Thanks for watching, everybody! Like I mentioned, I am really curious to hear from any Atheists, using the distinction that philosophers agree upon between “necessary” and “contingent” things, how goodness could be considered a necessary thing, without God. Also, if you saw a similar video yesterday - we had a glitch we had to sort out and decided to re-upload today. Sorry about that! Thanks all!
Atheist here there’s a lot in this video but it seems to be three main topics. Transcendent ideas (god,good,evil), problem of evil, problem of free will. I’ll explain how Cliff fails to answer all of these!
For starters Cliff asks what’s the atheist solution to the problem of evil which is kinda funny because Christians don’t believe there’s good or evil in an atheist view point so there’s no need to answer this anyway. Then we get into how good is defined by god in a Christian world view or by culture in an atheist world view. Both of these are subjective even cliff says that good can’t just exist it needs to be observed by a kind or a subject so he admits that even in religion morality is subjective. Next he ask how can good just exist. This is where we get into transcendence. God in the Christian world view is a transcendent concept and the justification for all other things. Transcendental explanations are called epistemological justifications. All EJs are equally valid so if a god can just exist so can good so can reality so can the universe ALL EPISTEMOLOGICAL JUSTIFICATIONS ARE EQUALLY VALID! So the atheist rightfully questions why god can just exist but good can’t. Cliff knows that all ejs are equally valid and can’t argue against it so he calls him dishonest. In addition if good exist separate from god and is objective god no longer is a transcendental explanation he’s second to good. This is why Cliff won’t admit there’s objective good without god. To you DD people aren’t stopping one degree short you are just saying god is a primary thing and other things are derived things. But an Atheist can just say reality is primary and god is derivative, again all EJs are equally valid. The next comment is a response to cliffs failure to solve the problem of evil!
Cliff doesn't solve the problem of evil he just says god limits his power to allow free will but this is just allowing unnecessary suffering since his power would allow to create free will and all good, therefore god isn't all loving
@@Oneocna People have different opinions on what "good" is - which means that the atheist world-view has no answer. "Good", is an OPINION in the atheist world-view, so it can't just exist - it REQUIRES a mind to define. Atheists believe in so much magical nonsense.
People stop a degree shy of admitting there’s a God because if there is a God, then there is justice that exists and if justice exist, then that means people are held accountable. People want to be able to live in a reality where there are no consequences, no sin, and no conviction.
@@marvinwilliams7938 the aim isn't that. The aim is to find logical evidence of the existence of God. But to answer your question; The existence of the concept of good as an absolute, being that good and evil require a consciousness to be able to grasp at all, makes it more logical to think that an intelligent entity is the source of this Good. Coupled with the design and workings of the universe being so weirdly convenient, it's logical to think that some intelligent being busy be behind it.
This right here. People don't want to walk the narrow path with God. They think it's too difficult and they don't think it's "fair" for them to struggle being good when other people aren't trying either.
An objective good is impossible without a living source for it, eg: God. This is because goodness requires intent and inanimate things -- like Plato's forms -- cannot form intent. Also, even if goodness could have an inanimate source, that would not exempt it from the charge of being arbitrary that is so often leveled at God to disqualify him as a source. Goodness, if it is a real, albeit immaterial, thing, must have a living source. Otherwise it is just a secular fairy tale.
My unbelieving friend used terms like “evil” and has said many times “something has gone wrong in the world” I’d always remind him if God doesn’t exist those statements don’t make sense. I was a professing non believer at that time myself. My atheist friends through different things over the years pointed me to God in an indirect way. A lot of things came together all at once to lead me to read the Bible, the gospels, and end up being saved. Life outside of Jesus is being lost and I would argue one feels lost subjectively even if that’s a term they wouldn’t use. Maybe an underlying discontent they can’t shake.
Just because your friend doesn't understand the origin of good, doesn't mean he can't process the end result and define it as good.. the collective body says its good, therefore he believes its good.. Take for example the ✝️ cross.. in the beginning, for atleast the first 300 years, this was a symbol known for gov't control and it was feared.. people were executed on this Roman cross.. but look what happened over time. The collective body no longer cares about its original meaning, that it was bad but now see it collectively as the very symbol representing 47000 Christian religions.. if evil and Satan was it's origin he no longer bears any impact on it.. or does he?
@@45s262 People have different opinions on what is good. Are you saying that some magical force somehow created goodness out of nothing for no reason? Atheism is chock full of magical thinking.
@@CelticSpiritsCoven Atheists are not the ones basing their decisions on a book of unverified claims. Or a god they haven't shown to be real. So the magical thinking if from the theists.
@@CelticSpiritsCoven And why do you think morality is objective? Also you haven't shown a god to exist. So either way your stance is questionable at best.
I “like” how atheists are readily willing to believe that “Good” can just be some transcendent, immaterial thing out there waiting to be discovered independent of everything yet God somehow just CANNOT be. His description of “Good” sounds a lot like God. What’s that saying? God is good? Hm.
why cant it work the other way and mean that good is god? why do you accept that god can just exist and good cant? why isn't god second to good if morality is objective?
@@Oneocna Your first and third question are redundant because they're both synonymous anyway. Your second question is presumptuous because where has he even said that?
@@Oneocna In the atheist world-view, goodness is defined by someone's opinion. It is not universal in the atheist world-view since people clearly have differing opinions on what is good. What are you comparing actions to when you claim something is good? Is there some type of objective rule that says what goodness is? Rules come from minds, not from nature. Nature has no mind. So the atheist must do gymnastics in their head and then claim that some type of force created a rule about what is good ---> which is the exact same thing as God. Atheism is chock-full of magical thinking.
In Germany in the early 1930's, GOOD was defined by the culture... It's amazing to me that when someone says we don't have to have a God to define morals, they will refuse to admit that cultures (like pre-war Germany) can define the very bad as being "good".
Young Man1:36: “Good and Evil that just exists in the world but given a tri Omni God who's all powerful and all caring why evil and suffering exists right doesn't make sense” You are right, it does not make sense. Yet from a biblical perspective, it makes sense because their god boasts that he created evil. This implies that all was always good till the malevolent fictional omni-biblical deity decided there must be evil and then he created evil.
@@willievanstraaten1960 Evil exists because God created beings with moral responsibility/free will. We can choose. Evil is the distortion of something good. That’s clearly the view presented in the Bible and what theists believe in general.
How did pre WW1 Germany define good? How did post WW1 Germany define good? How did pre WW2 Germany define good? How does Post WW2 Germany define good? Are post WW1 and pre WW2 Germany the same thing?
@@Nathan-vt1jz @Nathan-vt1jz: “Evil exists because God created beings with moral responsibility/free will.” It always amazes me how ignorant and biblically illiterate Christians are. Isaiah 45:7 in the Bible says, "I form the light, and create darkness: I MAKE PEACE, AND CREATE EVIL: I THE LORD DO ALL THESE THINGS"
I agree with Cliffe's explanation wholesale. The Bible says that death entered the world when the fall of man occurred. Before that point, death was not in the world. Plants didn't die, animals didn't eat each other, there was no decay or entropy. Suffering didn't exist at all, it only came about because *we* ruined it and because we were supposed to be the caretakers of this world, we ruined the world too.
Before "the fall" happened, did God know it would happen? Did he know that suffering would be the result? Did he have the power to create a world in which this didn't happen?
@ollieollyoli5805 Yes to all. Such a world would *also* be a world where we don't have free will, which God determined to be wrong. In order to give us free will, He limited His power and influence and allowed us the freedom to choose, even if that means choosing evil.
@@NovusIgnis Right, so God knew how much evil and suffering would emerge in this world, but he let it happen anyway. Because free will is more important to him? More important than avoiding all the needless pain that people and animals have endured for millenia? Side question: Is there free-will in heaven?
@ollieollyoli5805 Yes, free will is that important to Him. God set out to create man in His image, and creating us enslaved to His will instead of giving us the freedom to choose for ourselves is wrong. And yes there's free will in heaven too. That's why 1 third of the angels were able to rebel against God.
@@NovusIgnis So Heaven is a place with free will, but without suffering and pain. So God was capable of creating a place where nothing horrible happens, yet our free will is unaffected. Why'd he choose to allow this world to exist then?
I'm an Atheist, and I would not use the student's line of argument here. It's very weak. Cliffe's position is that he's suggesting that goodness is a creation of God's mind. This being's mind is the one from which "good" gains its meaning. The problem is that this is nothing more than an assertion. You mentioned about how people stop one degree shy of the God conclusion, but I think it's more accurate to say that Theists take this one degree further than it needs to be. Yes, concepts like goodness need minds to give them meaning. Our minds. You take it further and say "no, but it must be objective and come from some ultimate mind" but that's completely unnecessary.
How a human approaches life determines the human's ability to receive the truths of existence. Most humans (including all that are currently atheist/agnostic) approach life in an inferior fashion, hence inferior results. Simply strive for humility and curiosity, and our amazing Creator and His creation (science, arts, logic, math, spiritual, etc) become as obvious as breathing.
Most people admit they don't just THINK they're doing good by showing kindness, they KNOW they're doing good, or at least know they're aiming for goodness, and if they KNOW there is goodness, they can't square that with a logic which ignores a higher mind and higher judge of goodness than themselves. They can't construct a logic which ignores God and use that logic to infer purpose because a constructed logic which ignores God throws out purpose and they can't infer goodness without also inferring purpose, which again, must infer God.
Why would an atheist care about suffering how would they even defend the position that it’s bad? Suffering can be beneficial so you couldn’t explicitly claim it to be “bad”
thats why the atheist is against unnecessary harm and suffering. the delineation point most atheist use is harm. we care about suffering because humans generally are hardwired to care about other humans. do you think you need a god to care about the suffering of others? thats a real question.
Something called "empathy." Seriously, these sorts of questions are so revealing of the sociopathy we often see in the religious. I don't want to be harmed, nor do I want anyone I love to be harmed. It's not a stretch to suggest that other people probably don't want to be harmed either, regardless of whatever "benefit" I might get out of it.
@NoNickname904 think of the bible as the instruction manual for christians, given by God. It requires no imaginary friend. By being christian you can identify another christian as having the same morals as you, ensuring your safety both mentally and physically as you know they fear God, and would not betray him on purpose. It also resolves disputes, as if someone who is christian has wronged you, you can appeal to the bible and, assuming they are a real christian, they will apologize, and change according to the scriptures. On the flip side if you are rebuked as a Christian, appealing to the bible will tell you wether or not an apology is warrented. If it is, they must clear their name with God and you, in the name of love and Truth.
Pride in what exactly? Christians are proud of being good as they see it as godliness Atheists are not proud of being good, they are good just because it is a good thing be It is the right thing to do for humanity Nothing to do with pride It's about not being an awful selfish person because you want to make others happy Atheists don't require the coercion of eternal damnation to be good We just know it's the best way to be for the sake of humanity It's that simple
(Didn't want my response buried in the sparing in the comments) The debate in this video is silly because they're having a semantic debate about semantics. It's "how do we define definitions." There are no gotcha here. They're discussing about where the definition of good comes from, but that's not nearly as relevant to the real world - or even the debate - as *what is the definition of good?*. Neither side does a good job in that respect. A much more interesting and meaningful conversation would be about "what is good?". The religious guy is being a little insincere because his position is: 1. good is defined by God 2. atheists agree some things are good 3. therefore god exists That is not a sound argument. It is recursive and presupposes that its conclusion (god exists) is true since its premise (good is defined by god) assumes god exists. ***** Of course, a good starting point for the definition of good is the dictionary. Good adjective Being positive or desirable in nature; not bad or poor. "a good experience; good news from the hospital." Having the qualities that are desirable or distinguishing in a particular thing. "a good exterior paint; a good joke." Serving the desired purpose or end; suitable. "Is this a good dress for the party?" The debate in the video is asking "where does the concept of people having preferences come from?" Or 'where does the concept of wet come from?'. The concept of wet must have come from somewhere, and therefore God exists. It's just silly. This is not a slam dunk proof of God. ***** At 9 minutes, the religious guy makes the argument that evil exists because God chose to give humanity free will. The Ancients had that figured out. “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” ― Epicurus The guy in this video is picking "able, but not willing". Okay. A malevolent god.
The students are struggling with a rudimentary understanding of Socrates dilemma. Either god is good or he commands good but he can’t do both. The problem is Socrates was dealing with gods of the Pantheon whose moral character was questionable; not Yahweh. Socrates conceived of Goodness as something that Transcended the gods he knew. He was thinking of Yahweh not knowing HIS name. When we say ‘God is Good’ we don’t mean he possesses good qualities, but that He is the source from which all Goodness gets its value. Yahweh is the Transcendent Good. So when He Commands Goodness He commands Himself to HIS people.
Some people want a perfect world without God; once God steps out of the picture, all hell breaks loose (literally). What would make him think that hell would break loose but that the animals would be safe? This ain’t Noah’s ark!
I find it logical to say that the world is not perfect, because God doesn't exit. It would be a contradicion for all good, all knowing and all powerful to allow a fallen world.
