David Bentley Hart - Atheism's Best Arguments?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 ก.ย. 2019
- Free access Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/2UufzC7
Atheism fields two kinds of arguments denying the existence of God: arguments that refute so-called 'proofs' of God's existence and arguments that affirmatively support the truth claims of atheism. This first seeks weaknesses or fallacies in pro-God arguments; the second seeks to show why atheism alone makes sense. Different atheists offer different arguments.
Watch more interviews with David Bentley Hart: bit.ly/2oeGhTf
Watch more interviews on atheism: bit.ly/2mHxDvN
I was an atheist for a very long time. Despite my atheism I always felt very drawn to spirituality and the religious way of life, though I was never intellectually convinced by theistic arguments until I discovered Mr Hart, who has opened my mind to a new way of reasoning I would have dismissed out of hand in my youth. Thank you for the video!
@Luca Duca What the fuck are you even on about? 😆 Saying you dislike gays and thinking they shouldn't have rights "they already have" (your words) is bigoted and homophobic by definition. You just need to decide whether to embrace what that label entails. What did my comment even have to do with the subject? The fact that you felt the need to bring up LGBT rights on a completely unrelated topic suggests to me that you have some deep seated issues. Get help.
I can relate to that a lot!
@Luca Duca oh I figured you were a fundamentalist Christian since you're so homophobic. I hope you can move on and grow in love instead of getting left behind in your own hatred
Curious, what evidence did he use to convince you?
So you went from wanting proof of a supernatural deity to setting all,logic and critical thinking aside to believe in a magical sky daddy? Thats tragic.
"It's the one argument I never pretend can be swept away or defeated. It's the one for which I hold the greatest respect, and the one I find intermittently convincing, myself."
It's impressive Mr. Hart makes this admission. I have a lot of respect for people who can be honest, even when the point goes against their hypothesis
@@LouisRoss It is always refreshing to listen to honest prominent theist philosophers like Hart, Swinburne, Van Inwagen. Unfortunately they are rare.
Me, too. And divive hiddeness.
@@LouisRossHe is acting. He's the most arrogant & biggest blasphemer of our time who hijacked our Eastern Orthodox identity, a false American idol
☦Don't quote American idols please, repent
This man is one of the few apologists that isn't obnoxious, constantly lying or using strawmen against scientific facts and atheists.
Sort of. I remember his book _Atheist Delusions_ being pretty uncharitable. Likewise, I see people like Hart being a kind of first step towards atheism. When I was first transitioning to atheism in my mid-teens, the brand of abstract Christianity that Hart is a proponent of was what I initially went to.
He's not an apologist.
Honestly, the same could be said about many atheists who attack religion without knowledge and constantly mock believers. There are little atheist thinkers able to face the consequences of their claims.
I will definitely grant you that. He is quite tolerable to listen to. Most bible thumpers are quite hard to take. Much less take seriously. I think I would enjoy a conversation with this guy. I am quite a non-believer, but this guy is at least respectable in his manner. Whew! I never thought I'd see it.
@@samuelstephens6904 I find the opposite , as he was my first step back
What he is saying about the universality of a sense and story of fallenness among different religious traditions and creation myths is actually very intriguing, more so than the dismissive anti-religious comments give credit for in this comment section.
convincing people that they are sick and you have the cure is a very effective sales technique. Hence conmen have used it for a very long time.
@@KonradZielinski Are you suggesting that the Genesis of religion is somehow magically convincing healthy people they’re sick?
@@chanting_germ. Nah, you’re right I wasted my time replying.
My conclusion is that love requires vulnerability which then leaves the door open for evil. Evil must be allowed so that love can exist. If you prevent evil then you remove vulnerability and thereby eliminate love.
Think of it like this: If everything about you were perfectly complete and sufficient and protected from harm then there is nothing anyone could do to love you. It's our ability to be harmed that makes love valuable, at least in this world. I think God has a greater plan in the next age, but as of now, this is how it seems to be.
This makes no sense. Why does evil require love? Why does love require vulnerability? Why must evil exist for vulnerability to exist? If god is all powerful, then yes, he absolutely could create and maintain love without evil.
I am more concerned about the problem of hell than about the problem of evil.
God created a world in which the penalty for sin is eternal conscious torment. Is that a loving God?
Hart is a universalist, so for him that’s not a problem. In fact, he uses that very argument against the notion of an eternal hell.
If a truly omnipotent and omniscient God existed, he would be able to create a world where you could still experience vulnerability and feel love - evil would not be necessary. Why does God permit children to suffer and die of cancer? Why does God permit entire villages of decent people to be wiped out in an instant through natural disasters? Why does God allow serial killers to deny life and dignity to their victims? Where is their (the victims) free will to live a life without being tortured or killed? Sorry, but your argument is very weak. The problem of evil cannot be resolved if God is to be viewed as omni-X, benevolent and just.
And their record remains unbroken. Still, I have never seen an apologist who makes anything even remotely resembling a convincing, sound argument. Even the theists and apologists who are touted as the best and brightest are still utterly ridiculous in what they try to argue. If you keep them talking long enough, it always boils down to "I just really want it to be true."
That’s not true in the slightest, but I’m sure you wish it was that way so you could easily dismiss theism
@@gotallon5761 Okay, who do you think is a really good apologist and name a really good, compelling argument they’ve made.
@@sledzeppelin I mean David Bentley Hart, the dude above, seems to make compelling points about the argument from contingency in his book “The Experience of God”. He’s not so much of an apologist as He is a religious scholar. William Lane Craig, although being a theistic personalist can be good. Edward Feser is usually pretty decent, many of those types of figures. Not saying you have to like or agree with everything they say but it’s usually deeper then “I just want this to be true at the end of the day”.
@@gotallon5761 The argument from contingency is simply declaring there needs to be some unmoved mover, without actually supporting why such a thing would be necessary. To make it worse, apologists generally then, incorrectly, try to argue they know the attributes of this unmoved mover, and further that it’s clearly the god of the Bible. It’s just fallacy after fallacy, unsupported assertion after unsupported assertion. Like every single argument for a deity I’ve ever heard.
Craig at least has the decency to admit he lowers his standard of evidence because he so badly wants Christianity to be true.
Tell me your best argument for the existence of a deity.
@@sledzeppelin I mean I could sit here and generalize every single atheist argument against God so I just conclude atheism is illogical but I don’t think that’ll do either of us good. There needs to be an unmoved mover for ontological reasons, as it is the transcend source of all being. Without it there is no source or grounds for existence at all. I promise you the experience of God book discusses this deeper if you would take the time to read it.
Not sure if it was the editing of the clip that did unjustice to Mr Heart, but this was a patronising world salad if there ever was one. This guy is basically saying «I am so knowledgable I dont have to make sense» and «My arguments and statements are so self evidently correct that I dont need to give any explanation». In short; nothing learned from this.
Perhaps the conversation fell outside your area of optimal advancement?
I have to take issue with Daniel Bentley Harts attack on atheism, and his misrepresentation of Richard Dawkins answer to our existence. Evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life, it explains how life diversified once it began, .. Richard Dawkins is honest enough to admit we don't yet know how life began... that question is probably one of the hardest and most difficult questions to answer... we as humans are still trying to figure that one out. And we have a very rational answer as to why mankind suffers.. we are living on a planet that doesn't know we exist, and it has many things which are incompatible with our existence, from microscopic living cancers which feed on our bodies, to huge hurricanes and earthquakes which kill us in our thousands sometimes. That isn't a mystery to us. But Christianity struggles to come up with a rational answer as to why bad things happen to good people. At least DBHart acknowledged that to his credit.
Yes, this man has no answer for why kids die.
bonnie43uk there is no natural mechanism that turns life from non life. I agree with you on evolution and diversity but evolution creates nothing.
Michael Reynolds to be giving life everlasting we must die. Death is a transition to immortality for those who want it.
@@onestepaway3232 I don't think you'll find many atheists who believe that life comes from non-life, so I'm not sure why I keep hearing this from Christians such as yourself OSA, evolution has nothing to do with life coming from non-life, evolution describes the process of how living things diversify and adapt to different environments. Evolution *does* create new species, but it's not something you will witness because of the time involved.. it can take tens of thousands of years, and obviously, we only live about 70-80 years, which is the blink of an eye in evolutionary terms. Good to see you on this video comment... small world :-)
bonnie43uk it’s change of species not creation of a new. Evolution is a process of change. We see this in bacteria. It either dies off or adapts/changes and continues on. It is still a bacteria so not sure what was created. The bacteria already exist.
