian life. I think that's more pleasing to God than atheism.
Victor Hugo represented quite well the response for this problem in the roman "the Miserables" in the passage where Jean Valsjean is angry because someone, a Bishop, made for him an act of self-sacrificial love... I've putt the passage in a short animated video.
Link?
@@SpiderDiscord TH-cam does not like links... But you can click in my icon.
Un français !
@@lonelyberg1808 Yeah. Do not hesitated to subscribe.
Les Miserables contains one of the few favorable depictions of a bishop in fiction. They’re always portrayed as either corrupt liars or brainwashed cult leaders.
I do suppose that the time it was written helps, as although corruption in the clergy was very much a thing back then, secularism and atheism weren’t quite as pervasive as they are today.
This was fantastic Trent, I hope you continue this hermano and may God give you health, bless your family, and give you strength to continue on your journey. God bless you all.
Was Joe Smidt sporting an Arsenal Jersey?
First, God has already proven He has the power to eliminate suffering. The miracles in the Gospels for instance, the healing of the blind, deaf, mute, lepers, etc. These all prove God's capability to be more powerful than suffering. By the resurrection, He proved more powerful than the brutal crucifixion and death. So then the point is to get back to why allow the suffering in the first place. It's because anything worth anything has always been achieved by suffering through the pain of it all - the greatest achievements have come from the worst of times. Would we remember Christ if He hadn't gone through the brutal persecution of the cross only to overcome it all by the Resurrection?
Hardly. And then there is the whole free will thing. Pesky little thing isn't it? Either to be a puppeteer with false love or let the little humans make their own way to love their Father. I mean, it's kind of a no-brainer unless you're a total narcissist.
I'm a system's architect - so I can appreciate what it takes to get all of the components of a system to coexist and perform their roles perfectly in a system. The environment, humanity , the process, technology and innovation, creativity or invention, and the maintenance all have to work together seamlessly to not only create new, but also maintain the old. This is no easy task and to get it all to work together for good when so many things are broken is nearly impossible. And this is something as simplistic as a software or hardware development team. Now imagine doing it for the, oh I don't know, the UNIVERSE! If you think there is a better way, let me know, because I think God has this one down pretty darn good.
I find it somewhat ironic that Alex wants to live in a perfect world, but denies God; where Cameron, who accepts God, wants to live in a nonperfect world. At the end of times, Cameron will live in a perfect world with God where there is no suffering and Alex will live in the imperfect world without God where all there is is suffering. Hmm.
Awesome comment! God bless.
Perfectly stated!
Just want to point out that at 22:24 Alex made an error in reasoning when he used the government flooding the lawns analogy.
Trent was comparing the quality and quantity of evil. He used a small amount of evil (a bad) vs a large amount (a bad).
Alex compared small of water in the form of sprinklers (a good) to a flooding of the property (a bad).
He should have compared two evils or two bad things. Did I get that wrong?
Glad someone else noticed this. I doubt any of the atheists noticed.
@@CatholicismRules That attitude won't help reaching the people you believe to be lost.
@@R01202 Was I addressing an atheist there?
@@CatholicismRules It doesn't matter. The issue is the content of the statement, which reveals a negative disposition towards atheists. That negative disposition is going to push away the very people you are commanded by your god to love.
@@R01202 Speaking from experience in those discussions, the necessary disposition varies from person to person.
Some atheists I am negatively disposed towards, whereas for others I am not. Rationally, I'm disposed against the atheist's position, and how I address them depends on the person.
"Loving" people isn't all about making them feel good. What would you prefer I say? "I think they've thought through every argument for theism better than I could, and that they're all well-meaning individuals."?
Great conversation. Very interesting. It would be nice to see more of these types of videos. And good job Trent, keep up doing your best.
The Four Horsemen of Fruitful Discussion
To me it's as simple as this...1. God works all things to His glory. 2. All things work together for good for those who love God are called according to his purpose...
Even those events we would call evil, God is working through for good. Every thing that has happened, all of our sufferings is ultimately for good.
Why is Tom Holland in this discussion?
Just getting ready for college so he can use fancy words to impress MJ
“I authorized that Tom should be in this discussion” God
This is anecdotal but I recognize what the absence of suffering has done in my work life. My workplace has chosen my team to die out through attrition. We can no longer hire or promote but we may continue to exist so long as we please. And because our workload hasn't decreased, terminating a team member for poor performance will have an adverse effect on those who remain, which will increase the likelihood of resignation at an exponential rate. In essence, we have been robbed of individual reasons for striving towards individual goals such as promotion. If there's no reward for meeting or exceeding expectations, why feign significance? If there's no punishment for failure, why fear failure? On the 'bright side', there's no competition to bring about winners and losers. There's no politics and backstabbing.
Those outside our team still strive for promotion, pay increases and people are waiting in line to replace them out perform us and generally have better attitudes.
As I see it, the greater the risk and reward, the more alive the team is. It's my own little terrarium of a purposeless, indifferent universe being played out next to a universe with meaning and suffering.
Some thoughts of mine:
When life is hard, I sometimes just long for peace. This is probably my biggest yearning for Heaven, the strongest drive of my hope and I think Paul in many of his letters often expresses a similar idea.
Hearing your story, there really seem to be profound goods in both scenarios. The meaning, the striving in the one team, the peace on the other side. I think human nature seeks for both. It seems to me like the ideal would be to have a both/and (which is after all a very Catholic thing) somehow. I think Heaven is like that. There are all the glorious Goods of a world which has known evil, but it can now enjoy them in peace and communion, of course the highest good being the Beatific vision.
This is similar to the difference in the simplicity of a child which is simple because of it's innocence (roughly similiar to a world without evil), and the simplicity of the Saint, who knows no evil, because he has conquered it (the evil-less New Jerusalem, which has conquered sin, death and suffering). Between both of these is the worthwhile struggle and purgation of the Sinner, which corresponds to the world we live in right now.