Would it have been better if he had introduced democracy, kick started the industrial revolution and introduced a system of free healthcare for everyone!?
Darkness is the absence or lack of light. Coldness is the absence or lack of heat. In the same way, evil is the absence or lack of God’s goodness. Hence why sin (evil) is separation from God.
@@Devious_Dave hmm I don’t know, but I see evil, wars, cancer all these problems but from your view they are just subjective and their is no right or wrong. I also think Atheists are good evidence that satan exists because clearly people are being deceived that God does not exist. To add on, an atheistic view gives the person believing that they don’t have free will because all their thoughts are just chemicals that could act one way, so believing that atheism is true is just stupid
regarding the initial question for the comment section, I would take it a different way. Why would an atheist or agnostic be willing to allow for a non-deity sense of 'eternal' but not a creator God? If matter or energy 'always existed', why is that a more acceptable answer than God always existing? There is obvious bias on the part of a skeptic who, when pushed into a corner, will admit a possibility of an eternal universe without an eternal creator. There is no argument left against God if the skeptic admits something can be eternal.
Because the god notion brings with it a whole load of unsubstantiated baggage. First, the idea of an ethereal uber mind. We have only ever experienced mind attached to a physical brain. Ever. Also, at least the bible god seems to reflect traits of the middle eastern cultures of the time. That clearly points to god being a manufactured human concept rather than something that exists outside of human creation.
@@nitsujism Middle eastern cultures of that time represented their gods in physical form - statues and idols. The God of the bible, in stark contrast to the culture at that time, is described as "the invisible God" and rejected any representation in physical form. Pagan cultures encouraged and revered any action or service toward their idols/deities; the God of the Bible told the Israelites to do no work on the Sabbath day - they were even forbade to perform work building the Tabernacle during construction. These are not attributes that reflect that culture, and point to something novel.
Skeptic here and like most and as science suggests I admit eternal is possible... An eternal universe! Now we have evidence for a universe... Any for god?
@@jameswright... There is much evidence written as first hand knowledge in the Bible. Over 500 witnessed a resurrected Yeshua of Nazareth following His crucifixion. If the story is fiction, where are the accounts disputing those records? Why did the 11 of the 12 apostles go out into the world preaching Him as the risen messiah to their grisly death? If 'Jesus' isn't real, then why do secular historians claim otherwise? Why is there an ossuary in Jerusalem with the family name of Simon of Cyrene (the man the bible says helped Jesus carry His cross)? Why is there a signet ring of Jakov in Egyptian archeological digs? (Jakov or Jacob was the father of Joseph whom it is said became 2nd in line to pharaoh prior to the exodus). The bible tells of the failed siege on Jerusalem by King Sennacharib. Assyria destroyed all that they set their eyes on. The prophet Isaiah said God would spare Jerusalem from the Assyrians. Sennacharib fell ill and died when attempting to siege Jerusalem. As history stands, Assyria's greatest conquest versus Israel was limited to the city of Lachish. The crown jewel of Jerusalem was never realized by Assyria. there are many more examples if you look. Archeological evidence, first hand accounts, prophecies fulfilled are some of them.
Creation was cursed because of the sin of Adam, because Adam was placed over material creation. Everything that mankind was placed in charge of was effected.
@@CelticSpiritsCoven because we were created from flash and blood we deal with the curse passed by our fathers and mother's, we inherent what is passed by them, but different from them who made their choice on the beginnings of time, we have a choice to accept the new pact forged on Christ's blood and suffering. Because we reproduce that a new person still needs to accept Jesus as their lord, salvation is individual.
@@CelticSpiritsCoven They were cursed because they rebelled against God and tried to usurp his place, Lucifer wanted to be higher than his throne, and take adoration from God's creation.
I don't think animals are just crushing necks for fun it's most likely defense or for survival (food) the only animal I can think of that tortures another animal for "fun" is dolphins but we all know dolphins are evil.
A very intriguing question that recently came to me: can God exist outside of our consciousness? If no other living being is capable of perceiving these intangible things, like good or evil, we usually associated with God, if we cease to exist, does God really exist? Even if He does, without any other conscious to acknowledge His existence, what purpose would His existence even have at all.
Good is a result of obedience to certain eternal laws and principles.. God is good because he is perfectly obedient to these laws and principles.. through revelation, God has revealed these eternal truths to us through his spirit or through his prophets..
Little disagree with Cliff here, the animal kingdom, or their behavior is not evil, its just the way its, animal feed on animal not because of its good or evil, its just because it need to eat. The rest, I agree with him
Interesting thought, what if God looks at humans like we look at animals. Our behavior is not evil or good, it just is the way it is. A person commits genocide for that is what he would have done in power. Another saves humans and animals in the millions in a lifetime, but not seen as good. From God’s view, you are like a dog barking away the passing mailman, proud of doing its job. God laughs, and pets you for a job well done. And when it unknowingly poops all over the house. God just sighs and cleans it up. Not good, not bad. Any instructions he tries to give to the dog, is not fully understood, cause of the knowledge barrier only the bare minimum. And therefore God can only observe.
@@BreatheManually Depend, according to Christianity, we CREATED in god image, so we definitely not animal to Christian god, to other gods, maybe? and definitely there is evil and good, we all know that, whoever said there is no evil and good is a liar.
It is evil, but it's also not a transgression against God. There is no sin in animals killing other animals, but yes, I'd say it's evil *only* because if man never sinned, the animals wouldn't kill each other. "Creation eagerly awaits the redemption of man."
@@BreatheManually We're without excuses for our suppression of the Truth. God's Word talks about those "who worship the creation rather than the Creator". I'd urge you to seek out the Creator before you make assumptions about His creation.
Different cultures disagree about what good and bad are, as in what is considered good and bad, but there is an objective definition because we all know what good and bad is to an objective since because we experience it even if its different. Thus an objective definition of good and and exists and there would be no need for a god, problem solved.
Just to clarify further, the way in which moral actions can be judged as "good" or "bad" is when it's with respect to a goal. In other words, if we agree that the goal is to survive and prosper as a society (or as a species) then certain actions can be objectively labelled as "good" or "bad" depending on whether they're beneficial or detrimental to the goal we agreed to. Theft and murder don't exist ultimately. They only have any meaning within our social systems. So moral evaluations of them can't be considered ultimately objective. It just doesn't make any sense. But since they objectively cause harm and would be detrimental to society's survival and prosperity (regardless of legality), they can be considered objectively wrong within that context. Once we agree that this is the goal, that's all we need. No God needs to be involved in this process at all.
@@ollieollyoli5805 "Just to clarify further, the way in which moral actions can be judged as "good" or "bad" is when it's with respect to a goal." No really, people don't really have goals, they could just experience pain and think there is nothing good that comes out of it so murder is wrong. What do you mean a goal? "In other words, if we agree that the goal is to survive and prosper as a society (or as a species) then certain actions can be objectively labelled as "good" or "bad" depending on whether they're beneficial or detrimental to the goal we agreed to." If that was the "goal", seems more like a definition, then certain actions would be labeled objectively as good or bad because they must be an objective action that brings about the the most survival and prosperity to a society. Nobody would make that up. "Theft and murder don't exist ultimately. They only have any meaning within our social systems. So moral evaluations of them can't be considered ultimately objective. It just doesn't make any sense." If we give them meaning to be this or that the can have an objectives meaning. If you define it to be to survive and prosperity then there objective must exist a best choice for survival and prosperity. They also don't have to have an ultimate existence to be considered objective. Look at marriage and property and language for examples. It makes total sense. "But since they objectively cause harm and would be detrimental to society's survival and prosperity (regardless of legality), they can be considered objectively wrong within that context." Yes that is what I am talking about. You gave the example of defining it to be survival and prosperity and so harm would be a bad thing and harm is an ultimate thing, so it objective is a bad thing. "Once we agree that this is the goal, that's all we need. No God needs to be involved in this process at all." Yes I agree, but id go even further and say that there has to exist a some sort of objective definition of right and wrong because it does have some ultimate feeling because we all "experience" it, people just have different opinion on what is considered right or wrong. But there would not need to be a God for this at all., In fact, if its objective, then it cant depends on what a being wants it to be, by definition.
3:37 I would say people aren't shy to bring it to a "God" level, but simply are unbelieving and or don't have the understanding/knowledge that transcendentals are necessary to justify their claims. The moment a transcendental view is introduced it brings into question most people's entire worldview, which is often poorly constructed. Most see philosophy as pseudo science not comprehending that philosophy is needed to ground scientific claims. Failing to see that science can never ground philosophy, but can only speculate about such, as philosophy largle deals with the immaterial.
And philosophy in general is riddled with unsolved - and potentially unsolvable - rabbit holes. At least with science you have a means to test claims and make progress.
Sorry but you can't have morality without God if man's idea of morality includes their own selfishness and greed and it's not morality it's just man's opinion
@Oneocna sorry but religion doesn't give morality religion is a bunch of rules and laws and regulations and belief systems you know like atheism and agnosticism Christianity is a relationship with God
@Oneocna what makes you think that you can have morality without God proof the fact that many of you think that it's okay to murder an innocent human being in the womb all the way up to birth without due process of the law which is illegal and unconstitutional
@Oneocna by the way I can prove that atheism and agnosticism is a religion based in satanism and it's proven by the fact that your religious beliefs are based in the satanic principle of do as you will the idea that there are no moral absolutes and that morality is subjective and all things are permissible even evil deeds
In my opinion good and evil require actors to make choices which can be categorized as such. So without sentient and sapient beings good and evil pretty much mean nothing. If the actor doesn't have a choice then by default good means nothing because it would just be like a program running.
How can value exists without purpose?. How can purpose exists without design or intentionality?. How can design intentionality exists without a Designer?
@@renierramirez9534 You are overcomplicating it! There is no designer! Who designs the Designer!! The purpose of values is to give structure to the human society we live in! Simples!!
Sometimes watching these are frustrating because it’s clear where the disconnect is for him, but Cliff isn’t seeing it. The student is trying to argue from a place of goodness and God as either both being metaphysical concepts or metaphysical entities. Cliff is arguing goodness is a metaphysical concept and therefore requires a mind to comprehend while God is a metaphysical being and therefore doesn’t require comprehension to exist.
@@Oneocna 1) because if you are talking about the Christian world view God is a person (not human, but a person, and actually 3 persons in 1 being). Thus God would not be an idea, but a person. 2) Because good is not a person, good is objectively and Idea. Good is not a tangible thing. Good is a moral, morals are ideas. Anything else would be relativism...
@@Oneocna You are either trolling or retarded... not sure which, but you cant apply the transitive property to nouns with adjectives. God would be tne noun, Good would be the Adjective. There are not the same category, thus the transitive property does not hold up...
3:00 What you do is the EXACT same thing... "What if god... just exists?!?" with no PROOF. "They are all pointing back to a primary thing which is god..." HOW IS IT GOD? Demonstrate that?
Would you say the same thing about an iPhone? That it itself is not evidence of an engineer? Would you really need to lay eyes on its engineer in order to believe there was one, or would the existence of the thing itself be the demonstration & evidence that convinced you it had been designed? I hope the answer is obvious
Pursue Truth my friend, youll find the answers, Regardless of what you believe, you must still know, that if you believe in things that are not true, then you will be more likely to fail in those regards. This i believe, is the most important pursuit of human existence. If you do not pursue truth and there is a God, then on the day you see him, he will ask you why you did not do that task. And you will not like your answer.
@@Daily_Dose_Of_Wisdom Firstly, thanks for replying. So what you’ve stated is a modern twist on the watchmaker analogy, which is an argument for intelligent design. To answer your question directly: No, the existence of an iPhone itself is not evidence it was engineered. Typically we use inductive reasoning (e.g. in school I made circuit boards myself so I know they can be engineered so by inductive reasoning can say the circuit boards within an iPhone were engineered). I find it to be a false analogy on many levels. As a starting point, David Hume, back in the 1700s, put forth several criticisms to the analogy: 1. We have experience of computer making (iPhone being a type of computer). We have no experience of universe making (or whatever it is we are saying god designed). So through induction and/or comparison we can determine that an iPhone was designed by an engineer. We have no other universe to induce / compare with to prove that ours was intelligently designed. 2. The analogy is weak - just because two objects (iPhone and universe) share one similarity (they are both complex) it is a wild step to then infer they share a hidden similarity (that they both have an engineer). The example Hume gives is a lion and a kitten. They are both similar in many respects, but just because a lion goes “roar”, it would not be correct to infer a kitten also goes “roar”. 3. Even if this argument did provide evidence of an intelligent designer, it doesn’t suggest it was god. If it is granted that the universe was intelligently designed there is no evidence that it was a god, or aliens, or many gods, or naturalistic, or any other thing you can think of really. Interestingly, an iPhone is actually engineered and designed by many people (not one), so your analogy is actually better served (although still poorly) at suggesting polytheism opposed to a monotheistic god.