There is no natural mechanism to get from non life to life. You don’t have evolution without life. So essentially getting from inanimate to animate just does not happen naturally. That is a fact. It’s the reality we live in
Atheists only need to say that they have not been convinced there is any such thing as god, and that is THE BEST argument for themselves. As an atheist, I feel no need to convince David Bentley Hart or anyone else.
He deserves praise for admitting he doesn't have a plausible argument against "the existence of evil' argument in a universe created by an omniscient and omnipotent, just and benevolent God. Strange then that he still identifies as a believer with that argument being so problematic to the theist's belief. Does the full interview go into his arguments for challenging the existence of evil argument?
I haven't seen a full version of the interview, but I know of a lecture he gave on suffering last year: th-cam.com/video/xo55wWKB92o/w-d-xo.htmlsi=U6K-kEoTznPnOgYG
Hope that helps!
Atheism doesn't need a good argument, although there are plenty, and I don't care whether this chap likes them or not. It's up to people who believe in any of the myriad of gods to convince non believers that their deities exist.
Well said..was just about to type the same thing.
That's a fallacy, imo.
Since you assume atheism is the standard position to have, which is as fallacious as a Christian assuming his position is just correct, and he has to be convinced otherwise.
A better positioning would be to ask the question of which position seems the most convincing, and then both religion and atheism have the burden of proof.
@@Bob-wr1md Not being convinced of something isn't fallacious, please explain how it could be. Atheism is simply a term invented by believers in gods. Is there a term for non believers in horoscopes?
@@DavidFraser007 goof point, yet you still come from a place of normalcy.
If you were in a majorly Christian environment and everyone is Christian by standard, you'd probably have to make an argument why youre not a Christian.
As for horoscopes, I think it's easier to explain with astronomy why horoscopes and star signs are wrong, than to debunk the philosophical point of god's existence. Philosophically there are good points for both cases, I believe.
I am a Christian, but I'm much more decided to believe that God exists, because i believe there's no certainty at all. I don't know if some term as a devoted agnostic Christian exists, but I'd probably be more accurately described with that, than someone who argues that God is 100% real
@@Bob-wr1md I don't know what a goof point is, it's not a term used in the UK, but it sounds dismissive and impolite. I asked you why not being convinced of something is fallacious, you didn't answer that.
I didn't ask you to debunk Horoscopes, only stated that there isn't a term for non believers in Horoscopes.
You are right, I don't live in a Christian environment, none of my family, neighbours or friends go to a church, that is normal for most countries in Europe.
As for having to explain why I'm not a christian, why would anybody care what I believe or don't believe?
The burden isn't on the Atheist to prove the nonexistence of God, the burden is the on the theologian to prove the existence of something they can't prove exists.
David Hart is interested in Theodicy. A Theodicy is an answer to the famous question of our friend Epicurus, "then why call him God?"
Ah, the gap in the God escape hatch fallacy that fuels denialism and egotism. Doctrine-inspired expectations project "brokenness," which is unjustified in the first place and clarified by science itself and constructivism. Meanwhile, "original sin" and "evil" appear in historical standards, theistic ones, adding "anachronistic" to theodicy´s fallacies. "Evil" comes from biopsychosocial inclinations to abuse power and reject the love commandment and associated spiritual teachings in the Moses-Jesus sequence, and Jesus´ legacy. That is one of science´s great spiritual insights, basically.
@@robinhoodstfrancis You probably think the number 7 is synonymous with seven objects.
@@justchilling704That´s an odd assumption by you about me. But, you are projecting something. Perhaps you think God is nothing more than an abstract number, or alternatively, isn´t di-polar as AN Whitehead and Process Theology have insightfully proposed. And inferred, really.
Whatever your hangups, it is about the distinctions and the necessary and sufficient empirical and/or philosophical realities. There are reasons Jesus prayed and meditated, saying, "Humans don´t live by bread alone," and didn´t just propose an esoteric God like Aristotle´s First Cause.
In fact, FD Roosevelt´s codifying a vision and legacy of UN human rights, and sustainability later, make such talk a little more than crucial in their implications.
Yes, Hart the biggest blasphemer of our time is an Epicurus
"When sophisticated theologians talk about god, one quickly finds oneself wandering around in a rhetorical fog in which god becomes a constantly shape-shifting entity described by metaphors whose meanings are always just beyond one’s grasp. One has to struggle to understand what they are talking about because what these sophisticated thinkers imagine to be god is so far removed from what any ordinary person thinks that I have long suspected that they are actually atheists struggling to find a way to salvage belief in something transcendental that would not be seen as manifestly anti-science or otherwise ridiculous in the circle of intellectuals amongst whom they move."
- Mano Singham
Singham is a theoretical physicist, and he doesn't know that proper nouns (e.g., God) are capitalized? Yet, we expect grade school students to know that.
@@savio807 Your statement has nothing to do with his viewpoint on God. It’s called a red herring when someone makes a valid argument and you change the subject with grammar. Google logical fallacies
Is it really the theologians fault that mr. Singham doesn't understand what sophisticated theologians and philosophers are talking about? One could make the same argument about any sufficiently advanced field of knowledge. Let's try rephrasing what he said:
"One has to struggle to understand what they are talking about because what these sophisticated physicists imagine to be quantum physics is so far removed from what any ordinary person thinks that I have long suspected that they are actually Newtonians struggling to find a way to salvage belief in something quantized that would not be seen as manifestly anti-science or otherwise ridiculous in the circle of intellectuals amongst whom they move."
There. Just demolished quantum physics.
@@gre8 Oh my goodness, exactly! Natural phenomena constantly evade and transcend the logical categories and definitions we try to fit them into because the natural world as revealed by science is a mystery. Every physicist knows this. Yet so many of these same scientists are confused and offended when believers say God is more mysterious and ineffable than all His creation, and talk about Him accordingly.
See: Jordan Peterson. His entire schtick is finding a way to call literally everything god.
Some people believe in supernatural things, and some don't. That has always been the case, and always will be. That is an oversimplification, but it is accurate.
Sorry your statement is not only a oversimplification, it is completely wrong!! The problem is that you think the term 'Supernatural' has meant the same throughout human history and it hasn't. There was no divide between the natural and Supernatural in the ancient world when people believed in ghosts and spirits Yet, ironically in a world of scientific rationalism theoretical physics all the time talk about the 'Supernatural' i.e universes that exist beyond time and space.
@@andrewrussell6299 Perhaps the better term would be "notional", meaning dependent on individual preference, rather than objectively real and demonstrable. And your last sentence is undoubtedly true.
Great. And? Some people are violent and others aren't. Some people like music and some don't. And? What's your point? You're basically just telling us "water is wet".
@jessrevill1852 I agree with sledzeppelin: your statement is nonsensical and informs no one of what is Truth or not. atheism is silly, toddler-tantrumish nonsense: atheists put blind faith in their notion that a nonprogrammed, unguided accident can provide them with "truth." I don't have enough blind faith to be an atheist.
Science can’t prove or disprove God
Right, because its method excludes non mathematizable things. But, as reality includes many other aspects, it is undoubted that science itself arises frontier questions that tend to point toward the methaphysical reflection, because of what it deals with, as well as its own method depends and relies on many philosophical assumptions like the universe is intelligible, and, of course, to control ethically it.
Nor can any religion.
Science doesn't have to. It's up to religion to prove that there is a God --- and considering the thousands of years it's had to make that case, they aren't doing a very good job.
@@Whippets You haven't read Aquinas, have you?
@@lukeabbott3591 I certainly have read him ... and what's your "point"?
Hey is this guy from.chester south Carolina
Something is missing for me here. I appreciate David Hart's approach and his erudition that I do not begin to compare to my unschooled approach to these questions, and I agree that Dawkins approaches the finer points of theology with a bulldozer, BUT, the emergence from the or an Edenic state of being among the animals while being an "ape" explains the purported fall. Humans as such began making judgements that animals do not, like "knowing" that it is "evil" to expose your sexual parts to the opposite sex all the time: "Who told you that you were naked?" The human curse [the original sin] is being condemned to "philosophize" about morals, technologies, the polis, the gods, and whatever--the price of beans. Revelations aside, the great debate goes on and I thank Closer to the Truth for posting this.
You & Hart are some of the biggest blasphemers in this world. Repent please🙏❤
Not the right title for the video. It doesn't really say what they are. Only gives ONE example
Because that one is pretty much it. There are no real arguments FOR atheism, besides the problem of evil. Everything else in atheism is merely critiques of theistic arguments.