That gets be back to my open sentences. The world as it is is like a two-way pedagogy (for lack of a better word), where we can know the value of forgiveness, courage, patience, perseverance and the tranquil peace of a good and undisturbed world. Like the Hobbits who knew both the fighting, loss and heroism, but also the wonderful and simple life of the Shire.
I'm curious what you think.
@@intedominesperavi6036 Thank you for that. I appreciate it.
The LORDS speech to Job springs to mind , “ where were you when I laid the earths foundations , who decided the dimensions of it do you know ? humanity’s inability to fully understand the divine wisdom and power of GOD . GODS ways are not our ways , GOD bless you all
St. Rafael Arnaiz Baron's Among the Vegetables has a very good outlook on the Problem of Evil and the sufferings of this world.
Maybe the main problem with this conversation is that it's articulated starting from the very limited idea of a generic god. The concept of an evil or indifferent god immediately vanishes once the Christian God is brought into the conversation, and with Him 2000 years of history of saints, martyrs, extraordinary theology and artworks inspired by Him and offered to His Glory.
Look at the evil and the good. For all the millions of years that animals have been dying and eating each other, they've also been living, evolving, blossoming, flying, procreating, and eating other things. The question I'd ask these chaps is if they would _genuinely prefer to have never lived, if that meant they would have had no suffering._ Because if any part of them prefers to exist versus not exist, I think that means they think _it's worth it._ What an amazing gift to live! To sit at a table drinking coffee and chatting with friends! To be able to reason, move, love! To feel the sting of a cut and watch it heal! To love your parent all your life and be with them, holding their hand, when they cross the threshold and the love is so overwhelming your heart bursts forever in grief and total gratitude! Yes! To suffer for the sake of good! To be alive to give oneself in love! To say Yes! Say Yes!! Hallelujah!!
“In the world you will have trouble, but take courage, I have conquered the world.” JOHN 16:33
When Cam said at 41:20 that he seen animals getting ripped apart and they looked peaceful lmao
I must admit I made a double-take thinking spiderman was in the corner, but it is just a passing resemblance with him and Joe
I am a cradle Catholic who has never doubted the existence of God so it seems exhausting to me to see atheists spend so much time fighting God's existence.
@DonnyBlips Probably. Besides the poor research from someone who evidently has not read the Bible and likely googled "evil passages in bible", not to mention that a quick google search to read the Christian perspective would resolve those "issues", it's still amusing to see someone who at best believes in moral relativism (unless he even disagrees with atheist philosophers) argue against a belief system which he could never logically prove to be evil, without supposing moral absolutism.
@DonnyBlips Yeah, he probably has. I've seen him elsewhere, he is also a Jesus mythicists, claims Mary was raped and so on. And when corrected, he typically stops responding, as far as I've seen.
@@twitherspoon8954 "Provide evidence that Jesus existed."
you clearly don't care about the matter of religion, God and Jesus Christ if you honestly have to ask that question.
The existence of Jesus Christ is the one thing you can know for sure, from a historical perspective... It is historical bed-rock and if you throw that out then you have to necessarily also throw out the rest of history along with it, if you are going to be logically consistent (which I doubt you care about, since intellectual honesty is clearly not a priority of yours)
@@twitherspoon8954 Oh man, looking through your references, you did not bother doing the slightest bit of research at all. At most you went to r/Atheism or American Atheists.
Just looking at your first one:
Deuteronomy 17 is about law courts ("If cases come before your courts that are too difficult for you to judge-whether bloodshed, lawsuits or assaults-take them to the place the Lord your God will choose.") as made evident from verse 8 (which you didn't read).
The rest of your references are either missing context (just like this one), or they are points every Christian still upholds, which you as an Atheist could never adequately rebuke without an objective morality. You're essentially just stating your opinion on moral facts and, presuming you are a moral anti-realist, this is therefore the equivalent of any other opinion of yours, that is to say, philosophically unprovable and no more valuable than the contrary position.
Perhaps you should study the significance of Mosaic Law, and its fulfillment in Christ in order to understand your Old Testament citations, as well as the one which have seemingly fallen out of use.
As for the New Testament, how do the parables and quotes you provide lend approval to the practice of taking and selling humans against their will (condemned in Exodus 21:16) and/or abusing them (condemned in Exodus 21:23-27 and Exodus 21:20) to force them to work for you? Especially in light of Paul's letter to Philemon. Even some of our Church Fathers spoke about slavery resulting from sin, most notably, The Great Patriarch of Constantinople Saint John Chrysostom (347-407 A.D. 22nd homily on Ephesians) and Saint Augustine (354-430 A.D, City of God book 19). The weight of these names should be evident to anyone with the slightest knowledge of Church History.
This is the saddest quote mine I have seen.
@TWitherspoon Firstly, let me start of by clarifying that despite my tone (which is often described as cold), I mean no offence whatsoever. I do not want to "absolutely destroy", "murder", "obliterate", or embarrass you. I say this simply so that you may know that my intention is simply to correct your beliefs, which I can somewhat understand, since I was not raised in a religious household, seeing that this is a grave matter and deem your position erroneous. I only wish your salvation, and that you could avoid all the terrible actions I have committed and avoid the silly positions I have held to. I therefore greatly appreciate your desire to dialogue on this issue, which I am certain you agree, has great importance
Responding to your first passage from John 6, the application of this is in the Eucharist, which we offer every Sunday at the most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
Per John 6:33-35, Jesus is the bread of life:
"(33) For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
(34) “Sir,” they said, “always give us this bread.”