@@PhillipBoothClimbs one, you can't prove God doesn't exist so, while not a proof that God does exist, it's logically possible that God exists. If God does exist, which is logically possible, He exists outside of space, time, matter, energy, and causality. This means science can't directly observe or measure any aspect of God. Therefore we shouldn't be looking for such evidence, because that would be irrational. However, we do know the universe exists and that it's causal, which is how we are able to do science. This means if you trust in the ability of science to explain how the universe works, you have to accept that it's causal. For a casual universe to exist it must have been caused by something else. It's irrational to conclude an infinite regression of causes is responsible for the existence of the universe, so we are left with there being something that does not need a cause to exist. And for something uncaused to be able to cause anything else, it must be capable of freewill decisions.
Anyone else wake up and put in two hours everyday to read and learn more about the bible? I do it for fun its interesting. Im excited almost everyday to study and learn.
If you require God or the threat of eternal punishment to make you good, you are not a good person. Good is and always will be subjective. Based on and always has been based on, society. This is why slavery, murder, war, women, and child abuse - is all allowed in the Bible. That was the normality of the society that is responsible for writing the Bible. Good and evil really come down to this: Will your actions harm someone’s well being against their consent?
So since it's all subjective, is good and evil some arbitrary, imaginary game we play or what? To respond to your last question; what does it matter? If someone can do wrong to someone else and get away with it, and feel no remose, why wouldn't they? Where does this sense of moral duty come from? Let alone the issues of morality being subjective.
@ It’s as imaginary as thinking morals attribute to a god. Again, if you need “divine” intervention to make you a good person, you are not a good person. It means you will easily lean into doing bad because fuck it, why not? This is what I meant by, if you can stop yourself from harming someone else’s well being, you, in that scenario, are seen as good. If you help someone - that person will thank you and deem your actions good because they personally enjoyed your help. Now why did you help that person? Because you yourself wanted to help them and see them be successful in whatever it was - or because some god told you to? Which one seems more meaningful and sincere? This is a lot deeper and that’s why morals are subjective. Every single scenario of morals is personal and the good or evil of it will always be a matter of opinion. Generally, in society, when a lot of people agree on something, it becomes a law. This is why even in the 10 commandments it mentioned “thou shalt not kill”, because generally, no one wants to die. no where did it say “don’t have slaves” which we now see as a vastly negative occurrence. However during the times the Bible was being written, slavery was normal.
" if you need “divine” intervention to make you a good person, you are not a good person." Where the heck do you keep getting this sense of what a "good person" is? You admitted that morality is subjective by nature. If that's the case, why does it matter about what you say on what makes a "good person" when your moral reasoning for is no more valid than anyone else's? You're not making sense. The Christian belief is that God's moral nature is what we call good, and that the commandments or laws are reflections of that moral nature that we try to follow as best we can. And even sometimes even those reflections aren't truly representative of God's moral nature. The topic of morality always deals with person(s) or about person(s). So it makes since to me that the objective source of it is also a person.
@@MythicKeaton You have a point, and I’ll correct it. MY subjective view on what makes a person good is: Are your deeds or actions going to hurt someone’s wellbeing against their wishes? Now why does it matter and what makes it valid? Absolutely nothing makes it as valid as the next person’s subjective view. But, if multiple people share that view and can agree to it, then we have an understanding of what “our view of good” is. Now drastically increase the number of people who agree, plus years of accepting that idea. It becomes normalized, laws are passed around it. Now, it’s a fundamental idea or viewpoint shared across millions who all agree on this concept of “good.” Even so, not everyone will see it as good and not everyone will agree with it. That’s what makes morals subjective. If people can disagree with it (which people always will) it’s subjective. It is obviously a lot deeper and requires more examples, information, and thought process. At least more than I’ll ever be able to explain in the comment section of TH-cam.
I don't think that just because there are differences in people's morality means that an objective standard doesn't exist. Which I think is what you're effectivly getting at. People have differences of scientific theories, or metaphysical theories, or philosophical beliefs all the time, that doesn't mean there isn't an objective answer or at least a conclusion that's closer to an objective answer to any of those things. The moral realm is just as real as the mathematical realm. Both are metaphysical, but both have objective standards and everyone experiences it. Figuring out those objective standards in totality takes effort and time.
I think that this guy phrased his question very well, in a way very difficult to answer. You can try to answer how GOOD is not difined by men, since nearly each man has his own definition of good. And this guy comes and say, yes, GOOD is as eternal and outside of time... than GOD. So ? Then the only way I see is to explain that is that free will includes the respect of Causality, God doesn't lie to us. But sometimes, Causality is broken, we call that miracles. People can cure or even resuscitate and ultimately there is the creation of the Universe ifself, but this is not needed for this demonstration. And when this is accepted, then God becomes difficult to avoid, because who can break the causality as He wants? The only answer is God. And a lot of people who say they they don't believe in God will say, the great architect of the universe, or any other petty name. It all goes to God.
One could expand on this guys argument, and see if that good has always existed, it’s only our understanding of it that has shifted over time. There is a right or wrong answer based on net suffering of the population, and as time goes on, humans have figured out what works better. Almost like a mathematical equation. However, there is an obvious problem with this. The Bible was written thousands of years ago, and it just happened to align with an evolved morality that only presented itself in recent history? That would be quite the prediction!
God and eternal life are the logical way to reward good behavior and good deeds, actions and thoughts that have little appeal in godless societies based on the many variants of darwinism
I was thinking when the young man asked about animals tearing into each other...how God's 7 days being the creation of the universe and everything in it. I personally see a gap in Genesis where God could have created the world to be free from our sins, but with Satan here every last person was going to be tempted. God didn't create us with perfect knowledge, Adam walked with God and that is undeniably that Adam learned from God, and Adam turned around to name the animals. But we don't know what exact day this happened, only that animals have useful heritage to those base class names. With Satan being cast down earth now had a temptation forced on any intellectual beings that would walk on earth. However even dinosaurs could be predated by Satan, making a rudimentary awareness of life be impacted as well.... So whenever the actual days of Creation were or were talked about as a truth Moses never detailed the Creation story like a constant gospel message because he had been talked to by God in the burning bush. God was instructing him through the awe inspiring surprise that he was to trust God, which is foundational to seeing the opposite "distrust". The animals can't trust in God, but they can often be like him. A lamb can be docile but foolish, a lion can be fierce or calm, but we can do much more in variances because we have a spiritually questioning mind. So Moses knew the lineage of Adam to him but he did not know how to solve sin. All our intellect in the world to say God messed up is because God didn't mess up. Every different take on creation has to be acceptable to the person until it is not, and it is these moments that drive and honest heart to ask God "is Jesus enough?" Moses was a great writer of some of the heaviest topics, but he was a weak faithful person who had actually talked with God. My heart says God wanted the Genesis story to be exactly what it is because it shows a kind of veil over what pre dated our 6000 some odd years of existence. We sinned, so we need to use faith to solve anything as we were no longer going to be brought into life innocent. It is 100% heavy because it is 100% possible, but it is not born into us to be a lion laying down with a lamb. Moses could be A lamb, but his death means nothing, but some of his life was used to tell God's history and some of his life to falter. He can know he believes it but he cannot force God to make it easy for hardcore unbelievers. It seems Genesis is dumb to an unbeliever but as soon as you need God your objections change and 6000 years of humans sharing knowledge stands that if it was just our knowledge it wouldn't matter. Genesis is an undeniable gem, but we still need Jesus to be okay with it. God bless Dave from Canada
I try to look at good and evil like this. The Bible talks about Principalities. The order in which things function. Everything or most things have an order in which it functions. Even in science. Good is how things function properly or productively. Evil is the opposite of that. When things are not functioning productively.
Good would exist with or without a God Being good benefits the individual If you do good things for others this makes you feel pleasure because you are making someone's life better And that is likely to be reciprocated You can't claim that belief in God makes you good The number of Christians in jail prove that to be false You NEED to explain exactly why good would not exist without God Good has a purpose within itself And the same could be said for evil, some people murder for financial gain and never get caught, or fraud or even just being completely selfish, that can benefit an individual If you said that God was an inspiration to some to be good, then I would agree that is correct But an atheist dies not need that coercion, they are good for the sake of being good and the benefits that come with it You can't say that atheists cannot be good because they are not convinced that God exists Now that raises a huge problem with saying that God is good Is it good for God to condemn atheists to hell because they are not convinced he exists? How is that morally right ? Surely it is wrong to condemn a good person Is that not an act of evil ? How can anyone justify such a punishment? Do good people who try and bring joy to others and try and make the world a better deserve to spend eternity in hell with the murderers, the pedophiles, the dictators ? How is that even comparable? What about the children that die unbaptised or the millions who were never even introduced to Christianity or the handicapped that just can't even understand the concept If God is truly omnibenevolent and just, how can he condemn good people who have never done anything evil ? It makes no sense at all Such a God cannot exist In truth it is lies of men to control other men It is the logical answer to the problem ...And how do Atheists explain death Well .....entropy, everything decays over time We pass on our genes hopefully That is our immortality if we are successful breeders It's necessary that we die when we can no longer breed or work, and we have no purpose after that People don't even understand what it would be like to live forever after death When and if you are lucky enough to live to be old, people are happy for life to end There is only so much life you can take We are lucky to exist at all But if you really think about it, would you really want eternal life after death ? You would just be a spirit ( apparently) you couldn't really do anything You can't touch, you can't feel, you can't affect anything or change anything, you are a ghost of your former self and all Earthly pleasures are now unavailable And it never ends ! Sounds like a nightmare and must surely lead to insanity There is no logical reason for life after death and if you actually think about what it would really entail, then you would not want it anyway ...So for those reasons I can't believe in that either ..... But if this is just a simulation and God is the programmer, then we can all be saved, on a hard drive, then just dumped in a drawer in God's office .... Simulation is actually a lot more plausible But I think everything is exactly as it appears It just happened by itself for no reason at all But good is still good no matter what Be good for goodness sake Live , love and spread happiness The reward is the pleasure you give others and the pleasure others give to you No true God would ever punish you for not believing He would not care if you did or not Your opinion would not matter at all
Small flaw. Adam and Eve are given every fruit in the garden to eat except one. But the fact that they eat means there is death (of the fruit) and privation of good (to the tree). I think this puts a small hole in his argument against animal suffering. I do believe the idea of the argument, but this explanation of it doesn't quite work out with all the details.
I always wished Cliffe had remembered to mention that the animals and nature’s unraveling was a byproduct of the fall of man because man was given dominion over the earth. When we fail they fail. If you have pets you’ll understand that animals mimic the personalities and teachings of their owner. Normally a dog that is viscous is taught to be viscous and aggressive, but a dog that is taught to be tame, obedient and gentle will be that. When man fell and sin entered our bodies and heart, the evil that was in us was shown and taught to everything we have dominion over.
I think we can know good without God, but the problem comes with definition. People need an example, and Christ set that example for us. As concretely as it could possibly be, Christ set the standard for what Good is, which we have demonstrated through His life and ministry. Without which, I think people understood good kind of like Plato's cave analogy, but Christ was the full revelation of Good, and unveiled the shadow for us, so we could now see it plainly, too. Buddha didn't set a good example, and was kind of a narcissist. Muhammad also. Only Christ set the full example we could follow.
If you're suggesting there's good. Then that follows evil must also exist. If you're asserting that good and evil exist, you must be appealing to a standard, from which we can differentiate between good and evil correct? If you're assuming that standard exists from which to determine good from evil, that standard must rest above us so as to be objective and not merely subjective correct? If you're assuming that there's a standard above us, not privy to the whims of society, what ultimate standard can one point to that is worth following if not God? But that is who you're trying to disprove here. So what is your argument.
Hume's law says for morality to be objective and not subjective God must exist and atheists admit this holds true. Concepts of atheism and objective morality can not coexist in a logical construct.
John 3:19 ". . . the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil". Romans 3:10-12: "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God"
The way I see it is that The Universe is interconnected. It was not meant to operate with sin. Breaking God's law put the whole universe out of whack including the nature of animals.
@@chimmy___ How do you know that? What about snakes, frogs, lizards, salamanders, scorpions, spiders, snails, jellyfish, octopus, caecilians? Didn't your god created them?!
These folks think that they're so smart, but their convoluted arguments and abstract philosophizing are merely sorry attempts to remain apart from God.
“You’re better off believing that Satan is Good and God is evil than believing that there is no God because at least you’re allowing someone to convince you of its obvious existence.”-Patrick Goodman
@patrickgoodman4576: “You’re better off believing that Satan is Good and God is evil than believing that there is no God because at least you’re allowing someone to convince you of its obvious existence.”-Patrick Goodman” Facts: God, Satan, Heaven, and Hell are all ancient myths and were stolen from many other ancient religions that faded away. But if they were real, I would rather be with Satan than with the jealous cruel, malevolent and evil god from whom even angels fled. Even in ancient times, nobody wanted to worship him, except for old Noah, all the other people rejected him. There is nothing in the Bible that indicates that Satan is a bad evil monster like the God in the Bible. The god never shows love, kindness, or gentleness, oh no he is always angry, punishing, killing, murdering and plundering. The only thing he loves is the smell of roasting animal fat, genocide, killing children women and babies that pleases the lord. Oh yes, he also loved himself. “Willie van Straaten”
A bit of levity here… I wish I had 1/10 of the inward view of the girl doing yoga stretches while 2 guys contemplate the existence of a Creator in front of a crowd. WOW. The world is truly her oyster.