@@markdaniels1730
And critiques of theistic arguments, if they work, is all that's required to move towards deism
And deism is as good as atheism in terms of fun
The moment we get proof that entire swathes of humans are burning in Hell forever at this very moment is the moment we should all give up having empathy and become more selfish than ever before
No sane human would give away their salvation for another
No sane human would concern themself with actually loving God in any sense that is viscerally relevant
Instead, "loving" God would essentially be us trying to figure out what we have to do in order to not get tortured forever in Hell
All this philosophical discourse, but if, hypothetically, it couldn't be shown that Jesus actually rose from the dead, or that the Quran is actually inimitable, or that Moses really did speak to God
Hypothetically, if none of this could be shown to be true, then there's no need for these complicated theologies and odyssies
What's an argument for atheism?
Well, if someone can explain all this stuff without the need of any God/gods, then we'd have reason to reject theism since theism would just be, assuming the atheist explanation works just as well as the theistic explanation, postulating unnecessary entities
Do we need God/gods as an explanation?
I think Bernardo Kashtrup's analytic idealism is sufficient
I think pansychism works well too
I think deism works too
And oh boy, deism sweet deism
How do we prove that God cares?
That seems pretty difficult
I wonder why he likes the older philosophers and the old argument from evil which is utterly toothless, but yet avoids the modern iteration which is the argument from gratuitous suffering?
Because the older ones are stronger.
There's a difference between probabilistic and deductive arguments.
@@metro2197 There is simply no answer for a good God against gratuitous suffering.
Rabbi yeshua ben yosef would not even want to be near this man let alone understand him.
That's the reason why I'm an atheist.
As Hart says the argument does not necessarily destroy the ontological logic for the Absolute(God) it destroys the logic of why you should worship him. I think you should have faith that the reasons for the suffering in the world will ultimately be made clear, when we finally get reconciled to him
@@mburumorris3166The ontological argument(s) aren't really compelling.
@@mburumorris3166 If you're going to create a separation between the God and faith to it, then I would consider that as an even bigger tell that the entire scheme is more unstable than initially thought. As for suffering, the entire universe is in the process of constant entropy and mitigating this process is the best we can do. But it really begins with being honest with ourselves.
@@fishoutofmind4943:
Turns out there is a creator deity; but turns out they're evil! Yikes!
It's a toughie for sure.
There are no arguments for atheism because atheism makes no claims. Atheism is the rejection of the claim that any gods exist.
Oh, my. A person with a useful brain. And just when I thought I was all alone.
rejection is a claim
@@ronaldosanimalio5826 Rejection of what? The first claim being made. If I say to you "xzououapoy doesn't exist" you have to wonder first of all what xzououapoy is. But you brought up xzououapoy in the first place.
"Atheism makes no claims" is a claim. So we can assume it's not an atheist claim, since atheism makes no claims (whatever the hay that means).
@@mypublicchannel3884 Useful for what? Did Igor break all the bottles again?
Being an atheist is hard and it takes courage to admit having doubts and no ultimate answers. The belief in a supreme deity finds its roots in humanity's consciousness and its inability to have peace with reality as it is and as it is experienced. Not knowing the origin of it all, the vastness of the universe, the uncertainty, the suffering and dying, the inevitable demise of Earth, and the ultimate aimlessness, are too much. So the minds started making up stories for dealing with this. Now, when a child asks hard questions, they have 'answers' that can bypass the difficulties and implications arising from the observed phenomena. Now they have 'promises' for a bright future with the protecting deity and their loved ones. People are raised with that and usually stick to a 'beautiful' and 'comforting' world view, with its religious traditions, and always pushed back into it by the social groups they are living in, in case they would have doubts and would want to leave and think differently. I'm sorry to say, but religion is self-deception, and somewhere in the back of their minds, many believers know it. But most of them cling on to religion, afraid of the consequences, and afraid of the reactions of the group.
There is no reason to be an atheist. You're not required to make life "hard" on yourself. Religious people are overall happier according to numerous studies. Religious people overcome harsh realities of this world by faith in God. Prove that "religion is self-deception." You can't.
@@scabw You just stated that "studies" prove the happiness of the religious. That's fine, but I would argue that happiness IS self deception. Moods come and go like the wind. It's choosing to exist within one modal neurochemical state over another. It's passively or actively ignoring the suffering that takes place in the world all around you every moment of every day. It's selecting an object of consciousness that occludes all which does not reify it's own state. I also, much prefer happiness to the alternative, but I don't delude myself into believing that my happiness has anything to do with the fundamental fabric of reality, and so why would I invoke the existence of a god or lack thereof in relation to my happiness as proof of anything? This, to me, along with faith, are the height of self deception. Faith is simply what's left when one has said "I can go no further, and so I will make a choice". But the choice proves nothing. The choice is merely that. Why is it that so very many humans have convinced themselves that our minds have any ability to grapple with the infinite complexity of the cosmos? If you want my version of faith, it's that we will never have answers to these kinds of questions; that the mystery that existed before your birth will be the same mystery that meets you at your death.
I guess you're not a cradle atheist then. The stories you are made believe as such...stunning. It takes time, bravery, intellectual honesty, and lots of effort to untangle all the logical inconsistencies and gaping stupidity of the atheist worldview.
"Being an atheist is hard and it takes courage to admit having doubts and no ultimate answers."
As an atheist, what is it I doubt?
@@scabw "Religious people are overall happier according to numerous studies."
Some of us aren't able to choose our own reality in order to maintain a juvenile fantasy about going to a happy fun place when we die. Some of us actually care if things are true or not.
No one single atheist philosophers takes seriously Dawkins, as he simply doesn´t understand simple notions. You cannot try to make a book whose best question is "what created God"?
In think, then, that it would make sense for theists not to take him even into the cathegory of a philosopher, as he is not.
No one is claiming that he is a serious philosopher in any sense, but he is an undeniable expert in evolution. Most of his books are tackling evolution, only the God Delusion is purely about religion. But tbh, you don't need to be the greatest philosopher to refute religious claims, and he has made many good points about religion.
When you speak about something, you must be better informed. Francis Collins is also an expert on evolution who knows simple notions of philosophy and that is the reason why he is well respected by his mates.
@@davidlara993 I would agree indeed. My birthday is less than a week away, and I've asked to get The Origin of Species or some Dawkins' book, preferably The God Delusion, as a birthday present. If I'll receive that, I'll examine it carefully with an open mind to see if I can find issues in the book.
@Ψ
No, the question what created God assumes that a methaphysical entity which is obtained by regressive argumentation, for example, needs an explanation beyond its own nature. It does not only show that you have not understood the concept or the arguments about the essence of the existence of such entities, but that you are commiting many fallacies to fit a question that itself is a strawman. Then again, if someone is about to speak about a topic, in the case a philosophical conception, must know what that topic is, at least.
By the way, there are much many problems on the book, including maths, ontological and philosophical mistakes. If you look for propaganda and you are not interested in the trustworthyness of them, just likely to repeat them to widespread the ignorance displayed, then it might be a readable book. If you know something (and not necessarily a lot) about both philosophy or science...
@Ψ First of all, your very first premise is incorrect, and it is easy to understand, although so many people fall in this mistake. No single theist (from Aristotle to Platinga or Feser)has ever defended an argument that claims "whatever exists has a cause", because, first, the cosmological arguments don´t try to offer aspects of the whole existence, but aspects that go along with regress methaphysical. And secondly, it is just absurd if, precisely, those arguments try to defend a methaphysical, immaterial and eternal reality. Then, again, the problem lies on, first, thinking that without having made the proper philosophical study of the arguments you (generically, not you specifically) are in an intellectual position to object anything and, of course, it continues with the intellectual floppy tradition to change the arguments, which is not only fallacious, but an insult to their own self respect.
And, by the way, if you claim that something has no cause, then it should arrange several attributes that are avoided by the laws of physics, precisely, because any single scientific statement depends on the very first existence of mechanisms to be studied in dependece with those laws (maths also involved), so it has potentialities to be actualized and, then, it is not simple and not at all inmutable or necessary/ self-explanatory.
3:33 did he just say hundreds of "billions" of years of evolution? I know it's not a big mistake in the context but there has been evolution "only" 3.5 - 3.8 billion years since life began on Earth.
I think he intended to say millions referring to the evolution of animals.
*adjusts glasses*
You can hear that he says "or" very quickly ("hundreds or billions of...").