(35) Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty"
We don't just rip out chunks of Christ's flesh, instead using bread and wine we proclaim the Kingdom of our Lord, by commemorating him replicating the offering he did in Matthew 26:26-28 (also Mark 14, and Luke 22):
(26) And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body.
(27) And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this.
(28) For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.
(29) And I say to you, I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I shall drink it with you new in the kingdom of my Father.
This bread we partake in is not mere bread, nor is the wine mere wine, "by the consecration of the bread and of the wine, a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood; which conversion is, by the holy Catholic Church, suitably and properly called Transubstantiation." - The Ecumenical Council of Trent, Session 13, Chapter 4). As St. John Chrysostom said (Hom. i, De prod. Iudae), “He [Christ] says: This is my body. This word changes the offering” and we should "[…] not suppose the words to be a mere enigma or parable" (HOMILY XLVII: JOHN vi. 53, 54). When we say the eucharist is the body and blood of Christ, as John 6 lets us know, this is to be taken literally.
This is because although the accidents of bread and wine remain, the substance, by the power of the Holy Spirit, is that of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. This is the fulfillment of the Passover, we no longer offer a lamb, but instead the same sacrifice which Christ suffered on the cross we offer each Sunday for the remission of sins, perfectly uniting us to the body of Christ in a real way.
1 Corinthians 10:16 - "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?"
Thus, it is indeed as the apostle Paul said in 1 Corinthians 11:27: "Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord."
With all due respect, this objection is not even clever. It is the same one the Romans brought against us Christians in the 1st and 2nd century, who persecuted us thinking us cannibals. St. Justin Martyr (2nd century)had to clarify in his letter to the Roman senate (First Apology Chapter 66): "For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh."
Great discussion! I would have been interesting to hear each one’s definition of evil and then move to the ‘problem’ aspect of it. I also had difficulties when suffering was equated with evil as a great deal of suffering is not caused by evil. Again, a definition or understanding of what is each mean by evil would have help to channel the discussion in a more clear way.
I don’t know if Cameron is still doing his Baiseing analysis or whatever. I hope he converts soon. Been praying for you friend
He did 😅
I was waiting for someone to bring up the foundation of evil in the world, that being of Adam and Eve's fall from grace, and thus sin and death and all it's consequences entering into the world. Our ability to reconcile this reality with our own individual existence and God's intimate desire to be in our life, in spite of this evil, I believe is a strong argument for both God and evil in the world.
God actually addresses the issue of evil in the end. Who’s to say that the means of evil for a temporary amount of time instead of an eternity is in itself a reason for a belief in God. If evil is in itself a natural force outside the existence of God then evil is the default in which nothing exists. One can argue that the evil that is can only operate in a limited capacity because what is not evil exists. We can observe the galaxies to see how unpredictable and chaotic nature can be when unchecked. But here on earth we have to agree that good exists. Therefore the argument of evil existing doesn’t disprove the belief of a God but at best just proves that a force other then God does exist.
I can hear Jeremiah Bannister in my head while hearing this conversation😂😂😂
"How can an atheist say that anything is evil If they do not have any objective morality?"
God bless you Trent
The atheist does not eve n need a concept of evil, as long as the theist has one, to use the problem of evil as an argument against the theist
Why would objective morality be necessary to categorize something as evil?
@@CarlFink Because without objective morality any act could be regarded as either good or bad, and nobody would have any right to encourage or oppose it, if not on account of their mere preference. There would be no difference between helping an elderly person crossing the road or pushing them under a car for a laugh. If killing for fun seems a terrible act to you, there will be someone else who thinks killing is a good thing because it makes their life worth living.
@@djo-dji6018 Your sense of morality is completely fucked up if you think there is no difference between helping an elderly person cross the road vs. pushing them under a car. "Someone else might have a different view" doesn't actually address the question of what's stopping me from having my own view. Your answer is incoherent and nonsensical.
@@CarlFink because without nothing is actually evil, it’s self defeating.
That setup really needs some microphones 😂
8:00 if God exist and Creates; and we are his creation, then suffering is only a process of creation. God is refining us into most pure beings. Those that fall away are the impurities. God is most powerful because He love. He still has a purpose for those you suffer most. He desires all souls to be saved. Free will is also a process of His creation. Remember that God is never Done, He is eternal.
Nice, please consider putting subtitles to explain the terms you guys use for those of us who do not know as much as you guys do.
Love all you guys!
Much of this discussion, though cordial and interesting, is mostly off-track with respect to actual argument. The so-called problem of evil is a red herring. If it can be demonstrated that God exists, then evil is compatible with God's existence. If God doesn't exist, then the question of evil is moot. The argument is and should always be over whether God exists.
Moreover, O'Connor attempts to collapse the logical and evidential arguments by calling both of them "logical." Well, broadly speaking, that's uncontroversial. However, a deductive argument produces a different level of proof than an inductive one. The traditional "logical" problem either asserts that the compatibility of God and evil is contradictory by definition or that God's non-existence necessarily follows from the reality of evil. This is markedly different from what has been called the evidential problem which is essentially an inductive argument on the unlikeliness of God's existence due to the phenomenon of evil. From this, it is obvious that one form is stronger than the other. It is the stronger version that fails due to the logical possibility that evil is justified by a greater good. Thus, the distinction is valid; the arguments do not collapse.
*** NOTE: The problem of evil is an argument the atheist brings against God's existence, therefore the atheist has the burden of proof here not the Christian. ***
For the problem of evil to succeed the Atheist needs to prove the below:
1. God cannot have morally sufficient reasons for permitting the suffering in the world (including reasons we are unaware of)
2. It would be possible for God to create another world of free creatures that has the same amount of human salvation but with less suffering
3. God can create a world of free creatures who always choose to do the right action and not commit harm to others (free will defense)
4. It would be possible for God to create certain character traits or soul building in individuals without suffering
5. Some lesser evils in the world now may prevent greater evils in the future, God could bring this about without permitting those lesser evils without affecting human free will or salvation.