So our desperate host managed to fluster some child and gets to jump up and down in some pathetic 'victory' for his beliefs? Society uses LAWS, not good and evil. No jury finds anyone good or evil. That is individual egoic Pride! 'Good' and 'evil' have their existence in the unSaved judgmental dualistic mind of the beholder! There are equal amounts of (whatever) 'good' (is) and the same for evil in the Universe. The Universe is perfectly balanced; The First Law of Soul Dynamics; "For every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!" For us to imagine/conceptualize 'good', we must imagine 'evil'. Such judgment is not made by the Saved! There is neither good nor evil, there is just God!
What you have failed to realize is that reality is not a duality, it is a trinity. There are 3 dimensions of space. Good resides at 2/3, or 66%, evil resides at 33%. The defeat of evil is secured in the very foundation of existence. Thus we know God is indeed, good.😇😇🙏🏼🙏🏼
@@ryngrd1 What you have failed to realize is that reality is not a duality, it is a trinity. There are 3 dimensions of space. Good resides at 2/3, or 66%, evil resides at 33%. The defeat of evil is secured in the very foundation of existence. Thus we know God is indeed, good. ~~~ If you have anything at all to support this absolute nonsense, please show it! What I have failed to realize... is your fantasy! ;) 😇😇🙏🏼🙏🏼 ~~~ Sorry, I don't speak idiot.
Animals suffering because of man sinned is at the level of a king’s evils cause the citizens of that kingdom to suffer. God made man in domination over the animals, so the animals who are subject to man suffered because of the sin of man.
as a nonbeliever, that makes zero sense to me. "does a god exist" is a completely different question than "does the abrahamic god that christians worship exist" seriously i know your hella indoctrinated and whatnot but you dont have to assume the worst in others just because we dont think like you. iT aLl cOmEs doWn tO bEiNg yOur OwN gOd is such presumptuous bullshit. no wonder you christians are so mean to non christians.
@truincanada: “Hey Mr.Cliff!!!!!!.....thank you for what, why, where, when and HOW you threshold guardian athiests over . Thank you. Beautiful.” There is nothing beautiful about the malevolent god of the Old Testament who boasts that he created evil. Damn it seems that it was all good till your god created evil. God, Satan, Heaven, and Hell are all ancient myths and were stolen from many other ancient religions that faded away. But if they were real, I would rather be with Satan than with the jealous cruel, malevolent and evil god from whom even angels fled. Even in ancient times, nobody wanted to worship him, except for old Noah, all the other people rejected him. There is nothing in the Bible that indicates that Satan is a bad evil monster like the God in the Bible. The god never shows love, kindness, or gentleness, oh no he is always angry, punishing, killing, murdering and plundering. The only thing he loves is the smell of roasting animal fat, genocide, killing children women and babies that pleases the lord.
I believe it's more accurate to say that there is suffering in nature because God cursed the world out of judgement (Genesis 3). Yes God is love but He is severely just and He cannot let any sin go unpunished, which is why He had to satisfy His justice with the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, to save us from our deserved punishment.
@nitsujism Adam and Eve represented humanity, and the sinful nature was passed down from Adam. So yes all are sinners because of one man, but all can be redeemed through another man, Christ Jesus.
I think you're totally on the money with stopping one degree of real explanation, because they don’t want to get into the “God thing.” I've definitely avoided going too deep in my fair share of conversations to though lol
Animals are just animals and do what animals do. They are not subject to morals as humans are and projecting humanistic attributes/traits/emotions onto animals doesn't change anything. Anthropomorphism doesn't magically impart any morality onto animals just because one feels bad on their behalf. This student is grasping at straws.
we can observe animals outside of humans showing morals. seriously all you had to do was look up "morality in animals" and you get a bunch of articles on it.
@@fakename-r7q Animals are amoral. What SEEMS to be moral behaviour is just humans ascribing these characteristics onto them, trying to relate their behaviour to ours.
@@Tachynon No, you're categorically wrong and there are a ton of studies on it. It shows that moral values are evolved behavioural traits present particularly in social species.
@@Tachynon uhh no. any primatologist can tell you that apes (especially chimps) have a very strong sense of fairness and right and wrong. saying "nuh uh" just makes you look like another numbnut who plugs your ears every time you hear something just a tiny bit inconvenient. seriously i dont know why you choose to be ignorant when google is free.
Defining Good as Good is mindless circular reasoning which can only be accepted by a person who has fewer folds in their grey matter than their age in years. Good is not an intelligent being capable of design. Good is not a cause or an agent capable of being a cause. It is only a category of effect. Any and all intelligent design arguments are capable of being an argument for God but none are an argument for Good. Any philosophical case for an unmoved mover or cause to start the universe is a potential argument for God and will never be an argument for Good. Virtually none of the historical arguments for God except the necessity of God to have an objective Good even connect the two concepts of God and Good. Most arguments for Good are subjectivist in nature and those that are objective in nature ultimately only steal from primal assumptions of God's existence and are neither proved Good or assume God to prove they are Good. Which eventually devolve into assuming something is Good in which to build Good off of, assuming God exists and he somehow defines God, or circular reasoning itself. Usually the atheists and agonistics fall into the first or third category as the second would be counter intuitive and even than they only do so upon abandoning the ever indefensible subjective mortality a Godless existence implies.
The problem with the God explanation, is that it does not explain anything and just is slightly better from a social cohesive pov than declaring "I don't know". But these days, we do know the origin of our moral values, it just that some theist will not have any of it, because they made up their mind already and will reason to their predetermined conclusion no matter what.
Bro says good can just exist and it’s like sure, but how can we measure or define it or know it if it’s just opinion? Oh it just exists okay that’s fine don’t answer the question
Exactly. And if God doesn't make Himself known, then there's no way we can get to know anything about Him. That's where Muhammad, Jesus, the Avatars, and the various other religions come in. They claim to be revealing God accurately. The question is, what is the evidence? What do you think?
@ the evidence is clearly not for Islam or Mormonism. Hinduism is all feelings no proof, I gotta say the proof is with Jesus. Not only is he historically undeniable, but the amount of eyewitness testimony and the fact that no archeological findings have disproven the Bible, i have to go with Jesus of Nazareth.
Firstly, if you're an atheist you don't need to have a solution to evil and death... because atheism doesn't make any claim about it... it is the lack of belief in a god... No where in that is there a claim about evil or death that would require explanation?
@@PhillipBoothClimbs , a tangential issue, since I NEVER claimed that all atheists share the same worldview. My observation stands: EVERY worldview MUST offer solutions for the thorny issues of human existence.
@mysotiras21 I still don't see what that has to do with Atheism? It's like saying "Someone who believes strawberry ice cream is better then chocolate ice cream MUST offer solutions to the thorny issues of human existence." Their belief about ice cream has nothing to do with evil...
It's funny how atheist sometimes corner themselves into their own Euthyphro dilemma when arguing for any sense of objective morality. If X (X = source of morality that is non-theistic) says that something is good, is that thing good because X says so? Or does X say so that something because it is good? The most consistent thing an atheist can say for objective morality is that it doesn't exist. But the implications of that for human civilization is unlivable, and not intuitive to the human experience in the moral realm either.
??? We don't have the biggest brains on the planet. Dolphins have significantly bigger brains than humans. I guess I get what you're trying to say tho, we put those brains to use. But the WHY and HOW we did so matters. The reason humanity even cares about science is because of our fascination of the natural law, and the reason that humanity even cares about the natural law is because of our fascination of a natural law GIVER (God). Were it not for those mentalities, I'm doubtful we'd make it as far as we have technologically or morally speaking.
As an atheist you can just say you are your own source of objective morality and you are an objective being and therefore anything you deem moral is objective reality and there's nothing that can argue against that since all epistemological justifications are equally valid
The Brahmavihara (or "Four Immeasurables") are four key virtues in Buddhism that cultivate a compassionate and balanced mind: Metta (Loving-Kindness): Unconditional love and goodwill toward oneself and others. Karuna (Compassion): A desire to alleviate the suffering of others. Mudita (Sympathetic Joy): Genuine happiness for others' successes and well-being. Upekkha (Equanimity): A balanced, non-judgmental mind that remains steady in the face of life's ups and downs. Together, these qualities foster inner peace and harmonious relationships, guiding one toward enlightenment.
Kind of pointless without first defining Good and God. The etymology of "good" is basically "a pure, wise, effective and moral demonstration of skilled expertise". God is of uncertain origin but likely means "the one invoked by sacrifice", it's an unknowable, invisible, undefinable entity. In ancient Hebrew it's only two letters "Gd" and since they were both symbols and pictograms, it pretty much means "The path or doorway to wisdom". So God is the path or instruction manual to living a pure, wise and effective life aka a good life. Could you life a good life without an instruction manual? Maybe, but ignoring it makes it a lot more difficult and subject to randomness and uncertainty.
Thanks for watching, everybody! Like I mentioned, I am really curious to hear from any Atheists, using the distinction that philosophers agree upon between “necessary” and “contingent” things, how goodness could be considered a necessary thing, without God. Also, if you saw a similar video yesterday - we had a glitch we had to sort out and decided to re-upload today. Sorry about that! Thanks all!
Atheist here there’s a lot in this video but it seems to be three main topics. Transcendent ideas (god,good,evil), problem of evil, problem of free will. I’ll explain how Cliff fails to answer all of these!
For starters Cliff asks what’s the atheist solution to the problem of evil which is kinda funny because Christians don’t believe there’s good or evil in an atheist view point so there’s no need to answer this anyway.
Then we get into how good is defined by god in a Christian world view or by culture in an atheist world view. Both of these are subjective even cliff says that good can’t just exist it needs to be observed by a kind or a subject so he admits that even in religion morality is subjective.
Next he ask how can good just exist. This is where we get into transcendence. God in the Christian world view is a transcendent concept and the justification for all other things. Transcendental explanations are called epistemological justifications. All EJs are equally valid so if a god can just exist so can good so can reality so can the universe
ALL EPISTEMOLOGICAL JUSTIFICATIONS ARE EQUALLY VALID!
So the atheist rightfully questions why god can just exist but good can’t. Cliff knows that all ejs are equally valid and can’t argue against it so he calls him dishonest. In addition if good exist separate from god and is objective god no longer is a transcendental explanation he’s second to good. This is why Cliff won’t admit there’s objective good without god.
To you DD people aren’t stopping one degree short you are just saying god is a primary thing and other things are derived things. But an Atheist can just say reality is primary and god is derivative, again all EJs are equally valid.
The next comment is a response to cliffs failure to solve the problem of evil!
Is the glitch at 4:39?
Cliff doesn't solve the problem of evil he just says god limits his power to allow free will but this is just allowing unnecessary suffering since his power would allow to create free will and all good, therefore god isn't all loving
@@Oneocna People have different opinions on what "good" is - which means that the atheist world-view has no answer. "Good", is an OPINION in the atheist world-view, so it can't just exist - it REQUIRES a mind to define. Atheists believe in so much magical nonsense.
People stop a degree shy of admitting there’s a God because if there is a God, then there is justice that exists and if justice exist, then that means people are held accountable. People want to be able to live in a reality where there are no consequences, no sin, and no conviction.
Let me play devils advocate. If the aim is to prove God because Good exists, you need to explain how an objective Good is proof of God.
An objective Good in and of itself is a proof of God
@@marvinwilliams7938 the aim isn't that. The aim is to find logical evidence of the existence of God.
But to answer your question;
The existence of the concept of good as an absolute, being that good and evil require a consciousness to be able to grasp at all, makes it more logical to think that an intelligent entity is the source of this Good. Coupled with the design and workings of the universe being so weirdly convenient, it's logical to think that some intelligent being busy be behind it.
This right here. People don't want to walk the narrow path with God. They think it's too difficult and they don't think it's "fair" for them to struggle being good when other people aren't trying either.
An objective good is impossible without a living source for it, eg: God.
This is because goodness requires intent and inanimate things -- like Plato's forms -- cannot form intent.
Also, even if goodness could have an inanimate source, that would not exempt it from the charge of being arbitrary that is so often leveled at God to disqualify him as a source.
Goodness, if it is a real, albeit immaterial, thing, must have a living source. Otherwise it is just a secular fairy tale.
Super stoked that you're now on Spotify! God bless Brandon!
Thanks brother!
My unbelieving friend used terms like “evil” and has said many times “something has gone wrong in the world” I’d always remind him if God doesn’t exist those statements don’t make sense. I was a professing non believer at that time myself. My atheist friends through different things over the years pointed me to God in an indirect way. A lot of things came together all at once to lead me to read the Bible, the gospels, and end up being saved. Life outside of Jesus is being lost and I would argue one feels lost subjectively even if that’s a term they wouldn’t use. Maybe an underlying discontent they can’t shake.
Just because your friend doesn't understand the origin of good, doesn't mean he can't process the end result and define it as good.. the collective body says its good, therefore he believes its good..