He did say that. He probably meant to say "millions" rather than "billions", but it's becoming increasingly evident scientifically that the big bang hypothesis is blatantly false and that the universe is static, eternal, and infinite; well, mainstream science still hasn't gone that far even though it's true, but even mainstream science is now eager to more than double the accepted age based on all the evidence that has accumulated over the past century, culminating in the most recent JWST evidence.
So ultimately there probably have been beings suffering in the way he describes during a continuous and eternal process of evolutionary change (even hundreds of billions of years is still just a negligible blip of time in the context of eternity), perhaps not here on Earth, but in an infinite number of other worlds throughout space and time.
You cannot have free will without the availability of evil.
A free and independent natural world needs entropy or natural “evil”.
It’s all to creature truly independent and fully free agents. Free to fight entropy and add order to the universe, or free to partake in the gradual decline into disorder.
Would "free will" be impacted without entropy?
If natural laws were altered by God to fit his ideal (for example: in a renewal of the earth), would that be detrimental to freedom as we know it?
If a need to fight can be replaced by another need would that enslave your will in any way?
In a theistic ideology God is the standard of all things, and everything fall on his design.
"Evil" can only have meaning from a religious perspective.
So that means that God does not have free will?
metallica4169 No because God exists outside the universe, outside of the physical realm. No physical constraints.
It is indicated that God created non-physical minds before the physical universe. The issue with this is that they were not truly free as they would be too influenced by the programmer, God. Therefore a physical universe was constructed to create minds that were not directly programmed by God... hence the silence of God. It is also indicated that if you go through great lengths to not live for the physical world, you can then hear God.
nice-new The physical universe is a mechanism to create a “free as possible” mind. The goal is not our physical self, but the active “will” component of minds. We must actively choose to stop executing our biological programming (basically anything that results in a dopamine hit or “good monkey” response). Our will must decide and sacrifice it’s physical rewards to be good to others, to intentionally choose the good.
I think free will has been attempted without a physical universe, without entropy, but the minds created this way were not truly free from Gods influence. The will was not truly free.
Yes, without theology there is no evil. There is just the natural process of the physical world. Theology frames the natural world for us, informs us that living for self is entropic or detrimental to others. If we live for the good of others we start practicing this thing called love that is anti-entropy. We stop becoming enslaved by our animal minds and start pursing a non-physical existence.
Keith Strang you said that you cannot have free-will without “the availability of evil.” God does not have that availability. Therefore, he cannot have free will according to that premise. Why did you respond with so much random jargon?
There are many possibilities. One is that God is not good.
Were borrowing his consciousness and bodies/matter and were immortal souls not fleshy meat sacks so maybe its just tough love and a wiser understanding of eternity
Who/what can know "God"??
Another possibility is: there were two Gods and the bad won the battle. The consequences are
1. The good God (Lucifer, which means Light) was banned and is since then discredited as the pure evil.
2. Anyone that denies the existence of just one God is condemned to hell.
3. Not the ones are favoured that are morally good and are doing good no matter of their beliefs, but those who are worshipping the jealous and selfish God. "Thou shalt not kill" comes only at 6th place, the first commandment is "I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt not have any strange gods before Me."
As an atheist I don't believe I this stuff, but I find it amusing, because there are so many places in and outside the bible you can use to backup this story.
Would be a good plot for a film or novel too ;-)
If God is so good, why does he let children die. Works in mysterious ways is unacceptable to me.
@@leonreynolds77 If You are Omnipotent, You must to allow evil to be for allowing Free will to exist ...
In a sense, You're as Good to allow infinite Bad to Become manifested .... or Your causeless Mercy allows that everything becomes manifested ... It doesn't matter If that is evaluated as Bad or Good by Contingent Entities. ...
If You constrain Existence to Only ,"Good" ... Then, You will disable existence of deploying its own will ... Therefore, Not Freedom....
Plus, "good" and "evil" are not objective terms ...
Example, If my daughter get a hurtful terminal disease, I will suffer my self ... But People that Hates Me and/or My Daughter would feel Good by our suffering ...
Therefore, Good and Bad are not objective phenomenon ... Just perspectives from local entities.
"something is broken in creation".... well if you believe in evolution, this statement makes no sense. There was no time in the history of humankind where there wasn't disease/suffering/death
ClumsyRoot I actually think most of these fall from grace stories have to do with our transition from hunter gatherers to farmers. There seems to have been an entire different mode of living before agriculture and that’s what they are referring to.
Ronald Jordan the advent of agriculture didn't mean there was a material change in the pain and suffering experienced by humanity? It increased for some and reduced for others. Plus different cultures transitioned from hunter-gatherers to farmers at different points in time, some even as late as last century
Xain'd Sleena If you are talking about ‘natural evil’ the yes and no. Socially it seems to have been a much more harmonious time, with women enjoying more equality than in the Neolithic. They ate better, worked less, and viewed themselves more as a part of nature than separate from it. Sure bad things happened, but I think psychologically speaking, they were better off than later farmers and herders, and I think that’s what many of the origin myths are about.
@@hypergraphic You can argue either way. Agriculture brought major improvements in quality of life through a reliable food supply and greater surplus food. These in turn allowed specialization of labor and cities which brought greater advantages in terms of protection, wealth, knowledge etc.
@@hypergraphic according to the skeletal rests of paleolithical men, one third of the population died from omicide.
Obviously it is impossible to observe or literally identify within the purview of observation. However, I think there are some good theodicies which Hart seems to reject as satisfactory. Such as Bulgakov, Chardin, Origen, and my own which plays with the notion of the mischaracterized 'preexistence' of humans. I prefer to refer to these preexisting forms as divine beings if you will or perfect beings that each individually fell from their intended position in creation to what is known as the footstool. I would argue that even animals are partially fallen beings that are rescued by the Logos in the incarnation. Hart suggests that preexistence does not get God 'off the hook' so to speak. However, I think it does and it suggests that one's will can operate within the One Divine Eternal Will without contradicting it, even if in the course of one's choices one is led to places that are not 'meant' for our intimate residency which God allows, but does not intend for the growth of the individual.
A gobbledegook word salad ! ... what nonsense.
I want to buy Hart’s NT translation. But whenever I hear this man talk he never says anything. Its very weak arguments if any argument even presented
Did he just say 'hundreds of billions of years of evolution? 3:30
He meant from the perspective of the animals which were evolving: e.g. a million years for us a billions in cat-years.
He could be like the majority of theist who actually accept the science on this matter, instead of like the creationist who try to deny all the science.
@@blargblarg7875
So you are suggesting to be on the side of science??🤣
What science is it that suggests that life has been around for hundreds of billions of years so that it could evolve?
I thought the science suggested that the big band happened < 14 billion years ago.
Anyhow, the original comment was just an innocent laugh at a funny mis-speak.
@@samdg1234:
He did say that. He probably meant to say "millions" rather than "billions", but it's becoming increasingly evident scientifically that the big bang hypothesis is blatantly false and that the universe is static, eternal, and infinite; well, mainstream science still hasn't gone that far even though it's true, but even mainstream science is now eager to more than double the accepted age based on all the evidence that has accumulated over the past century, culminating in the most recent JWST evidence.
So ultimately there probably have been beings suffering in the way he describes during a continuous and eternal process of evolutionary change (even hundreds of billions of years is still just a negligible blip of time in the context of eternity), perhaps not here on Earth, but in an infinite number of other worlds throughout space and time.
@lukeabbott3591 that was a good one 😂
Yet again this channel turns a theist to find atheisms best straw arguments. This is I suppose to be expected since atheism cannot make arguments for something not defined. By its nature atheism has to wait for theists to make a claim before examining it. In the absence of theistic claims atheism does not exist.
Hart admitted the problem of evil was a very serious objection to Christianity, so I don't think it's right to say he presented nothing but straw men. You're mostly right in what you say about atheism, but it seems the word "atheism" has become conflated with "scientific materialism," which does entail positive beliefs about the universe, not just the absence of God.
God designed me to need toilets.
But he didn't provide any toilets.
That's a bit of an oversight, isn't it ?
☦Yes, Hart is a very sick false prophet & blasphemer
It is patently false that "all traditions posit that evil and suffering emerge from a failing of the universe or break with a deity." Buddhism concerns itself with first and foremost with human suffering and merely makes the statement that suffering exists; it is the nature of conditioned reality. The Buddha went on to state that there is a specific reason for suffering and a path to the end of suffering. Buddhism has no creation story or deity. It does not require those who follow that path to believe anything.