In response to emotional problem of evil:
* God himself has experienced enormous suffering in the person of Jesus Christ by experiencing a physical death and spiritual separation from the Holy Trinity in the crucifixion. God has become a part of human suffering and not remained distant from it.
* God will compensate the sufferings of people in the afterlife(heaven), in which they will receive the beatific vision and there will be no more evil or suffering
The thing about the Problem of Evil, and why Christian responses to it are always inadequate, is that you have to explain every evil. Explaining 99% of evils doesn't cut it. If there is even a single instance of truly gratuitous evil, then God is not all-loving and all-powerful. The same goes for hiddenness. If even a single non-resistant non-believer "slips through the cracks," so to speak, then God is not all-loving and all-powerful.
"God has a morally sufficient reason that is unknown to us," AKA "God works in mysterious ways," doesn't cut it. That is only convincing to someone who is already firmly convinced that God is all-loving and all-powerful.
These four individuals confronting the issue of evil among themselves is an act of bravery. There was a time Richard Dawkins was accused of being a coward by classic atheists because he does not want to debate Lane Craig.
29:49 In my estimation you have to pick one of two battles. You either battle Common Descent & Uniformitarian Geography or you battle Problem of Evil/Suffering. I personally think Common Descent & Uniformitarian Geography is much more vulnerable.
I think it very telling that Alex doesn’t see the virtue of bravery. Very intuitive for any man.
Really good discussion
Im agnostic but i really dont see the problem of evil being as strong of an argument as many people say. Alex has a problem with evil because his human mind cannot see a reason for such evils. God, if he exists, has reasons to allow this evil that our imperfect human minds cannot comprehend [with good reason].
Imagine a shepherd cutting an infection off of a sheep's skin - the sheep would not be able to conceive that it is for a higher good. In the same way, the human mind can perhaps not conceive of a reason for such evils to exist, but there are reasons beyond our comprehension.
"But why allow such pointless suffering?" If God exists he has a reason, even if we do no know it. That doesnt prove God exists, but its a weak objection to say that because we can't conceive of a reason then God must not be all loving, therefore God likely does not exist. It essentially boils down to "***I*** feel bad about the world as it is, in my human judgement, and ***I*** dont think a God would do such a thing." If he exists he has good reason, including for not giving us a perfect answer. I know atheists dont like the "God has a reason" argument, but IMO there is less than perfect humility to think that God owes us an explanation, or that our human minds *should* be granted such knowledge.
Trent you are awesome and i am not Catholic !
I haven't thought this through, but it seems that the problem of evil disappears if you hold the privation theory. It would mean that even the baby animal that is burned alive in a forest fire moments after it is born would experience good, just not as much as another animal that spends its entire life eating grass and then dies peacefully from old age.
Also, Alex's cancer example doesn't seem to take into account that the good that was obtained by Cancer existing might both be the struggle against Cancer and also that some other good natural process leads to the existence of cancer. To apply this to the racism example, racism leads to people who stand against racism which is good, but is also a natural consequence of something else that is good such as free will.
I agree with this, and I'd also point out that privation theory follows deductively from Thomist/Aristotelean philosophy regarding the First Cause.
Yo, this is pretty good. Thanks!
So heaven has free will and therefore racism as well ? Nice !!
The problem of evil is the outcome of eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. read pg 102 of the Catholic catechism
29:49 In my estimation you have to pick one of two battles. You either battle Common Descent & Uniformitarian Geography or you battle Problem of Evil/Suffering. I personally think Common Descent & Uniformitarian Geography is much more vulnerable.
great episode
Mr O'Connor seems to think a world without love would be better than a world with love. Because there's no concept or reality of love that doesn't involve self-sacrifice, patience with suffering, vulnerability, courage in the face of death, willingness to undergo the gravest challenges, self-giving risk, and so on. He just seems to wish the world was different than it is and didn't 'require' any of that-but then a world to what end? The 'world' left over is just a product of fancy. Doesn't even seem to have much to do with God.
What’s the point of arguing why didn’t God make a world without suffering to use as evidence against God. Why argue against reality? I feel like that gets you nowhere. The better argument is if there is a God and he created the world we live in, he allows evil and suffering. knowing that should you worship him? And of course Alex would answer no. That’s his resistance.
I feel like Billy Madison when his teacher held up War and Peace and he says "I can understand 9 words in that book now". You guys are way too smart lol. I think I understood 9 words in this video.
At the end of the day, you have to decide whether it’s “evil” to be less than God. I say on the whole, I’d rather everything exist (necessarily as less than God), than not exist at all.
Yes. It's good not to be God, and still to be.
During the conversation I often thought about the whole contingency of creation. God doesn't have to make a better world. There wasn't more perfection or Goodness after the creation, even though there were more existing beings overall. This is so 1: Because for God being eternal there is no "before Creation", even though there is a "before creation" for creation, so God possessing Himself fully in a single unchanging moment also possesses the whole of creation in Him in an instantaneous moment and 2: because a creature is entirely dependent upon God for it's existence, since it's essence and existence are not one thing like in God. Every creature has participatory existence in God, in Whom Essence and Existence are absolutely one and the same thing.
This also means that there wouldn't have been less perfection or Goodness, had God only created one atom.
I think we don't really "like" the thought of existing contingently, at least of taking it to it's fullest understanding. We would like to exist necessarily. But we don't. Only God exists necessarily. Only God is necessary. I think that we don't like that is due to our fallen nature "wanting to be like God". That's why pride is so dangerous to us. That's why all humility begins with really knowing our creaturely dependence upon God, as well as our dependence upon Divine Grace as Sinners. Really understanding that only God is necessary is at once the beginning of Christian humility as well as of Christian detachment - the both very fundamental things in the spiritual life, two absolutely necessary things for the growth and perfection in charity.