Take for example the ✝️ cross.. in the beginning, for atleast the first 300 years, this was a symbol known for gov't control and it was feared.. people were executed on this Roman cross.. but look what happened over time. The collective body no longer cares about its original meaning, that it was bad but now see it collectively as the very symbol representing 47000 Christian religions.. if evil and Satan was it's origin he no longer bears any impact on it.. or does he?
@@45s262 People have different opinions on what is good. Are you saying that some magical force somehow created goodness out of nothing for no reason? Atheism is chock full of magical thinking.
@@CelticSpiritsCoven Atheists are not the ones basing their decisions on a book of unverified claims. Or a god they haven't shown to be real. So the magical thinking if from the theists.
@@albaraka7519 Somehow nature made objective morality. Don't you realize how magical that sounds? That rocks can somehow speak???????
@@CelticSpiritsCoven And why do you think morality is objective? Also you haven't shown a god to exist. So either way your stance is questionable at best.
I “like” how atheists are readily willing to believe that “Good” can just be some transcendent, immaterial thing out there waiting to be discovered independent of everything yet God somehow just CANNOT be. His description of “Good” sounds a lot like God. What’s that saying? God is good? Hm.
The reality of God's morality th-cam.com/video/4pdYmIwxYTE/w-d-xo.html
why cant it work the other way and mean that good is god? why do you accept that god can just exist and good cant? why isn't god second to good if morality is objective?
@@Oneocna Your first and third question are redundant because they're both synonymous anyway. Your second question is presumptuous because where has he even said that?
@@juiuice funny how you didn't answer any of them lol
@@Oneocna In the atheist world-view, goodness is defined by someone's opinion. It is not universal in the atheist world-view since people clearly have differing opinions on what is good. What are you comparing actions to when you claim something is good? Is there some type of objective rule that says what goodness is? Rules come from minds, not from nature. Nature has no mind. So the atheist must do gymnastics in their head and then claim that some type of force created a rule about what is good ---> which is the exact same thing as God. Atheism is chock-full of magical thinking.
In Germany in the early 1930's, GOOD was defined by the culture...
It's amazing to me that when someone says we don't have to have a God to define morals, they will refuse to admit that cultures (like pre-war Germany) can define the very bad as being "good".
Good example!
Young Man1:36: “Good and Evil that just exists in the world but given a tri Omni God who's all powerful and all caring why evil and suffering exists right doesn't make sense”
You are right, it does not make sense.
Yet from a biblical perspective, it makes sense because their god boasts that he created evil. This implies that all was always good till the malevolent fictional omni-biblical deity decided there must be evil and then he created evil.
@@willievanstraaten1960 Evil exists because God created beings with moral responsibility/free will. We can choose. Evil is the distortion of something good.
That’s clearly the view presented in the Bible and what theists believe in general.
How did pre WW1 Germany define good?
How did post WW1 Germany define good?
How did pre WW2 Germany define good?
How does Post WW2 Germany define good?
Are post WW1 and pre WW2 Germany the same thing?
@@Nathan-vt1jz @Nathan-vt1jz: “Evil exists because God created beings with moral responsibility/free will.”
It always amazes me how ignorant and biblically illiterate Christians are.
Isaiah 45:7 in the Bible says, "I form the light, and create darkness: I MAKE PEACE, AND CREATE EVIL: I THE LORD DO ALL THESE THINGS"
"Good just exists." I think he understood that his thinking hit a dead end 😆
I agree with Cliffe's explanation wholesale. The Bible says that death entered the world when the fall of man occurred. Before that point, death was not in the world. Plants didn't die, animals didn't eat each other, there was no decay or entropy. Suffering didn't exist at all, it only came about because *we* ruined it and because we were supposed to be the caretakers of this world, we ruined the world too.
Before "the fall" happened, did God know it would happen? Did he know that suffering would be the result? Did he have the power to create a world in which this didn't happen?
@ollieollyoli5805 Yes to all. Such a world would *also* be a world where we don't have free will, which God determined to be wrong. In order to give us free will, He limited His power and influence and allowed us the freedom to choose, even if that means choosing evil.
@@NovusIgnis Right, so God knew how much evil and suffering would emerge in this world, but he let it happen anyway. Because free will is more important to him? More important than avoiding all the needless pain that people and animals have endured for millenia?
Side question: Is there free-will in heaven?
@ollieollyoli5805 Yes, free will is that important to Him. God set out to create man in His image, and creating us enslaved to His will instead of giving us the freedom to choose for ourselves is wrong.
And yes there's free will in heaven too. That's why 1 third of the angels were able to rebel against God.
@@NovusIgnis So Heaven is a place with free will, but without suffering and pain. So God was capable of creating a place where nothing horrible happens, yet our free will is unaffected. Why'd he choose to allow this world to exist then?
I think it scares people.
I'm an Atheist, and I would not use the student's line of argument here. It's very weak.
Cliffe's position is that he's suggesting that goodness is a creation of God's mind. This being's mind is the one from which "good" gains its meaning.
The problem is that this is nothing more than an assertion. You mentioned about how people stop one degree shy of the God conclusion, but I think it's more accurate to say that Theists take this one degree further than it needs to be.
Yes, concepts like goodness need minds to give them meaning. Our minds. You take it further and say "no, but it must be objective and come from some ultimate mind" but that's completely unnecessary.
How a human approaches life determines the human's ability to receive the truths of existence.
Most humans (including all that are currently atheist/agnostic) approach life in an inferior fashion, hence inferior results.
Simply strive for humility and curiosity, and our amazing Creator and His creation (science, arts, logic, math, spiritual, etc) become as obvious as breathing.
Most people admit they don't just THINK they're doing good by showing kindness, they KNOW they're doing good, or at least know they're aiming for goodness, and if they KNOW there is goodness, they can't square that with a logic which ignores a higher mind and higher judge of goodness than themselves. They can't construct a logic which ignores God and use that logic to infer purpose because a constructed logic which ignores God throws out purpose and they can't infer goodness without also inferring purpose, which again, must infer God.
@@maplebrooklneyes ! I say the same as you !
Amen to that 🙏❤️💯
Why would an atheist care about suffering how would they even defend the position that it’s bad? Suffering can be beneficial so you couldn’t explicitly claim it to be “bad”
thats why the atheist is against unnecessary harm and suffering.
the delineation point most atheist use is harm. we care about suffering because humans generally are hardwired to care about other humans.
do you think you need a god to care about the suffering of others? thats a real question.
Something called "empathy."
Seriously, these sorts of questions are so revealing of the sociopathy we often see in the religious.
I don't want to be harmed, nor do I want anyone I love to be harmed. It's not a stretch to suggest that other people probably don't want to be harmed either, regardless of whatever "benefit" I might get out of it.
The real question is, do you lock your doors at night?
Or do you believe strangers want the best of everyone else.
If you require an imaginary friend to know that suffering is bad you are what is wrong with the world
@NoNickname904 think of the bible as the instruction manual for christians, given by God. It requires no imaginary friend. By being christian you can identify another christian as having the same morals as you, ensuring your safety both mentally and physically as you know they fear God, and would not betray him on purpose.
It also resolves disputes, as if someone who is christian has wronged you, you can appeal to the bible and, assuming they are a real christian, they will apologize, and change according to the scriptures. On the flip side if you are rebuked as a Christian, appealing to the bible will tell you wether or not an apology is warrented. If it is, they must clear their name with God and you, in the name of love and Truth.
It's hard arguing with ignorance. They will try to drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
People stop short because of pride.
Pride in what exactly?
Christians are proud of being good as they see it as godliness
Atheists are not proud of being good, they are good just because it is a good thing be
It is the right thing to do for humanity
Nothing to do with pride
It's about not being an awful selfish person because you want to make others happy
Atheists don't require the coercion of eternal damnation to be good
We just know it's the best way to be for the sake of humanity
It's that simple
@ pride as in the mortal sin
@joshhanvey
Yes I know the seven sins
My point is that a lot of Christians ARE prideful of being good
@@scottmcadam4509 Pride in *themselves.* Christians have pride in God, those who are without God have pride in *themselves.* That is the difference.
@ if you know what I was talking about your reply wouldn’t have been pride “in” what. Lol.
(Didn't want my response buried in the sparing in the comments)
The debate in this video is silly because they're having a semantic debate about semantics. It's "how do we define definitions." There are no gotcha here. They're discussing about where the definition of good comes from, but that's not nearly as relevant to the real world - or even the debate - as *what is the definition of good?*. Neither side does a good job in that respect. A much more interesting and meaningful conversation would be about "what is good?".
The religious guy is being a little insincere because his position is:
1. good is defined by God
2. atheists agree some things are good
3. therefore god exists
That is not a sound argument. It is recursive and presupposes that its conclusion (god exists) is true since its premise (good is defined by god) assumes god exists.
*****
Of course, a good starting point for the definition of good is the dictionary.
Good
adjective
Being positive or desirable in nature; not bad or poor.
"a good experience; good news from the hospital."
Having the qualities that are desirable or distinguishing in a particular thing.
"a good exterior paint; a good joke."
Serving the desired purpose or end; suitable.
"Is this a good dress for the party?"
The debate in the video is asking "where does the concept of people having preferences come from?" Or 'where does the concept of wet come from?'. The concept of wet must have come from somewhere, and therefore God exists.
It's just silly.
This is not a slam dunk proof of God.
*****
At 9 minutes, the religious guy makes the argument that evil exists because God chose to give humanity free will.
The Ancients had that figured out.
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
― Epicurus
The guy in this video is picking "able, but not willing". Okay. A malevolent god.
Amen
The students are struggling with a rudimentary understanding of Socrates dilemma. Either god is good or he commands good but he can’t do both.
The problem is Socrates was dealing with gods of the Pantheon whose moral character was questionable; not Yahweh. Socrates conceived of Goodness as something that Transcended the gods he knew. He was thinking of Yahweh not knowing HIS name.
When we say ‘God is Good’ we don’t mean he possesses good qualities, but that He is the source from which all Goodness gets its value.
Yahweh is the Transcendent Good. So when He Commands Goodness He commands Himself to HIS people.
Some people want a perfect world without God; once God steps out of the picture, all hell breaks loose (literally). What would make him think that hell would break loose but that the animals would be safe? This ain’t Noah’s ark!
Non sense. According to your lot he has already left!
@twosheds1749
Any chance you could make your case without the hostility?
@@davidplummer2473 I didn't realise I was being hostile! A little sarcastic maybe!!
@@twosheds1749 Fine line
I find it logical to say that the world is not perfect, because God doesn't exit. It would be a contradicion for all good, all knowing and all powerful to allow a fallen world.
Cliffe should ask the student to define goodness without using his mind.
Excellent 👍
Wholesome and unwholesome are discernible conditions. Beings are affected by wholesome and unwholesome actions. This is a nature of reality.
Didn't Jesus say he was building a new world for us?
@stomptheelites what are you referring to?
Would it have been better if he had introduced democracy, kick started the industrial revolution and introduced a system of free healthcare for everyone!?
@@jaywashington9404 he answered my question right at the end of the video, I posted early, but kept it up anyway.😎
@stomptheelites 👍
@@stomptheelites I appreciate the intellectual honesty. Not many people are willing to admit something like this even though it's perfectly harmless.
Darkness is the absence or lack of light. Coldness is the absence or lack of heat. In the same way, evil is the absence or lack of God’s goodness. Hence why sin (evil) is separation from God.
Tired of these Atheists asking if God exists, instead they should ask if satan exists
@@Tterb22
Why?
We don't believe in supernatural nonsense full stop.
We know the bible is man made immoral historically and scientifically wrong.
@@Tterb22 point 🤝
If you claim Satan exists, I'll ask you for evidence (but I've learned not to expect reliable evidence for theists' claims).
@@Devious_Dave hmm I don’t know, but I see evil, wars, cancer all these problems but from your view they are just subjective and their is no right or wrong. I also think Atheists are good evidence that satan exists because clearly people are being deceived that God does not exist. To add on, an atheistic view gives the person believing that they don’t have free will because all their thoughts are just chemicals that could act one way, so believing that atheism is true is just stupid
regarding the initial question for the comment section, I would take it a different way. Why would an atheist or agnostic be willing to allow for a non-deity sense of 'eternal' but not a creator God? If matter or energy 'always existed', why is that a more acceptable answer than God always existing? There is obvious bias on the part of a skeptic who, when pushed into a corner, will admit a possibility of an eternal universe without an eternal creator. There is no argument left against God if the skeptic admits something can be eternal.
Because the god notion brings with it a whole load of unsubstantiated baggage. First, the idea of an ethereal uber mind. We have only ever experienced mind attached to a physical brain. Ever. Also, at least the bible god seems to reflect traits of the middle eastern cultures of the time. That clearly points to god being a manufactured human concept rather than something that exists outside of human creation.