Depends on the Buddhism
@@tysmith9309
Not really. All Buddhism is based on the four noble truths which are about suffering, the cause of suffering and how to stop the suffering.
Nihilist cult
@@HIMYMTR
It's a practical way to reduce suffering and increase happiness.
Daoism doesn’t posit a fallen world either. The Dao is the transcendent source from which reality springs, but everything is part of it; there’s so schism between good and evil, since those are human concepts. Philosophically, it’s closed to Spinoza’s conception of god.
"God" is a sound some people make so they won't have to say "I don't know."
U dnt no tho
Don't say the argument of evil, don't say the argument of evil, don't say the argument of evil, don't say the argument of evil.....
Crap
As an atheist myself, I'm not very interested in trying to convince theists that their belief isn't justified. Theists make claims that need support & defense, so to my mind _they_ need to do the convincing. I like this about atheism -- that it doesn't require me to do anything. There's no affirmative claims that I need to defend, and no meetings for me to attend. What I would like theists to understand is that I can't ever join their club. To blame me for my non-belief, or think of me as less.. that's quite funny to me. An all-knowing God would (by definition) understand that I'm not capable of belief in it. Some are wired for this belief & some aren't. Either way, it's OK & please accept those who are wired the other way -- they're not stupid or evil just because they don't share your (dis)belief.
I'm not challenging or anything but do u think that as an atheist, that there may be a burden of proof on the belief or assumption that there is a natural or physical explanation for reality? I think it's fair think that a theist has a burden of proof in a debate but it is equally the case that the naturalist, who holds that nature is all that exists, would equally bear the burden of proof.
There are many things in nature we don't understand. Either we can investigate and find answers, this is the scientific method, or we have to be honest and say "we don't know".
I don't see any burden of prove as long a it is not well defined what super-natural even means.
vonkruel the problem is truth is real. You cannot be neutral or do nothing. But you have in fact done something. You have a worldview.
Spot on. :-)
@@nevnad4587 : Theist ; God/s exist. Atheist : I don't believing what you're saying is being true?
@Nevnad : Explain on how not beliving in an person making a claim carries a burden of proof, i don't understand?
Well said Mr Hart from Mr Hart. The best quote I have ever heard about atheists, is that there were never any in a ww1 trench.
If people are raised with the concept of a God existing their whole lives, it is only natural they would turn to this force that they think would be capable of saving their lives if it were in grave danger. If a polytheist were in the trenches, they would probably pray to multiple deities specific to their beliefs. Unfortunately you argument is very a weak one that falls down on some honest reflection.
It is not an argument, it is a quote. I would find it very difficult to argue with anyone who could not disprove something I believe in,@@InPursuitOfCuriosity
Not true. Read Primo Levi, committed non-believer and Auschwitz survivor.
@@jameswood4344 No thankyou.
Neither of these men defined evil, so their discussion about evil is useless.
which God ? theirs or your own
The question wasn't answered.
He wrote a whole book on the topic if you're curious. It's called 'The Doors of the Sea: Where Was God in the Tsunami?'
What atheist arguments you find compelling? Argument of evil. It seems to me that he answered
@Quantum Decoherence but the question wasn't "explain why the strongest argument against God is wrong" if it's strong it's strong for a reason.
He did. Unless you mean he just gave one. He said the argument from evil.
he answered that he found Argument of Evil the most convincing argument. How do you mean it wasnt answered? I appreciate he treats this argument with the respect it demands.
This gentleman offered nothing in terms of an argument(s)… and his unworthy insult to Richard Dawkins. Seriously?
So, “there’s a God of infinite justice, mercy, love and intellect,”... but “something went wrong.” - that’s not logically incoherent?
I'm sure he's say more to explain it if asked. I think he's got a book on it
There's human freewill isn't there.
Of course it is illogical. God is omniscient and always chooses right Genesis 18:25 Simply by withholding omniscience from man's point of origin God designed man to sin (miss the mark )." They perish through lack of knowledge of Me the only true living God". God created the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and called it very good. God created evil Isaiah 45:7 and taught even Jesus obedience through suffering Hebrews 5:8. God is a subjector and will in the fullness of time subject all things to himself 1Corinthians 15:28.The Truth is what sets free, God is The Truth and as King His will will be done and until His subjects obey completely all will not be free. Men's captive wills are being are in the process of being freed. God is the originator or creator of all things and conforms all things according to the purpose of His will Ephesians 1:11 God could have made man with a free will like Himself incapable of sin and man would hardly be a robot unless God himself is.
@@Mrm1985100 "There's human freewill isn't there."
Is there?
Nitche criticized Christianity the right way because he understood it from a Protestant point of view? And you understand it from another way? How many ways are there to understand Christianity? Come up with a single way to understand all religions and not just Christianity and then we can begin to have a real discussion about a god.
Oh stop!! Why does there have to be one way to look a god to have a real discussion? Something so complex needs to be look at from all angles.
He's Eastern Orthodox.
@@blackscreennoiseforrelaxat1517
Because God is not complex. He's all powerful, all knowing, perfectly good and has a plan. That's the God believers believe in. One way to know this is there would be no problem of evil otherwise.
@@stephenlawrence4821 Your definition does not apply to Eastern Religions' understanding of God.
problem of evil is weak-sauce as far as I'm concerned. that's why theists like to give it so much credit; there are coherent - if perhaps "weasely' - ways to tackle it from their stance. there are much stronger reasons for non-theism and even more so for irreligion (that don't need to involve the disproving of any and every proposition regarding some abstract, ill-defined "god").
Because theists haven't answered it. Not convincingly anyway. There haven't been any syllogism that responds directly to it.
@@mihaimoldo Existence with evil is better than total non-existence
@@mrepix8287 how so? Better for us?
@@mihaimoldo Existence is a privilege. That which has being is more desired. However, there is literally nothing to desire in nothing
@@mrepix8287 given we haven't existed for billions of years before our birth you're argument is to me a post ad hoc rationalization since beforehand you cannot advocate for existence
I also agree it's amazing we get to experience the universe and be conscious about it as well nonetheless.
i have not even started this video yet and i know its gonna hurt my brain...well here i go
I hurts every Christian brain to hear the filthy blasphemies of this pseudo Orthodox arrogant гаt
Dr. John MacArthur does a better job at explaining this issue.
So as a Muslim myself, I believe that God is just and all knowing and part of the reason why there is suffering on this earth is because God keeps telling us that the ENTIRE reason we are here is to be tested whether or not we will accept the faith in God and display patience and prayers during difficulties because God says those people will be rewarded in the next life in eternal life with no pain no suffering, God says I have prepared worlds of heavens that exist in the universe that we will never be able to even imagine what kind of life will experience there! So God says that even those closest to him among the believers will be tested not just the unbelievers. So I advise people not rush to judgment judging God and remove him from existence when you yourself exist.
How do you know what god says, or that it even exists? Because of an old book? Why would you find that convincing?
God created the world and put a penalty of eternal conscious torment. Is that a good god?
So the Nazi holocaust, cancer in babies, war, rape, torture and so on are all just “god testing us”? Wow, you really are deeply misguided and horribly indoctrinated.
Isn't it potentially selfish to act according to God's will because you were promised a better afterlife?
Why the need to test us? If God is omniscient and omnipotent, he would know immediately whether we believe in him or not. He would know immediately before or at the time of our creation that we are evil and going to torture/kill lots of people, or if we are going to live a righteous life. You are promised a "paradise" so you will be compliant and easy to control by religious authorities. What determines closeness to God? Because Mohammed said "this is the way to be close to God" when God himself could easily have told you directly if he existed.
open mouth insert foot! this gave me a little hope...and trust me that is not at all what i feel listening to theists
I bet I've made a hundred comments stating that Richard Dawkins and the New Atheists are not well respected by real philosophers and some dumb teenager who thinks philosophy and logic are words used to make one sound smart will respond by saying they don't believe me and that anyone who believes in God is no philosopher.
ClumsyRoot maybe true, but generally speaking, most non-philosophers aren’t as outspoken in their answers to philosophical questions as Dawkins
I think that Dennet is somewhat respected
@@astrol4b Dennet is also a philosopher. He's the only one of the four horsemen of the new atheism who is. I'm pretty sure he's also one of those philosophers who goes around proclaiming his own discipline to be dead because he thinks science can account for everything. So, you might say there's one new atheist who is somewhat respected, but that one holds an unpopular view that appeals to angry teenagers...and Bill Maher.