The non-Christians are assuming they know a better way to have created/sustained life. But this is impossible to know. It is kind of a stalemate to discuss in my opinion.
Yes many times I get a similar feeling.. God created the universe, we can’t wrap our minds around His reasonings or what would be “perfect”.. we’re not perfect nor can we create anything perfect.. He doesn’t reason like his creation (us) he’s the creator. We can try to understand, but it’s SO beyond us.
Yup, I think Cameron’s rebuttal was surprisingly good
Thanks!
Again and again... Suffering is not the same as evil! Why can't O'Connor get over this?
It is not when it is unnecessary, but when suffering has no meaning to the sufferer that that is evil. Hopefully just temporarily.
Most people don't understand Pascals wager. It's not about being right or wrong it's about the wager itself. How much are you willing to put on the table to determine truth. A year? 5 years? 50 years? The wager is the reason most people stay atheist, agnostic, or at whatever level of "Christian" they find themselves. The ladder keeps ascending forever.
Suffering isn't really a logic puzzle.
I have to say Trent looks like he is about to strangle Conor, like he has tried everything to get Connor out of his hole and Connor keeps falling back in.
There's no end to the ways one may endeavor to remain in the cold comforts of Plato's cave
Trent is Remyverse Peter Parker
Alex is TASM Peter Parker
Joe is MCU Peter Parker
Cameron is ISV Peter Parker (Spiderman 2099)
Who gets MJ?
I love it when cosmic tries to explain logic like it’s science. It’s the furthest thing from science.
For me, the problem isn't the existence of suffering but the absence of the good or the lack of divine healing/intervention. Did Jesus ever turn anyone away who desired healing? Did his disciples? These miralces were performed both for the temporal good of the person and as proof for the divinity of Jesus Christ. Are people supposed to accept that such workings of the Holy Spirit are somehow now obsolete? I would beg to differ.
God didn't intervene in his own son's painful agony and crucifixion. In fact, Christ states multiple times that he will die, and encourages followers to pick up their own cross and follow him. He knew the road ahead would be painful for them, but it would only be temporary. For the Kingdom he promised would be eternal. It was the gifts of the Holy Spirit that made the Apostles no longer fear their persecutors and boldly profess Christ's word. All the Apostles save for John died as martyrs. Most early Christian saints were martyrs.
@@Cklert Not sure if you're making a point. I acknowledge everything you say is basically true.
@@nickk4851 Apologies I may have simply misread your comment.
Having slaughtered a fair amount of animals, there does seem to be a mechanism that dulls an animal's senses when they are killed properly. I actually have seen that as a good personal sign from God that has increased my faith. My intimate experience with animals, having raised them more intimately than most farmers and slaughtered and butchered them more intimately than most farmers, naming them and all that, has convinced me that God has given animals the appearance of suffering primarily (although I do believe they experience it, but not at the level that they appear to to the imagination that connects them with human suffering and which generally turns away and does not receive the full sensory input) so that men may grow in virtue and the love of God and the bewailing of their own sins, which is what caused the beasts's suffering to begin with.
This also makes sense with the slaughtering of animals that provided God with the skins with which he clothed Adam and Eve, and then the slaughtering and probably first consumption of animals which our father Noe performed after the flood, which serves to impress man more deeply with the consequences of sin, and has prevented or atoned for sin much more effectively than what was done prior to the flood. Hence also why it signifies so much in the old law, and why the manner in which they slaughter under that law is so brutal and also so wasteful. For instance, they tear a bird with their bare hands (which is a common enough thing to do still today), and they burn the entirety of some of the sacrifices, and at the very least, poor out the blood instead of consuming it.
I try to keep up but am not smart enough for this 😆 Interesting conversation regardless.
Great convo so far--15 minutes in
Trent, I'd just make this argument for why God's nature entails that he create a maximally good world:
If there are three worlds before God, x y and z, and x and y are maximally good but z isn't as good, and if God's wisdom means that his reason is correlated to value, then there would literally be no reason for God to create z. Now, the same would be true for God picking x instead of y or vice versa. But that doesn't seem to be a violation of divine wisdom, since neither world is reason-giving so as to be preferable. But in the case of z, it's objectively the case that x and y are preferable worlds by virtue of being better. If God creates z, he would be creating the less good world for literally no reason. That doesn't seem to square with divine wisdom.
Depends what you mean by "a maximally good world" (emphasis on "a"). Goods could always be added to a possible universe, so there is no "maximum". A world with unnecessary suffering definitionally would not be a maximally good world, but the idea that there is one such world that is "best" is rejected by most theologians and philosophers.
@@ACReji I'd say a maximally good world, in the sense that the world considered in its total history (now to the eschaton) could not be more good. There may be other possible worlds that achieve the same amount of good through other configurations, though
@@lyterman Yeah I think that rejection is predicated on a misunderstanding on what possible worlds are. They are considered in their total history, and so it's not clear to me that adding a good improves the goodness of a world overall with its history considered. I.e it might be good to have an ice cream cone, but two might be bad! Similarly, it's not clear that the sheer number of goods improves the total goodness of a world with its history considered too. Adding, say, one more daisy doesn't seem to *necessarily* an improvement in light of a world's total history
@@anglicanaesthetics Hm, that's just a moral intuition, I guess, but it seems highly unlikely to me. If possible good world exists with 1,000,000 humans living in bliss and worshipping God, isn't it just obvious that 2,000,000 would be better? However you measure how much good there is in the first world, there must be more in the second, no?