@@nitsujism Middle eastern cultures of that time represented their gods in physical form - statues and idols. The God of the bible, in stark contrast to the culture at that time, is described as "the invisible God" and rejected any representation in physical form. Pagan cultures encouraged and revered any action or service toward their idols/deities; the God of the Bible told the Israelites to do no work on the Sabbath day - they were even forbade to perform work building the Tabernacle during construction. These are not attributes that reflect that culture, and point to something novel.
Skeptic here and like most and as science suggests I admit eternal is possible...
An eternal universe!
Now we have evidence for a universe...
Any for god?
@@jameswright... There is much evidence written as first hand knowledge in the Bible. Over 500 witnessed a resurrected Yeshua of Nazareth following His crucifixion. If the story is fiction, where are the accounts disputing those records? Why did the 11 of the 12 apostles go out into the world preaching Him as the risen messiah to their grisly death?
If 'Jesus' isn't real, then why do secular historians claim otherwise? Why is there an ossuary in Jerusalem with the family name of Simon of Cyrene (the man the bible says helped Jesus carry His cross)? Why is there a signet ring of Jakov in Egyptian archeological digs? (Jakov or Jacob was the father of Joseph whom it is said became 2nd in line to pharaoh prior to the exodus).
The bible tells of the failed siege on Jerusalem by King Sennacharib. Assyria destroyed all that they set their eyes on. The prophet Isaiah said God would spare Jerusalem from the Assyrians. Sennacharib fell ill and died when attempting to siege Jerusalem. As history stands, Assyria's greatest conquest versus Israel was limited to the city of Lachish. The crown jewel of Jerusalem was never realized by Assyria.
there are many more examples if you look. Archeological evidence, first hand accounts, prophecies fulfilled are some of them.
Creation was cursed because of the sin of Adam, because Adam was placed over material creation. Everything that mankind was placed in charge of was effected.
An interesting thought experiment... If humans were cursed because of sin, then why weren't all angels cursed when Satan rebelled?
All humanity descent from Adam, angels were created differently they're purely spiritual beings @@CelticSpiritsCoven
@@Sg6CrossOver Purely spiritual beings that rebelled against God, but only the rebellers were cursed. All humans were cursed. What's the difference?
@@CelticSpiritsCoven because we were created from flash and blood we deal with the curse passed by our fathers and mother's, we inherent what is passed by them, but different from them who made their choice on the beginnings of time, we have a choice to accept the new pact forged on Christ's blood and suffering.
Because we reproduce that a new person still needs to accept Jesus as their lord, salvation is individual.
@@CelticSpiritsCoven They were cursed because they rebelled against God and tried to usurp his place, Lucifer wanted to be higher than his throne, and take adoration from God's creation.
I don't think animals are just crushing necks for fun it's most likely defense or for survival (food) the only animal I can think of that tortures another animal for "fun" is dolphins but we all know dolphins are evil.
Where do you think that desire for good comes from, it comes from God because God instilled in us an innate desire for good
A very intriguing question that recently came to me: can God exist outside of our consciousness? If no other living being is capable of perceiving these intangible things, like good or evil, we usually associated with God, if we cease to exist, does God really exist? Even if He does, without any other conscious to acknowledge His existence, what purpose would His existence even have at all.
Come around, realize that God is legit!
Good is a result of obedience to certain eternal laws and principles.. God is good because he is perfectly obedient to these laws and principles.. through revelation, God has revealed these eternal truths to us through his spirit or through his prophets..
I would only take issue with the idea of God being obedient to these eternal laws and principles. God created these laws and principles.
What is the moral principle for genocide please?
Little disagree with Cliff here, the animal kingdom, or their behavior is not evil, its just the way its, animal feed on animal not because of its good or evil, its just because it need to eat. The rest, I agree with him
yup survival of the fittest is an animal way, without God, it also becomes man's way. No Thanks
Interesting thought, what if God looks at humans like we look at animals.
Our behavior is not evil or good, it just is the way it is.
A person commits genocide for that is what he would have done in power. Another saves humans and animals in the millions in a lifetime, but not seen as good.
From God’s view, you are like a dog barking away the passing mailman, proud of doing its job. God laughs, and pets you for a job well done. And when it unknowingly poops all over the house. God just sighs and cleans it up. Not good, not bad.
Any instructions he tries to give to the dog, is not fully understood, cause of the knowledge barrier only the bare minimum. And therefore God can only observe.
@@BreatheManually Depend, according to Christianity, we CREATED in god image, so we definitely not animal to Christian god, to other gods, maybe? and definitely there is evil and good, we all know that, whoever said there is no evil and good is a liar.
It is evil, but it's also not a transgression against God. There is no sin in animals killing other animals, but yes, I'd say it's evil *only* because if man never sinned, the animals wouldn't kill each other. "Creation eagerly awaits the redemption of man."
@@BreatheManually We're without excuses for our suppression of the Truth. God's Word talks about those "who worship the creation rather than the Creator". I'd urge you to seek out the Creator before you make assumptions about His creation.
Different cultures disagree about what good and bad are, as in what is considered good and bad, but there is an objective definition because we all know what good and bad is to an objective since because we experience it even if its different. Thus an objective definition of good and and exists and there would be no need for a god, problem solved.
Just to clarify further, the way in which moral actions can be judged as "good" or "bad" is when it's with respect to a goal.
In other words, if we agree that the goal is to survive and prosper as a society (or as a species) then certain actions can be objectively labelled as "good" or "bad" depending on whether they're beneficial or detrimental to the goal we agreed to.
Theft and murder don't exist ultimately. They only have any meaning within our social systems. So moral evaluations of them can't be considered ultimately objective. It just doesn't make any sense.
But since they objectively cause harm and would be detrimental to society's survival and prosperity (regardless of legality), they can be considered objectively wrong within that context.
Once we agree that this is the goal, that's all we need. No God needs to be involved in this process at all.
@@ollieollyoli5805 "Just to clarify further, the way in which moral actions can be judged as "good" or "bad" is when it's with respect to a goal."
No really, people don't really have goals, they could just experience pain and think there is nothing good that comes out of it so murder is wrong. What do you mean a goal?
"In other words, if we agree that the goal is to survive and prosper as a society (or as a species) then certain actions can be objectively labelled as "good" or "bad" depending on whether they're beneficial or detrimental to the goal we agreed to."
If that was the "goal", seems more like a definition, then certain actions would be labeled objectively as good or bad because they must be an objective action that brings about the the most survival and prosperity to a society. Nobody would make that up.
"Theft and murder don't exist ultimately. They only have any meaning within our social systems. So moral evaluations of them can't be considered ultimately objective. It just doesn't make any sense."
If we give them meaning to be this or that the can have an objectives meaning. If you define it to be to survive and prosperity then there objective must exist a best choice for survival and prosperity. They also don't have to have an ultimate existence to be considered objective. Look at marriage and property and language for examples. It makes total sense.
"But since they objectively cause harm and would be detrimental to society's survival and prosperity (regardless of legality), they can be considered objectively wrong within that context."
Yes that is what I am talking about. You gave the example of defining it to be survival and prosperity and so harm would be a bad thing and harm is an ultimate thing, so it objective is a bad thing.
"Once we agree that this is the goal, that's all we need. No God needs to be involved in this process at all."
Yes I agree, but id go even further and say that there has to exist a some sort of objective definition of right and wrong because it does have some ultimate feeling because we all "experience" it, people just have different opinion on what is considered right or wrong. But there would not need to be a God for this at all., In fact, if its objective, then it cant depends on what a being wants it to be, by definition.
3:37 I would say people aren't shy to bring it to a "God" level, but simply are unbelieving and or don't have the understanding/knowledge that transcendentals are necessary to justify their claims.
The moment a transcendental view is introduced it brings into question most people's entire worldview, which is often poorly constructed. Most see philosophy as pseudo science not comprehending that philosophy is needed to ground scientific claims. Failing to see that science can never ground philosophy, but can only speculate about such, as philosophy largle deals with the immaterial.
And philosophy in general is riddled with unsolved - and potentially unsolvable - rabbit holes. At least with science you have a means to test claims and make progress.
Sorry but you can't have morality without God if man's idea of morality includes their own selfishness and greed and it's not morality it's just man's opinion
What makes you think religion can have morality?
Is that why there is so much murder, genocide and slavery at god's hand in the bible?
@Oneocna sorry but religion doesn't give morality religion is a bunch of rules and laws and regulations and belief systems you know like atheism and agnosticism Christianity is a relationship with God
@Oneocna what makes you think that you can have morality without God proof the fact that many of you think that it's okay to murder an innocent human being in the womb all the way up to birth without due process of the law which is illegal and unconstitutional
@Oneocna by the way I can prove that atheism and agnosticism is a religion based in satanism and it's proven by the fact that your religious beliefs are based in the satanic principle of do as you will the idea that there are no moral absolutes and that morality is subjective and all things are permissible even evil deeds
In my opinion good and evil require actors to make choices which can be categorized as such. So without sentient and sapient beings good and evil pretty much mean nothing.
If the actor doesn't have a choice then by default good means nothing because it would just be like a program running.
It can be argued there is no such thing as good and bad, there are only values!
Values determining good evil medium rare well done...doesn't eliminate the values themselves
Yeah? And are you gonna actually argue those things or say that people do?
How can value exists without purpose?. How can purpose exists without design or intentionality?. How can design intentionality exists without a Designer?
@@renierramirez9534 You are overcomplicating it! There is no designer! Who designs the Designer!!
The purpose of values is to give structure to the human society we live in! Simples!!
Sometimes watching these are frustrating because it’s clear where the disconnect is for him, but Cliff isn’t seeing it. The student is trying to argue from a place of goodness and God as either both being metaphysical concepts or metaphysical entities. Cliff is arguing goodness is a metaphysical concept and therefore requires a mind to comprehend while God is a metaphysical being and therefore doesn’t require comprehension to exist.
More clearly:
1) A person does not require another mind to be interpreted.
2) An idea requires a mind to be interpreted...
why cant good be a metaphysical being and god be a metaphysical idea that is subject to the human mind? why doesn't it work the other way around too?
@@Oneocna 1) because if you are talking about the Christian world view God is a person (not human, but a person, and actually 3 persons in 1 being). Thus God would not be an idea, but a person.
2) Because good is not a person, good is objectively and Idea. Good is not a tangible thing. Good is a moral, morals are ideas.
Anything else would be relativism...
@ if god is good and good is an idea is god an idea?
@@Oneocna You are either trolling or retarded... not sure which, but you cant apply the transitive property to nouns with adjectives. God would be tne noun, Good would be the Adjective. There are not the same category, thus the transitive property does not hold up...
3:00 What you do is the EXACT same thing... "What if god... just exists?!?" with no PROOF. "They are all pointing back to a primary thing which is god..." HOW IS IT GOD? Demonstrate that?
People don't go to the "god level" because there is no evidence to support it. Demonstrate there is a god.
Would you say the same thing about an iPhone? That it itself is not evidence of an engineer? Would you really need to lay eyes on its engineer in order to believe there was one, or would the existence of the thing itself be the demonstration & evidence that convinced you it had been designed? I hope the answer is obvious
Pursue Truth my friend, youll find the answers,
Regardless of what you believe, you must still know, that if you believe in things that are not true, then you will be more likely to fail in those regards. This i believe, is the most important pursuit of human existence.
If you do not pursue truth and there is a God, then on the day you see him, he will ask you why you did not do that task. And you will not like your answer.
@@Daily_Dose_Of_Wisdom Firstly, thanks for replying.
So what you’ve stated is a modern twist on the watchmaker analogy, which is an argument for intelligent design.
To answer your question directly: No, the existence of an iPhone itself is not evidence it was engineered. Typically we use inductive reasoning (e.g. in school I made circuit boards myself so I know they can be engineered so by inductive reasoning can say the circuit boards within an iPhone were engineered).
I find it to be a false analogy on many levels. As a starting point, David Hume, back in the 1700s, put forth several criticisms to the analogy:
1. We have experience of computer making (iPhone being a type of computer). We have no experience of universe making (or whatever it is we are saying god designed). So through induction and/or comparison we can determine that an iPhone was designed by an engineer. We have no other universe to induce / compare with to prove that ours was intelligently designed.
2. The analogy is weak - just because two objects (iPhone and universe) share one similarity (they are both complex) it is a wild step to then infer they share a hidden similarity (that they both have an engineer). The example Hume gives is a lion and a kitten. They are both similar in many respects, but just because a lion goes “roar”, it would not be correct to infer a kitten also goes “roar”.
3. Even if this argument did provide evidence of an intelligent designer, it doesn’t suggest it was god. If it is granted that the universe was intelligently designed there is no evidence that it was a god, or aliens, or many gods, or naturalistic, or any other thing you can think of really. Interestingly, an iPhone is actually engineered and designed by many people (not one), so your analogy is actually better served (although still poorly) at suggesting polytheism opposed to a monotheistic god.
@@PhillipBoothClimbs one, you can't prove God doesn't exist so, while not a proof that God does exist, it's logically possible that God exists.
If God does exist, which is logically possible, He exists outside of space, time, matter, energy, and causality. This means science can't directly observe or measure any aspect of God. Therefore we shouldn't be looking for such evidence, because that would be irrational.