@@tchristian04 it's worse than that, he claims that just Darwinism explains everything :-) I read "Darwin dangerous idea" and that was the core argument, but it's a good book, the metaphysics chapter is very weak, but enjoyable.
astrol4b have you read anything by Alvin Plantinga? His book “Where the Conflict Really Lies” engages with Dennett’s book
Eastern philosophy explains this non-sin evil fairly elegantly through the concept of karma and rebirth. Also according to it, Earth is bordering between gracious and hellish worlds, but still considered to be the former
Cool. And what is the evidence for any of that?
@@sledzeppelin if you’re expecting people to prove karmic psychology in a lab then ur looking in the wrong place and asking the wrong questions. Not everything needs to be justified in the reductionist eyes of positive science
@@Everyone321 How have you proven karmic psychology?
@@sledzeppelin go read ab karmic seeds
@@sledzeppelin karmic seeds are a metaphysical phenomenon that produce conscious experience which relate to formed habits that lead to suffering, their justification could only really be proved negatively (u cannot go out and find them). Also through the inner expereince of uprooting karmic patterns for a more successful rebirth
How about asking them “what are the ways that you could be wrong about Christianity”.
So this guy basically made a great case against his version of god (the problem of evil which he explained pretty well) but then, ah, WTF, I like believing anyway.
The concept of evil is incoherent on naturalism, and thus evil is evidence for theism.
“In a world where physics fixes all the facts, it's hard to see how there could be room for moral facts.”
Alex Rosenberg, Atheist's Guide, p. 94-95
@@les2997 Naturalism doesn't say physics fixes all facts, just all physical facts - which precludes morality. Even if it was moral facts, it would just mean that theism posits moral truths that God then violates which is just as effective and perhaps even more damning - perhaps it makes God logically impossible.
There is simply no proof for the Biblical god. Why would anyone believe in such a god who did such terrible things?
It seems like modern theologians despise everything that contain dimension of space time.
But the argument from evil ignores one important point: The devil is the Lord of this world.
How could there be a second Lord, a power outside the grasp of the will of a good God?
@@stevenherran3962 Good question. My understanding is the devil holds dominion over this world and is allowed to by God.
@@ant0n_xp491 It's not a question of why a good and all powerful God allows evil and disease and misery. We live in this universe, not in heaven. It is not God's intention to intervene here.
@@moonbeamskies3346 Why would a perfect all loving God do that? That is the problem. Your point doesn’t help in answering that. If you think God is not perfectly all loving, then life is more or less as meaningless with or without God.
@@xtaticsr2041 Something had to put all these trillions or quadrillions of stars here. Scientists have no clue how they got here. God put them here. If God interfered then life would truly be meaningless.
There are just bad arguments for the existing of a thing called “god”.
@@ob4161 I know the answer now: „I am God“. That’s actually more simple than I expected. So I don’t need to spend money
1:26 who is the other atheist philosopher he named after mackie?
Howard Sobel
Why does God allow evil? If I knew the answer then I would be God.
God knows, the anti God nature of humanity. It is the free will. Don't expect free will of humanity, to desire obedience, though some will.
I hope this isn’t your pathetic attempt at making some sort of atheistic argument.
That doesn't make sense. Knowing that answer is not the only criteria to being considered a god.
Casual shifting the burden. People don't have to show fairies don't exist or propose arguments against fairies.
"bad arguments for atheism..." - sure there are some bad arguments made for atheism, but there has NEVER been a good argument made for theism - so we're still ahead.
Kalaam Cosmological argument for God.
@@Mrm1985100 go ahead and explain why you think that's a good argument --- thanks
But maybe that is the essence of theism: That it is beyond cold rational arguments.
keep splitting the hairs on your chin, and think you're the wiser.
Reading all the comments, I would say that more people are questioning about the existence of god than those who are confident. I belief, with time and advancement of science & technology, people are going away from religion.
There surely are a lot of bad arguments for Atheism but there are absolutely no good arguments for theism. It's a fantasy. Theists knows what God wants but can't even show that he exists in the first place
The logical argument goes: Whatever has finite, contingent existence does not have the ability to give existence to itself. The observable reality is both contingent and has existence. Therefore the observable reality necessarily needs an absolute to give rise to it. The absolute reality is what most theistic traditions term as God. God is a logical necessity because without the absolute the contingent would not have existence. We observe that the contingent does have existence, therefore we must infer the existence of the absolute (God).
Unless you can demonstrate a positive claim that the contingent can exist without being caused by the absolute (a claim thatis in conflict with both science and logic, leaving the burden of proof on the person that makes it), the inference of God (the absolute) is to date the most reasonable attitude prompted everything we know about the observable universe.
@@dawn_salinas Okay, so you've argued there must be a cause, and you've labeled it "god". What are the properties of this god? Is it the Abrahamic god? Is it a big fluffy bunny that poops out stars? Tell me more about this god you know exists.
I rather hear about his Best Hair arguments.
very bright guy.
I have yet to hear a good argument for a god, let alone one single shred of convincing evidence. Even If one were to grant the assumption that there is (or was) a god - what god are we talking about and what is the nature of that god. Nobody knows the answer to that question but all believers think they have the correct insight into what god is, what god is like, what god approves and disproves of, etc. It is actually quite absurd - somehow god cannot speak for himself but every believer is speaking for him/it. By the way - why/how do we know or think god is a he - does he have a penis, if so why? If not - then how is it a he? It all looks to me like man created god - which by the way we entirely know to be possible.
well all cultures have a religion or god.So yes god is man made. Their argument is based entirely on faith.Basically just BELIEVE and have faith in the scriptures. Not a good argument...... EVER
You have to differentiate the notion of God from all man made descriptions other than simply a creative being/force that has agency and whos existence transcends space and time. Was it this God or that God? Is a nonsensical question in my opinion when relating to a theistic argument for our universe being created by God.
the fact that you have failed to advance your thinking of God past the crudest human physical levels, as some sort of finite being bound to the confines of your emotional and conceptual imaginings, tells me quite plainly that the best evidence in the world could stare you in the face and you would not recognize it out of your intellectual immaturity. And to say that man created God is also to say that man created goodness, love, life, creation, and being, which all of a sudden appears to be absurd, doesn't it? The questions you are posing are answered in the simplest beginnings of theology.
@@sambyassee9132 - So you are saying that humans have not/cannot create gods? Or maybe you are just saying all gods are man made fiction except the one that you happen to believe in. Why doesn't god talk to us the same way we talk to each other (audibly)? Why doesn't god appear to us visually - the same way that we all see each other? Is it because he can't or won't? I have read the bible but am no an expert. I am also not an expert on Islam, Mormonism, Buddhism, Scientology, Numerology, Astrology, Bigfoot or UFOs. I don't need to be an expert on those things to know they are nonsense. BTW - just what is the best evidence in the world for a god?
Neil Cates The only God that is real is the one that created the universe - that makes no claims about his nature or who believes in him or not. But we would not exist if not for a God, so there is God. Also, God is not a thing in the universe. That’s why he doesn’t communicate with us as humans do, because he’s not a human. God is not a creature, but rather the source and end of all being. God is outside our understanding of the world (or else God would be limited, because we are all limited), so it makes perfect sense that God is not found in the dimensions of our limited human communication. The greatest evidence for God is not some human proof, but rather our own existence. When you talk of proving God you risk reducing God to a finite thing fully understandable in human terms. Only God can fully understand God, so only God can prove himself, and he proves himself to us in Jesus Christ.
The problem of evil is compelling. Also it's only the second best argument against God. The first is if you make something up with no good evidence for it to be true, then it almost certainly isn't true.
People accept this about most myths. Nobody feels the need to ponder over whether Zeus exists or whether evils were released into the world when Pandora opened the box. People know mythology when they see it until it comes to the particular myth they believe in.
The concept of evil is incoherent on naturalism, and thus evil is evidence for theism.
“In a world where physics fixes all the facts, it's hard to see how there could be room for moral facts.”
Alex Rosenberg, Atheist's Guide, p. 94-95
@@les2997
Firstly the concept of evil is not incoherent under naturalism. Evil in this context, refers to all the suffering. Secondly this world is not a world we'd expect to find if created by a perfectly good God. That is evidence.
@@stephenlawrence4821 You are wrong on both counts. Evil provides evidence for theism, not atheism.
Evil cannot exist is naturalism is true. Physicalism and determinism leave no room for evil.
A perfect being can create whatever he wants.