Cosmic skeptic the type of guy to think it’s better to have bland meals than great meals, average people vs great people, and average experiences vs awesome experiences
You can't invoke the evolutionary hypothesis as proof for or against anything... Seeing two organisms with similar structures, like, for example, an especially, DNA, isn't proof they are related, because an assumption can't be a proof-namely, that similar structure proves reproduction from a single ancestor, rather than that a common designer wrote the same kinds of code portions for the same kinds of structures. In fact, it would be odd for God (since we seem to be making 'we wouldn't predict' arguments) to use different sections of code for the same structure unnecessarily. Even the chicken and egg problem of DNA-based life itself is a death blow to the evolutionary hypothesis.
In any system with finite resources, suffering will emerge
Couldn’t it be theoretically true that one man’s waste could be another man’s treasure. For example why didn’t God, an all powerful and all good being, provide us food from non-conscious beings. For example why couldn’t every organism eat plants and then when they die (from natural causes) they’re biomass is used by the plants and thus there is no unnecessary suffering. Alternatively if God couldn’t create such a system then he is not all powerful, and if he could but didn’t want to, he is not all good. Therefore God is not all good and all evil right?
@@nonononononono8532 It used to be that way, then the first organisms hungered because there was not enough to eat, perhaps began eating the carcasses of other organisms first, then came a point where it struggled over resources with another, killing it in the process.
if you’ve never really exposed yourself to Christianity, I don’t blame you for asking. We are in a fallen state, a world removed from God. This is the truth of a world removed from God. If God changed the nature of this world, it would be to lie. This is the burden, all of it.
I don't really understand why animal suffering is considered such a powerful argument. We have no idea if animals are really suffering or not. We have no idea what consciousness even is, let alone if animals have it, giving that they don't have souls and are not capable of replicating even a fraction of what we, humans can do intellectually. A computer that breaks down is obviously not suffering. Why would an animal be suffering when they are hurt and die? Because they're making a sad face or are screaming? These are just visuals, there is SO MUCH MORE to consciousness then that. A computer that breaks down can also display sad communicates and make noises. None of that makes it suffer in a human-like way, it's ridiculous. This argument is completely useless. From Christian point of view, animals are meat computers, made to feed us and help us work, and we, humans, are not animals either, as we were created separately, in the image of God, and been given a soul directly by himself. This is a night and day difference. Animal suffering should not be even a subject of moral suffering. First, prove to us animals are suffering. Show us an animal who can communicate to us that it's true or become an animal, hurt yourself, come back to human reality and tell us how did you feel. Obviously, nobody ever did that, or even can do that, because animals can't have intelligent conversations with us and we nobody's ever been an animal, ever. This is why morality should be discussed only within our own species. There is no real problem of evil, humans are obviously suffering justly and receiving proper compensations for their suffering if the suffering is unjust - the Bible tell us all of that. And animals are meat computers created to be our food and help us work. That's the biblical perspective. "Problem of evil" is only hard for philosophers, for us actual humans, the answer is trivial. It's literally all in the Bible.
God is infinite in love so he incarnated and died for us and through his example suffering now is the way to heaven, because god is infinite in power he can transform suffering into the power of salvation, and God didn't just delete suffering because it won't be just, and he would have not come and suffered the consequences of sin, so suffering is needed because it's just and love and power through God.
God bless everyone ✝️
Hey Alex is looking good, loving the beard.
numero uno
If no suffering existed, what would our fictional literature look like? I would posit that good fictional literature would not even exist and we wouldn't even know what good or bad fictional literature is in such a world. We wouldn't even be curious about such things. But the thought experiment of "what if these two worlds could exist at the same time?" is worth contemplating. A world with all happiness and no suffering, no moral judgments, no conscience, no attachments; and a world rife with diseases, illnesses, and human finitude. Just as John Savage is claiming his right to be unhappy in A Brave New World, I think he is also claiming a truth about living in reality as it was intended by God. It's like if we ask the question, "What's your response to reality?" and Christians ought to be responding with "Let me have the suffering. For you, for my family, friends, and for those who have no one to suffer for them; so that I may be united to Christ in His suffering, because all of this suffering I undergo and take unto myself, will have been so insignificant to what lies in store for us in heaven." That place of no more suffering, unimaginable happiness, no hunger, and no needs is called heaven. That's why I am thankful for the Holy Eucharist and the Mass. It's the blend of heaven on earth and earthliness being lifted up into heaven. Glory to God forever.
Does good fictional literature justify hunger, starvation and slavery ? Does it justify mental illness, PTSD, depression ? Does it justify brutal murders, raping babies and animal pain. If you say yes you probably are a psychopath
@@Cassim125 Certainly I wouldn’t say it does. I would prefer heaven over hell, is another way to put it. But if I can suffer so that you or anyone can suffer less, I will take that. This side of death, we cannot completely eliminate suffering and evil. We have to live with it. Therefore what we are responsible for is acting morally and with love. Goodness and love then are what we ought to all be interested in, in this life, as these are the things God is interested in. Bless you!
The missing point is the NEXT ‘world’ is the more perfect place... for those who learn and follow Gods Truths.
But the question is why should we wait until the next world
Tell Alex about heaven where there's no suffering it's the best of both worlds.
Suffering here heaven after...
Why do no one talks abt the fall in this discussions??
Well, this conversation shows yet again that theists really don’t have good answers for the problem of evil. The amount of inconsistency and special pleading….
i think alex is nailing it with the fact that it's better a world without bravery (being brave to stand up in the face of evil) and instead being brave by abiding in virtue. Let's not forget that God willed the fall not actively but pasively.
I think that why God allows evil needs to incorporate the idea that it resulted in YOUR existence. Of course, someone may say that Goud could have created all of us without any evil, and i think that they'll be correct.