However, we do know the universe exists and that it's causal, which is how we are able to do science. This means if you trust in the ability of science to explain how the universe works, you have to accept that it's causal.
For a casual universe to exist it must have been caused by something else. It's irrational to conclude an infinite regression of causes is responsible for the existence of the universe, so we are left with there being something that does not need a cause to exist. And for something uncaused to be able to cause anything else, it must be capable of freewill decisions.
Anyone else wake up and put in two hours everyday to read and learn more about the bible? I do it for fun its interesting. Im excited almost everyday to study and learn.
If you require God or the threat of eternal punishment to make you good, you are not a good person. Good is and always will be subjective. Based on and always has been based on, society. This is why slavery, murder, war, women, and child abuse - is all allowed in the Bible. That was the normality of the society that is responsible for writing the Bible.
Good and evil really come down to this: Will your actions harm someone’s well being against their consent?
So since it's all subjective, is good and evil some arbitrary, imaginary game we play or what?
To respond to your last question; what does it matter? If someone can do wrong to someone else and get away with it, and feel no remose, why wouldn't they? Where does this sense of moral duty come from? Let alone the issues of morality being subjective.
@ It’s as imaginary as thinking morals attribute to a god. Again, if you need “divine” intervention to make you a good person, you are not a good person. It means you will easily lean into doing bad because fuck it, why not?
This is what I meant by, if you can stop yourself from harming someone else’s well being, you, in that scenario, are seen as good. If you help someone - that person will thank you and deem your actions good because they personally enjoyed your help. Now why did you help that person? Because you yourself wanted to help them and see them be successful in whatever it was - or because some god told you to? Which one seems more meaningful and sincere?
This is a lot deeper and that’s why morals are subjective. Every single scenario of morals is personal and the good or evil of it will always be a matter of opinion. Generally, in society, when a lot of people agree on something, it becomes a law. This is why even in the 10 commandments it mentioned “thou shalt not kill”, because generally, no one wants to die. no where did it say “don’t have slaves” which we now see as a vastly negative occurrence. However during the times the Bible was being written, slavery was normal.
" if you need “divine” intervention to make you a good person, you are not a good person."
Where the heck do you keep getting this sense of what a "good person" is? You admitted that morality is subjective by nature. If that's the case, why does it matter about what you say on what makes a "good person" when your moral reasoning for is no more valid than anyone else's? You're not making sense.
The Christian belief is that God's moral nature is what we call good, and that the commandments or laws are reflections of that moral nature that we try to follow as best we can. And even sometimes even those reflections aren't truly representative of God's moral nature.
The topic of morality always deals with person(s) or about person(s). So it makes since to me that the objective source of it is also a person.
@@MythicKeaton You have a point, and I’ll correct it. MY subjective view on what makes a person good is: Are your deeds or actions going to hurt someone’s wellbeing against their wishes?
Now why does it matter and what makes it valid? Absolutely nothing makes it as valid as the next person’s subjective view. But, if multiple people share that view and can agree to it, then we have an understanding of what “our view of good” is. Now drastically increase the number of people who agree, plus years of accepting that idea. It becomes normalized, laws are passed around it. Now, it’s a fundamental idea or viewpoint shared across millions who all agree on this concept of “good.”
Even so, not everyone will see it as good and not everyone will agree with it. That’s what makes morals subjective. If people can disagree with it (which people always will) it’s subjective.
It is obviously a lot deeper and requires more examples, information, and thought process. At least more than I’ll ever be able to explain in the comment section of TH-cam.
I don't think that just because there are differences in people's morality means that an objective standard doesn't exist. Which I think is what you're effectivly getting at. People have differences of scientific theories, or metaphysical theories, or philosophical beliefs all the time, that doesn't mean there isn't an objective answer or at least a conclusion that's closer to an objective answer to any of those things.
The moral realm is just as real as the mathematical realm. Both are metaphysical, but both have objective standards and everyone experiences it. Figuring out those objective standards in totality takes effort and time.
I think that this guy phrased his question very well, in a way very difficult to answer.
You can try to answer how GOOD is not difined by men, since nearly each man has his own definition of good. And this guy comes and say, yes, GOOD is as eternal and outside of time... than GOD. So ?
Then the only way I see is to explain that is that free will includes the respect of Causality, God doesn't lie to us. But sometimes, Causality is broken, we call that miracles. People can cure or even resuscitate and ultimately there is the creation of the Universe ifself, but this is not needed for this demonstration. And when this is accepted, then God becomes difficult to avoid, because who can break the causality as He wants? The only answer is God.
And a lot of people who say they they don't believe in God will say, the great architect of the universe, or any other petty name. It all goes to God.
Blame god for 'good and evil'. As soon as he set up the system of one animal praying on another to survive, well you know the rest.........!
One could expand on this guys argument, and see if that good has always existed, it’s only our understanding of it that has shifted over time. There is a right or wrong answer based on net suffering of the population, and as time goes on, humans have figured out what works better. Almost like a mathematical equation.
However, there is an obvious problem with this. The Bible was written thousands of years ago, and it just happened to align with an evolved morality that only presented itself in recent history? That would be quite the prediction!
Fun fact, the word good is from the word God. Because God is good.
God and eternal life are the logical way to reward good behavior and good deeds, actions and thoughts that have little appeal in godless societies based on the many variants of darwinism
I was thinking when the young man asked about animals tearing into each other...how God's 7 days being the creation of the universe and everything in it. I personally see a gap in Genesis where God could have created the world to be free from our sins, but with Satan here every last person was going to be tempted.
God didn't create us with perfect knowledge, Adam walked with God and that is undeniably that Adam learned from God, and Adam turned around to name the animals. But we don't know what exact day this happened, only that animals have useful heritage to those base class names.
With Satan being cast down earth now had a temptation forced on any intellectual beings that would walk on earth. However even dinosaurs could be predated by Satan, making a rudimentary awareness of life be impacted as well.... So whenever the actual days of Creation were or were talked about as a truth Moses never detailed the Creation story like a constant gospel message because he had been talked to by God in the burning bush. God was instructing him through the awe inspiring surprise that he was to trust God, which is foundational to seeing the opposite "distrust".
The animals can't trust in God, but they can often be like him. A lamb can be docile but foolish, a lion can be fierce or calm, but we can do much more in variances because we have a spiritually questioning mind. So Moses knew the lineage of Adam to him but he did not know how to solve sin. All our intellect in the world to say God messed up is because God didn't mess up. Every different take on creation has to be acceptable to the person until it is not, and it is these moments that drive and honest heart to ask God "is Jesus enough?"
Moses was a great writer of some of the heaviest topics, but he was a weak faithful person who had actually talked with God. My heart says God wanted the Genesis story to be exactly what it is because it shows a kind of veil over what pre dated our 6000 some odd years of existence. We sinned, so we need to use faith to solve anything as we were no longer going to be brought into life innocent. It is 100% heavy because it is 100% possible, but it is not born into us to be a lion laying down with a lamb. Moses could be A lamb, but his death means nothing, but some of his life was used to tell God's history and some of his life to falter. He can know he believes it but he cannot force God to make it easy for hardcore unbelievers.
It seems Genesis is dumb to an unbeliever but as soon as you need God your objections change and 6000 years of humans sharing knowledge stands that if it was just our knowledge it wouldn't matter.
Genesis is an undeniable gem, but we still need Jesus to be okay with it.
God bless
Dave from Canada
you shouldnt have to retcon your own book
The kid doesn't get that good isn't a being. Cliff should have clarified that for him.
This guy loves animals and wants no more suffering for animals.
I find it bazaar that people do not think God exists. It seems like they have a mental problem to me. It is so obvious that there must be a God.
It's obvious to me that there isn't and the idea is made up by humans across different cultures.
I try to look at good and evil like this. The Bible talks about Principalities. The order in which things function. Everything or most things have an order in which it functions. Even in science. Good is how things function properly or productively. Evil is the opposite of that. When things are not functioning productively.
that kid is just trying to argue. he isn't listening at all
Good would exist with or without a God
Being good benefits the individual
If you do good things for others this makes you feel pleasure because you are making someone's life better
And that is likely to be reciprocated
You can't claim that belief in God makes you good
The number of Christians in jail prove that to be false
You NEED to explain exactly why good would not exist without God
Good has a purpose within itself
And the same could be said for evil, some people murder for financial gain and never get caught, or fraud or even just being completely selfish, that can benefit an individual
If you said that God was an inspiration to some to be good, then I would agree that is correct
But an atheist dies not need that coercion, they are good for the sake of being good and the benefits that come with it
You can't say that atheists cannot be good because they are not convinced that God exists
Now that raises a huge problem with saying that God is good
Is it good for God to condemn atheists to hell because they are not convinced he exists?
How is that morally right ?
Surely it is wrong to condemn a good person
Is that not an act of evil ?
How can anyone justify such a punishment?
Do good people who try and bring joy to others and try and make the world a better deserve to spend eternity in hell with the murderers, the pedophiles, the dictators ?
How is that even comparable?
What about the children that die unbaptised or the millions who were never even introduced to Christianity or the handicapped that just can't even understand the concept
If God is truly omnibenevolent and just, how can he condemn good people who have never done anything evil ?
It makes no sense at all
Such a God cannot exist
In truth it is lies of men to control other men
It is the logical answer to the problem
...And how do Atheists explain death
Well .....entropy, everything decays over time
We pass on our genes hopefully
That is our immortality if we are successful breeders
It's necessary that we die when we can no longer breed or work, and we have no purpose after that
People don't even understand what it would be like to live forever after death
When and if you are lucky enough to live to be old, people are happy for life to end
There is only so much life you can take
We are lucky to exist at all
But if you really think about it, would you really want eternal life after death ?
You would just be a spirit ( apparently) you couldn't really do anything
You can't touch, you can't feel, you can't affect anything or change anything, you are a ghost of your former self and all Earthly pleasures are now unavailable
And it never ends !
Sounds like a nightmare and must surely lead to insanity
There is no logical reason for life after death and if you actually think about what it would really entail, then you would not want it anyway
...So for those reasons I can't believe in that either
.....
But if this is just a simulation and God is the programmer, then we can all be saved, on a hard drive, then just dumped in a drawer in God's office
.... Simulation is actually a lot more plausible
But I think everything is exactly as it appears
It just happened by itself for no reason at all
But good is still good no matter what
Be good for goodness sake
Live , love and spread happiness
The reward is the pleasure you give others and the pleasure others give to you
No true God would ever punish you for not believing
He would not care if you did or not
Your opinion would not matter at all
Small flaw. Adam and Eve are given every fruit in the garden to eat except one. But the fact that they eat means there is death (of the fruit) and privation of good (to the tree). I think this puts a small hole in his argument against animal suffering.
I do believe the idea of the argument, but this explanation of it doesn't quite work out with all the details.
I always wished Cliffe had remembered to mention that the animals and nature’s unraveling was a byproduct of the fall of man because man was given dominion over the earth.
When we fail they fail.
If you have pets you’ll understand that animals mimic the personalities and teachings of their owner. Normally a dog that is viscous is taught to be viscous and aggressive, but a dog that is taught to be tame, obedient and gentle will be that.
When man fell and sin entered our bodies and heart, the evil that was in us was shown and taught to everything we have dominion over.
why can't you guys put the link to the original video???
So why didn't god just prevent the problem instead of coming with a rescue plan.
Why not stop the discussion so we dont miss what is being said. While you are asking questions we miss a lot of the discussion.
I do circle back to the point where I jump in so that you don’t miss anything! Sorry if that was confusing!
Bizzy with themselfs they never look out thei're window!
Before math was chaos, it was the organization of the chaos that we know math. This is what God did.. he organized the chaos
Math is not chaotic or organized, math is math. Nobody invents that. Can God make 1 = 7 so instead of there being 1 God that exists, there are 7?
Lion crushes a Zebras neck because that's food.
I think we can know good without God, but the problem comes with definition. People need an example, and Christ set that example for us. As concretely as it could possibly be, Christ set the standard for what Good is, which we have demonstrated through His life and ministry. Without which, I think people understood good kind of like Plato's cave analogy, but Christ was the full revelation of Good, and unveiled the shadow for us, so we could now see it plainly, too. Buddha didn't set a good example, and was kind of a narcissist. Muhammad also. Only Christ set the full example we could follow.
So does logic not exist outside of our minds?
For theists, logic is part of the essential nature of God.
Is he trying to make the point that the natural food chain is not good, therefore God is not good?
When you think you came from, or/and are an animal, you may act like and compare man to them
This guy is so hell-bent on speaking that he's not listening at all...
If you're suggesting there's good. Then that follows evil must also exist. If you're asserting that good and evil exist, you must be appealing to a standard, from which we can differentiate between good and evil correct?
If you're assuming that standard exists from which to determine good from evil, that standard must rest above us so as to be objective and not merely subjective correct?
If you're assuming that there's a standard above us, not privy to the whims of society, what ultimate standard can one point to that is worth following if not God?
But that is who you're trying to disprove here. So what is your argument.
Interesting! I never thought of using the argument about necessary versus contingent as evidence for God. Thanks.