@@les2997
Well, you've only repeated your assertions. As I say, included in evil are things like natural disasters and all the suffering in the animal kingdom. So it's not always to do with morality and often isn't. Also it's only your assertion (and quote) that there are no moral facts without God.
Yes a perfect, omnipotent being can create whatever he wants. But he can't want suffering because then he'd be far from perfect.
@@stephenlawrence4821 The concept of natural evil is nonsense. Which law of nature is evil? The same laws that brought you into existence are now evil? Sometimes they are evil and sometime they are good, right?
If naturalism is true, there is no evil or good. Nature is indifferent.
Evil is defined as a departure from the way things ought to be. There are no "oughts" in nature. There are no absolutes and there are no reference points.
It's always weird to me when believers say XYZ or ABC are impossible to understand. Even if that were true...there would literally be no way for you to KNOW that it was impossible to understand. So by the very act of making the CLAIM that something is impossible to understand is to tip your hand--that you are making things up, as that is the only way to invoke, claim, or allude to something being "impossible to understand".
I don't think your criticism lands. It's perfectly reasonable to claim something is impossible to fully understand in the same way that I would claim it's impossible for an ant to understand the motives of humans, or similarly: it's impossible for humans to understand what it's like to be an ant. I'd even say it impossible for me to fully understand you, in that I cannot directly experience your own subjectivity. It may prove ultimately to be false in the long run, but it's reasonable, and that doesn't mean I'm making up the fact that you exist, or ants exist.
@@anthonymount1275 You are equivocating on the word "impossible". I have no idea if it may become possible at some point or in some way to understand your subjectivity in part or in whole. I can't make the claim that it is impossible (same with the ant). If the claim is that XYZ is actually, totally, and in all contexts IMPOSSIBLE for a human mind to understand based on the inherent limitations of human understanding...THEN, I claim, there is no way for a human to even MAKE that claim, as there would be no way for a human to KNOW it is beyond the limits of human understanding...if, indeed, it WAS beyond the limits of human understanding. There would be nothing we could say about it at all in regards to understanding it or not. (Edit: to even **make the claim** that something is beyond the limits of human understanding is to smuggle in the idea that there is a "secret" or "special" understanding that we must accept...because someone said so. Which is basically saying, "It's beyond human understanding, but our special group understands it and you don't, and there is no way to demonstrate this--you just have to accept it." It's magical thinking on steroids, and it's dangerous, as (if it is accepted) it can be used to justify anything at all.)
His God does not exist
Ugh. This might be the worst video I’ve seen in this series.
Make your god appear, how hard is that?
Dumbest argument ever
I mean, He’s worked countless miracles that are dismissed by atheists as non evidence
@@johnwachowicz1966 The sun rose this morning, a true miracle from Quetzalcoatl
@@johnwachowicz1966 Such as?
what would he look like.... what appearance would convince you?
The idea of God is so broad,so many different interpretations and all interpreted through man himself. As a Catholic I have changed my view of God and no longer see him as the grandfatherly vindictive power who would demand that imperfect man forgive his enemies or else eternal damnation..Its one of the main tenets ,forgive your enemy.But when you die you won't be forgiven by the same Creator who demanded you forgive your enemies.Instead you suffer for all of time .Not buying that anymore. In my opinion I won't reduce God to being the vindictive Creator anymore.This metaphor doesn't work for me ,The Creator,the energy which we call God is beyond our capabilities to comprehend. For me live a good life,try to to be a problem solver who is willing to help other solve their problems and do it with love in your heart. That's the best that i can do right now.
Also in the Holy Quran, Allah, God says that in every humans heart, I installed a hint of certainty that I exist and that I’m their creator. God also says that the unbelievers who refuse the evidence are condemn to eternal pain in their heart in this life and eternal hellfire in the next life
That's weird. The God of the bible, knows the anti God nature of humanity, and it is his mercy, that the wage of sin, is death, not another life.
And believers will be cooked in spaghetti sauce.
Cool. Now tell me why you think the Quran is true.
5 minutes of absolutely nothing. Wow. Like only theists can deliver.
There are, of course thoughtful people whose atheism is founded on a variety of arguments - logical, scientific, moral, but for most of us, though we may try to understand those ideas, the problem of innocent suffering returns over and again - not so much as an argument against the existence of God, but against the idea that He is concerned for the welfare of humans. The contention that He must care for us for some other abstract philosophical reason about His presumed nature sound very hollow in the face of actual suffering, here, now, unbearable.
*Google “richard dawkins evolution answers question of existence”*
The only hits I get are pages referring to DB Hart’s claim that Dawkins said it.
I have never heard a biologist say anything like that. Evolution doesn’t even explain how life came to be, only the diversity once it started.
The anti God sophistry, arguing from evil, is the most childish argument that can be made against God.
How like a child when we say, "If you loved us and were good... we could eat nothing but chocolate! You meanie!"
When a more mature view would be to be thankful there is chocolate at all and not only vinegar.
Thank you, I always make the same point. Even though most people would agree there is evil, definition of "evil" depends on the lot of things and it sometimes differs wildly between cultures.
What if you changed "we could eat nothing but chocolate" to "not being mercilessly beaten and raped"? Would the child be correct in his assertion? I mean, since your talking about sophistry it would be more honest to give an example that is more in line with what people usually mean as "evil" in those arguments.
@@pedrovillalobos6221 yeah I don’t get the infantile nature of his comparison.
Or a translation of his point
Be thankful that there is love and not just rape … but rape the rape still exists.. the horror still exists.
It’s a fair question
It's not sophistry when you factor in the usual attributes of God according to classical theism: Omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence.
@@jasonharrod8370 Do you know what sophistry means?
flapdoodle
Consider reading a book once in a while
My list of profound Theist philosophers is very short.
This guy is not on it. Pretty much no one is on it as philo for religion is BS trying to support the fact free.
The existence of God can be demonstrated.
How?
@@sandrajackson709 The logical argument goes: Whatever has finite, contingent existence does not have the ability to give existence to itself. The observable reality is both contingent and has existence. Therefore the observable reality necessarily needs an absolute to give rise to it. The absolute reality is what most theistic traditions term as God. God is a logical necessity because without the absolute the contingent would not have existence. We observe that the contingent does have existence, therefore we must infer the existence of the absolute (God).
@@dawn_salinas How does it logicall foliw that because something is finite,, contingent, and did not give rise to itself that the only possible exip;aintion to the exclusion of any other is that a god created that somthing and that a god exists? They only want to reaain consistent with logic up until tthe point they want to startt speculating in attempst to fill in the gaps and they shoulb be aware when it gets to that point they are no longer iusing logic
@@sandrajackson709 Because it's the only logical explanation. It's like having just one piece of a puzzle that has a dented curvature and half of a yellow house on it. The only logical thing to assume is that the other missing piece of the puzzle will contain the other half of a yellow house with a protruding curvature to fit the dent, not a blue airplane with another dented curve. The piece is still physically missing, but we know its attributes.
The main problem I see with people who lack understanding of basic theology and philosophy is the issue of defining the concept of God in the first place. To illustrate it further, you might decide to give the yellow house a name 'blue airplane' (just like many atheists like to attribute the word 'nature' or 'universe' to a concept theists formally name God) but in the end they are still describing the same concept, and the conflict is merely a semantic one.
The contingency is one piece of the puzzle that necessitates not another contingent thing as its other half, its other piece of the whole picture, but the absolute - an independent actor, a concept capable of giving existence to itself.
We can also use algebra to explain this logical postulate. To use the simplest mathematics, we can say that 2+x=5. The x is technically a variable since x is hidden. But we can very easily and confidently assume that x=3, (and not , say, 10), since 2+3=5. 2+10 would give a different number altogether, and since we know that the result is 5, we know that x=3.
In the same way you can confidently conclude that the attributes of the finite are that it cannot give itself existence, and since it does have existence (the result is known) it must necessarily follow that it was given existence by something that is not in itself finite, the concept which we use to define God (formal attributes of God as recognized by the vast majority of theological traditions East and West being: infinite, self-sufficient, capable of giving rise to physical phenomena while not itself being subject to it, etc.). If such a concept did not exist, it would follow that the physical, contingent reality does not exist. But since we observe that the contingent reality does exist (that our result is indeed 5, not 12), the absolute must by inference exist (the variable is indeed 3, not 10).