Ultimately, I think that the problem of evil can be just answered with a "I don't know". The answer MUST include Christ. He did came and suffered, not to save us from suffering but to make our suffering fruitful. God answered Job basically saying "trust me". We have in the Scriptures the Psalms of lament. That, I think, is as close to an answer we can obtain this side of the veil.
I truly don't agree with Trent and Alex. No one will say that it's better to know reconciliation with your wife because you constantly fight than just living pacefully. By that logic would it be better for me to sin? So that I can know evil and thus reconciliation? Or would it be better that I never hurt anyone because I always show love.
The problem of evil it's not a strong argument. But it is a huge impediment. It must be recognized as a mistery. If someone is troubled by it i think you can't do anything but staying by his side, and share in his afflictions.
Trent and Cameron *
Joe is by far the smartest person in the room jajaja I love him
27:00 I think that Joe would benefit of thinking of creation as each creature reflecting some uniqueness of God. There's also a value in the symbolism. Yet again, we don't know how it works.
40:00 Joe is so right, I feel like Trent is acting as if there is no possiblity. In heaven we will all be free and there'll be no suffering, why not form the get go?
So, a Catholic, a Protestant, an atheist, and an agnostic walk into a bar and...
And Drink Coronas …
Idk why but majesty of reasons agnosticism is so confusing.
Why doesn’t anyone ever say “the reason death is built into creation necessarily, is because only the perfect being can be perfectly without death”? If perfect life equals living forever, and only God is perfect, then hello; there’s your logical theistic answer for death. God can’t make other Gods who can never die like Himself. God can only create free beings that are necessarily less than He, therefore an eventual death is a necessity.
So the question perhaps should be rather, “should God have created free beings AT ALL, knowing that they’d necessarily be less than He, and necessarily suffer”. And my answer there is, heck yes, for at least 2 reasons: it’s better to exist and have the chance at life than zero existence, AND He provides life eternal through Jesus. Seems like a massive net win win.
"the reason death is built into creation necessarily, is because only the perfect being can be perfectly without death”
Because angels seem to be without death, and they are not God
Not quite, immortality does not necessitate perfection to the degree of God's perfection.
Christianity for example, upholds that angels do not die but they are not God either. In the origin story, Adam and Eve were not supposed to die but it was a consequence of sin.
Trent will you ever do a book tour?
Can anything be evil if it doesn't cause suffering?
One of the most common theories of evil, the privation theory of evil, argues that evil is simply an absense of good. In that way it follows that evil exists even without suffering.
The book "the Brave New World" is a dystopia, but no one is really 'suffering'
The atheistic paradigm has built into it these millions of years of suffering just for this type of debunking of God's existence. It is a product of the materialistic mindset, which then turns on itself in claiming "How could a benevolent God allow such a thing?" which is only begging the question. If God doesn't exist, then evil doesn't as well, and it's only our primitive perception of things that say something is "suffering," or "evil" and disproves the the Omni benevolent God. You can't have this dialogue with one side dominating the agreed to "dictionary" of terms. Evil and suffering aren't anything without an objective truth, and an objective capacity for truth is given to mankind without this "evolved to consciousness or capacity for truth" on a purely naturalistic standpoint. You can't give what you do not have is the axiom atheists must grapple with. Where do these terms come from and how are they not simply appropriated for whatever meaning I want? This current age with it redefining sex, gender, right or wrong, have no basis without an agreed to criteria of truth: The Triune God. It's what Neiztche understood, and what slowpoke philosopher atheists of our time can't fathom. In short, no objective truth= blather, synapses firing into each other, and primordial puddy pontificating into the vacuum.
Or the trending secular saying "we're all just walking meat puppets/meat sacks."
1:06:50 😂
This is an interesting dialogue...tho unrelated but is it just me or does Joe Schmid look like Tom Holland?
On the idea that it's better for a world with no need for "higher order goods as more desirable" like Connor's example of the it being a better world without need of bravery cause there would be no fear ( ex. Martin Luther): I would argue the opposite and say that a world with suffering that brings about higher order goods is more valuable than good with no suffering because the goods that suffering produce are more or less outgoing rather than just personal/ inwards. Suffering produces goods that moves individuals to think about or care about others in a way that other goods cannot becausethe former also produce less personal gain and more gain for others. In short, to arrive at a good that moves an individual to sincere desiring of good to another, going out of oneself, must produce some suffering.
In a sense, it is necessary for love to exist that suffering also exist because it's very definition is "to will the good of the other as other".
So heaven has no higher order goods then since there's no suffering ? Even bigger question is what's the point of suffering to show bravery ? To say look what a cool story I have ? To make films ? You see it's very easy to be an armchair critic and talk how great a world where xyz occurs but ironic how nobody asks the sufferers do they want this suffering world ?
Most of these discussions are nothing more than academic rhetoric to entertain thems3lces in their ivory tower.
@@Cassim125 No not at all, the point I was trying to make is not that suffering is necessity to have a cool story, because that's still personal gain and it's value is from how it's*outgoing* rather than inward which is what a cool personal story would be. So basically, suffering is what's necessary to desire goods for another *as other* because it places distance between the good obtained (good for another) and the actor (and sufferer) of the good. So the most "pure" form of this action (the suffering undergone that necessitates someone else's good) would be one where the actor will only suffer and receive no personal gain/pleasure but will still willingly do so out of love for the other. I don't think this pure form can actually happen in the world but it does in varying degrees. An example is of how we intuitively sense that a med student who studies and trains to serve as an underpaid missionary doctor in a third world country is motivated by an outgoing love in comparison to a student who's main intention is to get high status job as a cushy consultant for high status clients, even if they would go through the same kind of suffering in their education. Not arguing that there is no lovebor suffering in both, buth the former is outgoing and connecting to others while the latter's good is experienced more of inwardly in a personal sense.