Hume's law says for morality to be objective and not subjective God must exist and atheists admit this holds true. Concepts of atheism and objective morality can not coexist in a logical construct.
John 3:19 ". . . the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil".
Romans 3:10-12: "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God"
The way I see it is that The Universe is interconnected.
It was not meant to operate with sin.
Breaking God's law put the whole universe out of whack including the nature of animals.
Which of god's laws did we break?
Which god?
Any evidence?
We are animals, humans are apes.
@@jameswright...
All of them,
Yahweh
Nope
Watch: Answers in Genesis @ th-cam.com/video/ARQSep1gQ-4/w-d-xo.htmlsi=2qPYsSmJoGF8KyXP
Read The Bible
@@chimmy___Were parasitic wasps vegetarians before the "fall"? 😂
@@tobias4411 There were no parasitic wasps before the fall. All will be vegan when Jesus returns.
@@chimmy___ How do you know that? What about snakes, frogs, lizards, salamanders, scorpions, spiders, snails, jellyfish, octopus, caecilians? Didn't your god created them?!
These folks think that they're so smart, but their convoluted arguments and abstract philosophizing are merely sorry attempts to remain apart from God.
“You’re better off believing that Satan is Good and God is evil than believing that there is no God because at least you’re allowing someone to convince you of its obvious existence.”-Patrick Goodman
@patrickgoodman4576: “You’re better off believing that Satan is Good and God is evil than believing that there is no God because at least you’re allowing someone to convince you of its obvious existence.”-Patrick Goodman”
Facts: God, Satan, Heaven, and Hell are all ancient myths and were stolen from many other ancient religions that faded away.
But if they were real, I would rather be with Satan than with the jealous cruel, malevolent and evil god from whom even angels fled.
Even in ancient times, nobody wanted to worship him, except for old Noah, all the other people rejected him.
There is nothing in the Bible that indicates that Satan is a bad evil monster like the God in the Bible. The god never shows love, kindness, or gentleness, oh no he is always angry, punishing, killing, murdering and plundering.
The only thing he loves is the smell of roasting animal fat, genocide, killing children women and babies that pleases the lord.
Oh yes, he also loved himself. “Willie van Straaten”
god will just destroy the devil and demons and he says what is goodness.
When you go on segments to give a perspective please pause the video
A bit of levity here… I wish I had 1/10 of the inward view of the girl doing yoga stretches while 2 guys contemplate the existence of a Creator in front of a crowd. WOW. The world is truly her oyster.
So our desperate host managed to fluster some child and gets to jump up and down in some pathetic 'victory' for his beliefs?
Society uses LAWS, not good and evil. No jury finds anyone good or evil. That is individual egoic Pride!
'Good' and 'evil' have their existence in the unSaved judgmental dualistic mind of the beholder!
There are equal amounts of (whatever) 'good' (is) and the same for evil in the Universe.
The Universe is perfectly balanced;
The First Law of Soul Dynamics; "For every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!"
For us to imagine/conceptualize 'good', we must imagine 'evil'.
Such judgment is not made by the Saved!
There is neither good nor evil, there is just God!
What you have failed to realize is that reality is not a duality, it is a trinity. There are 3 dimensions of space. Good resides at 2/3, or 66%, evil resides at 33%. The defeat of evil is secured in the very foundation of existence. Thus we know God is indeed, good.😇😇🙏🏼🙏🏼
@@ryngrd1 What you have failed to realize is that reality is not a duality, it is a trinity. There are 3 dimensions of space. Good resides at 2/3, or 66%, evil resides at 33%. The defeat of evil is secured in the very foundation of existence. Thus we know God is indeed, good.
~~~ If you have anything at all to support this absolute nonsense, please show it!
What I have failed to realize... is your fantasy! ;)
😇😇🙏🏼🙏🏼
~~~ Sorry, I don't speak idiot.
Animals suffering because of man sinned is at the level of a king’s evils cause the citizens of that kingdom to suffer. God made man in domination over the animals, so the animals who are subject to man suffered because of the sin of man.
Nonsense. It's all about nature. Were parasitic wasps vegetarians before the "fall"? 😂
If God was real, they would need to stop sinning. It all comes down to being your own god.
as a nonbeliever, that makes zero sense to me. "does a god exist" is a completely different question than "does the abrahamic god that christians worship exist"
seriously i know your hella indoctrinated and whatnot but you dont have to assume the worst in others just because we dont think like you.
iT aLl cOmEs doWn tO bEiNg yOur OwN gOd is such presumptuous bullshit. no wonder you christians are so mean to non christians.
Nah. There’s just zero reason to believe god exists.
@ There are plenty.
Stop interrupting the video!
Good video
I’m a Christian and I find his tone rude
Clarification-who?
I'm a Christian, and I find tone policing to be obnoxious.
Hey Mr.Cliff!!!!!!.....thank you for what, why, where, when and HOW you threshold guardian athiests over . Thank you. Beautiful.
@truincanada: “Hey Mr.Cliff!!!!!!.....thank you for what, why, where, when and HOW you threshold guardian athiests over . Thank you. Beautiful.”
There is nothing beautiful about the malevolent god of the Old Testament who boasts that he created evil. Damn it seems that it was all good till your god created evil.
God, Satan, Heaven, and Hell are all ancient myths and were stolen from many other ancient religions that faded away.
But if they were real, I would rather be with Satan than with the jealous cruel, malevolent and evil god from whom even angels fled.
Even in ancient times, nobody wanted to worship him, except for old Noah, all the other people rejected him.
There is nothing in the Bible that indicates that Satan is a bad evil monster like the God in the Bible. The god never shows love, kindness, or gentleness, oh no he is always angry, punishing, killing, murdering and plundering.
The only thing he loves is the smell of roasting animal fat, genocide, killing children women and babies that pleases the lord.
I believe it's more accurate to say that there is suffering in nature because God cursed the world out of judgement (Genesis 3). Yes God is love but He is severely just and He cannot let any sin go unpunished, which is why He had to satisfy His justice with the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, to save us from our deserved punishment.
So Adam and Eve sinned and every living thing, billions and billions of lifeforms throughout history, pay the price?
@nitsujism Adam and Eve represented humanity, and the sinful nature was passed down from Adam. So yes all are sinners because of one man, but all can be redeemed through another man, Christ Jesus.
I think you're totally on the money with stopping one degree of real explanation, because they don’t want to get into the “God thing.”
I've definitely avoided going too deep in my fair share of conversations to though lol
Animals are just animals and do what animals do. They are not subject to morals as humans are and projecting humanistic attributes/traits/emotions onto animals doesn't change anything. Anthropomorphism doesn't magically impart any morality onto animals just because one feels bad on their behalf.
This student is grasping at straws.
we can observe animals outside of humans showing morals. seriously all you had to do was look up "morality in animals" and you get a bunch of articles on it.
@@fakename-r7q Animals are amoral. What SEEMS to be moral behaviour is just humans ascribing these characteristics onto them, trying to relate their behaviour to ours.
@@Tachynon No, you're categorically wrong and there are a ton of studies on it. It shows that moral values are evolved behavioural traits present particularly in social species.
@@Tachynon uhh no. any primatologist can tell you that apes (especially chimps) have a very strong sense of fairness and right and wrong. saying "nuh uh" just makes you look like another numbnut who plugs your ears every time you hear something just a tiny bit inconvenient. seriously i dont know why you choose to be ignorant when google is free.
Check out holy koolaid, Aronra.
Whenever I feel in my "gut" this is good and right or Steve this is plan wrong, it comes so natural that God is in me.
There is no solution to death, what is he talking about?
Defining Good as Good is mindless circular reasoning which can only be accepted by a person who has fewer folds in their grey matter than their age in years.
Good is not an intelligent being capable of design. Good is not a cause or an agent capable of being a cause. It is only a category of effect. Any and all intelligent design arguments are capable of being an argument for God but none are an argument for Good.
Any philosophical case for an unmoved mover or cause to start the universe is a potential argument for God and will never be an argument for Good.
Virtually none of the historical arguments for God except the necessity of God to have an objective Good even connect the two concepts of God and Good.
Most arguments for Good are subjectivist in nature and those that are objective in nature ultimately only steal from primal assumptions of God's existence and are neither proved Good or assume God to prove they are Good.
Which eventually devolve into assuming something is Good in which to build Good off of, assuming God exists and he somehow defines God, or circular reasoning itself.
Usually the atheists and agonistics fall into the first or third category as the second would be counter intuitive and even than they only do so upon abandoning the ever indefensible subjective mortality a Godless existence implies.
The bird man strikes again! Cliff is awesome lol
The problem with the God explanation, is that it does not explain anything and just is slightly better from a social cohesive pov than declaring "I don't know". But these days, we do know the origin of our moral values, it just that some theist will not have any of it, because they made up their mind already and will reason to their predetermined conclusion no matter what.
Bro says good can just exist and it’s like sure, but how can we measure or define it or know it if it’s just opinion? Oh it just exists okay that’s fine don’t answer the question
Exactly. And if God doesn't make Himself known, then there's no way we can get to know anything about Him. That's where Muhammad, Jesus, the Avatars, and the various other religions come in. They claim to be revealing God accurately. The question is, what is the evidence?
What do you think?
@ the evidence is clearly not for Islam or Mormonism. Hinduism is all feelings no proof, I gotta say the proof is with Jesus. Not only is he historically undeniable, but the amount of eyewitness testimony and the fact that no archeological findings have disproven the Bible, i have to go with Jesus of Nazareth.
Will there be any bearing of children, according to Christian doctrine, during the millennium?
Many Christians reject millennialism in any form.
Firstly, if you're an atheist you don't need to have a solution to evil and death... because atheism doesn't make any claim about it... it is the lack of belief in a god... No where in that is there a claim about evil or death that would require explanation?
EVERY worldview REQUIRES answers to life's greatest mysteries. This includes the various worldviews held by atheists.
@@mysotiras21 Sure, but different atheists can have different world views. There isn't an 'atheist world view' on evil.
@@PhillipBoothClimbs , a tangential issue, since I NEVER claimed that all atheists share the same worldview. My observation stands: EVERY worldview MUST offer solutions for the thorny issues of human existence.
@mysotiras21 I still don't see what that has to do with Atheism? It's like saying "Someone who believes strawberry ice cream is better then chocolate ice cream MUST offer solutions to the thorny issues of human existence." Their belief about ice cream has nothing to do with evil...
Stealing content for Jesus ✝🙏
It's funny how atheist sometimes corner themselves into their own Euthyphro dilemma when arguing for any sense of objective morality. If X (X = source of morality that is non-theistic) says that something is good, is that thing good because X says so? Or does X say so that something because it is good?
The most consistent thing an atheist can say for objective morality is that it doesn't exist. But the implications of that for human civilization is unlivable, and not intuitive to the human experience in the moral realm either.
Eh, we made it this far!
The reason why we made it this far is due to theistic philosophy, and not atheistic philosophy. The 'why?' question matters.
@@MythicKeaton ??
The reason we made it this is mostly luck and because we have the biggest brains on the planet!
???
We don't have the biggest brains on the planet. Dolphins have significantly bigger brains than humans. I guess I get what you're trying to say tho, we put those brains to use. But the WHY and HOW we did so matters. The reason humanity even cares about science is because of our fascination of the natural law, and the reason that humanity even cares about the natural law is because of our fascination of a natural law GIVER (God). Were it not for those mentalities, I'm doubtful we'd make it as far as we have technologically or morally speaking.
As an atheist you can just say you are your own source of objective morality and you are an objective being and therefore anything you deem moral is objective reality and there's nothing that can argue against that since all epistemological justifications are equally valid
REMEMBER...GO(O)D...
ZYN-CHRONIC-ITY OF
ALL TRUTHFULL LIFE.
LOVEhugX from KRYSTOS...
the one you call Christ.
Om goodness, he almost said what if God is good!
The Brahmavihara (or "Four Immeasurables") are four key virtues in Buddhism that cultivate a compassionate and balanced mind:
Metta (Loving-Kindness): Unconditional love and goodwill toward oneself and others.
Karuna (Compassion): A desire to alleviate the suffering of others.
Mudita (Sympathetic Joy): Genuine happiness for others' successes and well-being.
Upekkha (Equanimity): A balanced, non-judgmental mind that remains steady in the face of life's ups and downs.
Together, these qualities foster inner peace and harmonious relationships, guiding one toward enlightenment.
Kind of pointless without first defining Good and God. The etymology of "good" is basically "a pure, wise, effective and moral demonstration of skilled expertise". God is of uncertain origin but likely means "the one invoked by sacrifice", it's an unknowable, invisible, undefinable entity. In ancient Hebrew it's only two letters "Gd" and since they were both symbols and pictograms, it pretty much means "The path or doorway to wisdom". So God is the path or instruction manual to living a pure, wise and effective life aka a good life. Could you life a good life without an instruction manual? Maybe, but ignoring it makes it a lot more difficult and subject to randomness and uncertainty.
God is ALWAYS Yahweh in the Hebrew Tanakh. Yahweh is mentioned over 6,000 times there.