@@sandrajackson709 And 'filling in the gaps' and 'speculating' IS what logic, as a branch of philosophy, is predominantly concerned with. Filling in the gaps is a basic application of formal logic, just like algebra. If you've ever done an IQ test you probably know that 'fill in the gaps' is a frequent question model, and that there's a certain logic to doing it correctly.
Bs walks £ talks
Shade the Bible at your own peril. Of the 2500 Bible prophecies 2000 have came true the other 500 are in the future. Here is one about the future that may interest you.
Revelation 16:12
The sixth angel poured out his bowl on the great river Euphrates, and its water was dried up, to prepare the way for the kings from the east.
I will let you discern for yourself if the Euphrates river is really going dry.
Are you sure it was the bowl the angel poured out, and not his bowels?
You sound like a person who has only ever listened to preachers and has never had an original thought of his own.
There are no poor atheist arguments, only poor theist arguments, and many of them.
What’s the best atheist argument?
God's a fundamentalist
🤬🤬🤬Bentley
Jesus said we would suffer in this world. God said through the fire and waters he will be with us. The question is not why suffering but what do we learn from it? What is the purpose to all the suffering, pain and evil in this world. Because these arguments exist does no way prove God doesn’t exist. We know in the beginning what God created was good. You see paradise with man, and then a great fall and redemption to come through Jesus. Bible clearly shows paradise, fall of man and paradise restored.
Hey, I know you from Cliffe's channel :-) I can't prove God doesn't exist, and by the same token, you can't prove he does. This is the impasse we are at. You say "We know in the beginning what God created was good".. that is your belief OneStepAway, if you were to ask any reputable geologist how the earth was created they would not mention God, and they'd be able to give you lots of evidence that this planet is much much older than humanity, it goes back billions of years 4.5 to be exact. And we atheists have a much better comprehension of why there is evil and suffering in the world, it has nothing to do with a God who was angry with his creation of Adam and Eve, .. that is a myth. Good to see you on this channel :-)
bonnie43uk hello Bonnie. Glad to to hear from you. I can’t prove to you what I ate last night. What we have is knowledge and what we do with that is what matters. That is what the Bible says. It is not my belief but what has been written and revealed.
@@onestepaway3232 Could the knowledge in the bible be wrong?
bonnie43uk No, because Jesus proved through his life and resurrection that it is the truth. He said Moses and the prophets spoke of his day. There is no reason to not accept it.
@@onestepaway3232 Thanks for that. Well, I can think of various reasons to not accept it. It seems perfectly feasible to me that the claims in the New Testament could easily have been exaggerated by followers of Jesus in order to make people believe in him, lets say it's true that he was crucified by the Romans ( as many people were back in those days), they couldn't accept he was gone, at some point stories were circulated that he came back from the dead, ..there is a fascinating book called "The Homeric epics and the Gospel of Mark" which goes into great detail about how a clever writer based his story of Jesus on the epic Greek hero Homer, it sounds very far fetched, but when you look at the similarities in both books, it's hard not to accept that the writer of Mark's Gospel took elements of the Greek tale, and put them in his Gospel ( the first Gospel to be written), it was also turned into a TH-cam video series by a very talented man called "TruthSurge" called "Excavating the empty tomb" in which he goes into great detail pointing out the similarities .. I'll leave a link to one of the episodes.
( this episode looks at the many instances of Hebrew/Roman/Greek Gods of history in which famous people of the day who disappeared where said to have gone above the clouds to live as Gods, ..it was a common theme a few thousand years ago). As I said, the book "The Homeric epics and the Gospel of Mark" is well worth checking out on Amazon where you can read a brief synopsis of the book and the similarities in Mark's Gospel, there are too many to simply say it's merely a coincidence. TruthSurge's video' series does an excellent job of making the same argument. th-cam.com/video/0Sni_6A7n6M/w-d-xo.html
Being an atheist is hard and it takes courage to admit having doubts and no ultimate answers. The belief in a supreme deity finds its roots in humanity's consciousness and its inability to have peace with reality as it is and as it is experienced. Not knowing the origin of it all, the vastness of the universe, the uncertainty, the suffering and dying, the inevitable demise of Earth, and the ultimate aimlessness, are too much. So the minds started making up stories for dealing with this. Now, when a child asks hard questions, they have 'answers' that can bypass the difficulties and implications arising from the observed phenomena. Now they have 'promises' for a bright future with the protecting deity and their loved ones. People are raised with that and usually stick to a 'beautiful' and 'comforting' world view, with its religious traditions, and always pushed back into it by the social groups they are living in, in case they would have doubts and would want to leave and think differently. I'm sorry to say, but religion is self-deception, and somewhere in the back of their minds, many believers know it. But most of them cling on to religion, afraid of the consequences, and afraid of the reactions of the group.
The methods of science find their roots in humanity’s consciousness and its inability to have peace with reality as it is and as it is experienced. Why else do we seek to interrogate the old and discover the new apart from a deeply rooted dissatisfaction with settling for anything less than the best possible explanation? You have said nothing about theology that does not also apply to science in its most generic essence. Hoping that over the past two years you’ve had a chance to fill this crater-sized hole in your logic.
Wrong, I find it to be really easy to say that I don't know the answers to many things and the only time I have difficulties or need courage is when I am surrounded by theist who might break into violence should I push to hard about their beliefs.
Being an atheist is hard and it takes courage to admit having doubts and no ultimate answers. The belief in a supreme deity finds its roots in humanity's consciousness and its inability to have peace with reality as it is and as it is experienced. Not knowing the origin of it all, the vastness of the universe, the uncertainty, the suffering and dying, the inevitable demise of Earth, and the ultimate aimlessness, are too much. So the minds started making up stories for dealing with this. Now, when a child asks hard questions, they have 'answers' that can bypass the difficulties and implications arising from the observed phenomena. Now they have 'promises' for a bright future with the protecting deity and their loved ones. People are raised with that and usually stick to a 'beautiful' and 'comforting' world view, with its religious traditions, and always pushed back into it by the social groups they are living in, in case they would have doubts and would want to leave and think differently. I'm sorry to say, but religion is self-deception, and somewhere in the back of their minds, many believers know it. But most of them cling on to religion, afraid of the consequences, and afraid of the reactions of the group.
That's truth.
Awe everything you said is straight bologna.
Being an atheist is hard and it takes courage to admit having doubts and no ultimate answers. The belief in a supreme deity finds its roots in humanity's consciousness and its inability to have peace with reality as it is and as it is experienced. Not knowing the origin of it all, the vastness of the universe, the uncertainty, the suffering and dying, the inevitable demise of Earth, and the ultimate aimlessness, are too much. So the minds started making up stories for dealing with this. Now, when a child asks hard questions, they have 'answers' that can bypass the difficulties and implications arising from the observed phenomena. Now they have 'promises' for a bright future with the protecting deity and their loved ones. People are raised with that and usually stick to a 'beautiful' and 'comforting' world view, with its religious traditions, and always pushed back into it by the social groups they are living in, in case they would have doubts and would want to leave and think differently. I'm sorry to say, but religion is self-deception, and somewhere in the back of their minds, many believers know it. But most of them cling on to religion, afraid of the consequences, and afraid of the reactions of the group.
Being an atheist is hard and it takes courage to admit having doubts and no ultimate answers. The belief in a supreme deity finds its roots in humanity's consciousness and its inability to have peace with reality as it is and as it is experienced. Not knowing the origin of it all, the vastness of the universe, the uncertainty, the suffering and dying, the inevitable demise of Earth, and the ultimate aimlessness, are too much. So the minds started making up stories for dealing with this. Now, when a child asks hard questions, they have 'answers' that can bypass the difficulties and implications arising from the observed phenomena. Now they have 'promises' for a bright future with the protecting deity and their loved ones. People are raised with that and usually stick to a 'beautiful' and 'comforting' world view, with its religious traditions, and always pushed back into it by the social groups they are living in, in case they would have doubts and would want to leave and think differently. I'm sorry to say, but religion is self-deception, and somewhere in the back of their minds, many believers know it. But most of them cling on to religion, afraid of the consequences, and afraid of the reactions of the group.
Being an atheist is irrational since atheism is counter-intuitive. Also, atheists aren't able to refute theistic arguments and don't even have positive arguments.
Dazed Maestro Facts
@@blackscreennoiseforrelaxat1517, facts that atheists are too dumb to understand.
@Quantum Decoherence, I watched the debate but when you have a person saying that causation can't be applied to the beginning of the Universe that person has lost all credulity.
@@dazedmaestro1223 What a mind-blowingly stupid thing to say.