So in a sense, heaven is the the *highest* good which is the consequence of the "highest suffering". In an ironic sense, the people would actually get into heaven would be the ones most willing to suffer to give that to others.
@@Cassim125 Thoughts? May I also ask why you like to watch these videos and read comments if you don't find these discussions engaging?
if god real, why bad thing happen? truly alex is such an accomplished intelectual
I think he's honestly trying his best.
Faith is a gift for most and the struggle is real for others. We can pray for him because once he converts he will do souch good but also suffer a lot.
Alex wants automatic Heaven.
I used to get deep into this subject. It's a waste of time. Evil/suffering is a must, it's inevitable
The better discussion is what happens in a world without evil/suffering.
The discussion shows why evil/suffering is a must.
"The better discussion is what happens in a world without evil/suffering."
Heaven is a world without suffering, so the question really is why can't God just make that without our current world full of suffering first
@@briandiehl9257 God did.
But because Adam and Eve disobeyed, God put them out of the garden of Eden.
A place without evil, requires all to the follow the set rules, without fail.
Is it not common sense to have people pass a certain criteria to see if they will follow the set rules?
I have this guitar I love and treasure. Its useless to me when I die. I would love for it to go to someone who will love it exactly as I do. If I told everyone I'm going to give it away to the right person......I'm going to get all kinds of people, trying to get it.
How do I choose the right one?
Thru series of tests. And thru these tests, I will weed out the false ones.
Think Willy Wonka.......... it was the common sense humility poor kid who won, not the rich selfish smartass.
Again, why do you want god to conform to your logic? It's his house, not yours
Wouldn't you want people to conform to your house rules, in order to enter your house? Or would you allow them to do whatever they want, in your house?
The better question is how we ought to alleviate each other's suffering in the world but all of these are important questions nonetheless.
@@ABB14-11 god already told us how to alleviate that.........it's just hardly any one does it
The golden rule
Treat others as you want to be treated.
Cameron really is out of his depth in this kind of discussion.
The "problem" of evil is nothing but an emotional rejection of accepting the reality of God. It is not an intellectual issue.
Problem of evil is emotional and rational. Even the best intellectual arguments against the problem of evil is impotent to convince someone who is fuming with anger. 😳
@@mikeyangel1067 ... You just re-affirmed my statement, though, with saying that anybody fuming with anger is going to remain unconvinced.
I was the same, not too long ago and it is only in hind-sight that I can say with certainty that I didn't care about the existence of God because I was pre-occupied with being self-centered about my own feelings, leaving me irrational.
I found the conversation boring
Sad
I hated this conversation
Time and space is created at the moment of creation itself...creation itself is outside of God so God was eternally with Himself until the moment when He decided to create...in the christian God the Triune God is with Himself and Happy and complete...the logos of God is already with God from the beginning of God Himself...the Holy Spirit is already with God...and the Father who is God is already within the Godhead...until the moment that they decide for whatever reason to initiate the act of creation itself and the big bang the beginning of the universe and with this action time and space come into existence ..prior to this there is no time ....there is only the eternity of the I Am ...the everlasting of everlasting ...the eternal....Listen carefully....the perfect triune God was perfectly pleased with Himself...He needed nothing...He had everything already and was Holy and filled with perfect love...filled with perfect Love because the trinity has 3 distinct persons within the one being of the Godhead and each of these individual persons loves the others completely ...this God is capable of perfect love since perfect love can only exist where two or more free individual souls chose to love each other without restriction and unconditionally....a unitary God like Allah is incapable of perfect love...allah would have to create someone who could love him back in order to have the attribute of perfect love...so allah is deficient and a false God....The trinity does not have this problem....Now God chose to create at some moment in his eternal existence he decides to create the creation we are currently within...the big bang...the sun earth solar system and Humans in His own image....He also creates paradise and the angels prior to creating Humans and the universe....and these heavenly beings had free will.....and they rebelled against God....and brought sin into the world through Adam and Eve....the important thing to remember here is that this holy and perfect God creates...and when he creates whatever is created...is less than Him...this is a crucial point...God decides to create (for whatever reason) and when He does the creation is in and of itself less than Him...and therefore open to the possibility of inequity and sin....All things in creation fall short of the Glory of God...angels....humans...all things....so from the very beginning of creation and before the initial act of creation by God He knew that at some point He and He alone would have to come into His creation in order to redeem it back to Himself...why...because sin would come as a natural consequence of free will and He knew this...but....He creates anyway...so He creates even knowing that the possibility of evil and sin would enter the creation...why...because being a created thing it is less that God and therefore open to the possibility of sin and evil....So while God is creating heaven and the universe the Word already knows ahead of time that He would be entering His creation at some point in Historical Time as a Human in order to redeem the entire creation back to Himself....Jesus knew this prior to the creation...and He and the Father and the Holy Spirit create anyway....there is a very special place for us in the mind of God ...angels and humans are very special and sanctified creatures to God....so much so that He sent His only son not to condemn the world but to save it......
sites.google.com/view/godanddemocrarcy/home
this Lord is the Spirit and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.
Corinthians 3 17
The book of Job explains it pretty well, I think.
If we never suffer or never have a potential to suffer ...that sounds so milquetoast
Kind of like so many people now who have minimal real hardships. Heat and A/C without cutting firewood or enduring sweat. A shower whenever, plenty of food at the grocery store, or restaraunt.. premise clothing without spinning, weaving or sewing... pain killers to minimize medical pain.
And people are becoming nuts creating made up realities because they have no real work or purpose in life.
I farted.
When a tree falls in the forest when no one is around… does it make a sound?
numero tres
This video looks like the start of a joke - three Catholics and a Protestant walk into a bar...
Omg haha
Three Catholics and one about to convert soon
numero cinco
Numero ses
Numero ocho
Numero siete