Theodicy, God and Suffering - A debate between Dinesh D'Souza and Bart Ehrman
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 ธ.ค. 2010
- On Thursday, November 11, 2010 Dinesh D'Souza, former White House domestic policy analyst and recently appointed president of Kings College, debated Bart Ehrman, James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The debate was sponsored by the Center for Christian Studies.
Named by the New York Times Magazine as one of America's most influential conservative thinkers, D'Souza is a former policy analyst in the Reagan White House and served as John M. Olin Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Newsweek listed him as one of the country's most prominent Asian Americans.
A graduate of Wheaton College (Illinois), Ehrman received his Ph.D. from Princeton Theological Seminary and has published extensively in the fields of New Testament and Early Christianity. Among his fields of scholarship are the historical Jesus, the early Christian apocrypha, and the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.
![เก่งแต่ลับหลัง (FINSTA) - ส้ม มารี (Zom Marie) Ft. Punch 4EVE [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/OOolBU2aC70/mqdefault.jpg)
![เก่งแต่ลับหลัง (FINSTA) - ส้ม มารี (Zom Marie) Ft. Punch 4EVE [Official Teaser]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Fvt0Wz1hfGY/mqdefault.jpg)
I have lost my dear son suddenly and hate it so much when people try to console me with “ he’s in a better place.” I am a christian but this is no consolation for me in this world where i have to live with a hole in my heart. Nobody knows for sure if there’s an afterlife or not, that’s why it’s called faith and hope, but i live with the ugly reality that i will never see, touch, hug or talk to him on this earth.I agree with Bart’s response to suffering, it’s reality. Visit with the bereaved, serve them in any way you can, talk about their loved one, eliminate the “god needed an angel” and such rhetoric. my loss has led me to go back to the bible seeking answers and i have more questions than answers - the journey continues..Great discussion.
I also lost my son at the age of only 14 and yes "the he is in a better place" saying pisses me off to no end because the best place was with his mother and I. And its gods plan. Well his plan sucks and I'm very angry with god
Anthony Falante Exactly!!! There’s no better place for a child than with the parents. I totally understand, today marks 3 years without my son. I struggle with God and faith too. cannot get how a good and loving, all powerful God who could keep our kids from dying but sat in silence and did nothing, and then prepare an everlasting hell to send people to? i wouldn’t do that to my worst enemy.
It will be 9 years this october and it still hurts as if it was yesterday
❤️
Yeah I'm a Christian but that whole "he's in a better place" is kind of annoying
Dinesh D'Souza: "Animals can't be tortured".
I think that right there disqualifies this man from having anything valid to say about the problem of suffering.
He said animals aren't cognitive that they are being tortured and that animals are not torturing.
Why?
@@yeboscrebo4451 If you don't think animals are capable of suffering then I don't think you have the empathy or intelligence to know what suffering is.
The cat plays with the mouse, because of a full stomach and on the fact that his animality has been tamed by ...domesticity. Cats in the wild or without a supporter, hence on an empty stomach, will not play with the mouse but will... eat it.
@Miguel Cisneros Thanks for your comment. Just a few questions, if you don't mind:
(1) What is secular psychology?
(2) How do you define suffering?
(3) Can you please provide some academic/scientific references that show that animals are not capable of suffering and motivation and emotions?
I'm just glad people are actually still debating in college.
"Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool." ----- Voltaire
6:10 End of intros.
Thank you.
thanks
Thanks
😁😁😁😁
We often hear of a gang of thieves plotting to rob and murder a man, and laying a plan to entice him out that they may execute their design, and we always feel shocked at the wickedness of such wretches; but what must we think of a book that describes the Almighty acting in the same manner, and laying plans in heaven to entrap and ruin mankind? Our ideas of His justice and goodness forbid us to believe such stories, and therefore we say that a lying spirit has been in the mouth of the writers of the books of the Bible.
-Thomas Paine
What really strikes me about this discussion (and the many I have seen with the same debate at heart) is that none of the people Bart discusses with ever are able to respond without using crazy and even strongly sarcastic arguments, like: the suffering of the mouse that is being played with lies in the anticipation of death. NO! It lies in broken bones, being bitten, having PAIN. Even if the main suffering was "only" the anticipation of death - you try to imagine what it is like to fear for your life. That IS real suffering, there is no downplaying it. Why are people who were threatened to be killed traumatised by that experience? Because that is a form of pain.
I have been a Christian for decades and a pastor for 40 years. The issue of theodicy is the most significant issues for both believers and unbelievers alike. In this debate I thought Dr Ehrman won hands down. Dr Souza was more an apologist than theologian who couldn’t match Ehrman’s points. While I agree with much of Bart’s views, I am certainly no agnostic.
So how exactly do you reconcile that with being a Christian?
Why a genuinely admirable, humble, gentle man like Dr. Ehrman would have to share a stage with a criminal huckster like D'Souza, I have no idea.
"Easy answers in the face of suffering are cruel" Probably the best statement in the whole debate.
I'm a Christian and I think Bart nailed this one on the head.
I am impressed, thanks for your beautiful honesty
I'm an atheist, and I opened the comments to say this was moment when Bart won the debate. It brought tears to my eyes as I thought of my younger brother who was killed by a drunk driver.
Why does the answer have to be complex?
@@abelpap5313 Are you really asking that question? You're not just trolling? Have you ever lost someone you love?
@@CharlesB-NGNM Yes, the question is genuine, why is it necessary for the answer to be complex? What makes an easy answer cruel or untrue?
Is it cruel because it is untrue or can it be simultaneously cruel and correct?
"Do we have adequate facts to second guess God?" " Do you have adequate facts to conclude that there is a God" is the first question to answer.
Why would you even ask such a silly question??? You probably believe in the imaginary explosion that came from nothing and made everything. That's just complete nonsense. But a life form with infinite power and intellect is outside the realm of possibility???? That at least makes sense.
@@optimus1212 So answer me this.....who created your “God”? And please don’t answer with a kindergarten platitude like “he has always existed”. or “he exists outside of space and time”. You do understand that those answers are just as vague and valueless as the Big Bang theory (you clearly don’t understand) is to you. I tend to leave those subjects I am not qualified to give opinions on to the experts in their fields, theoretical and partical physicists etc. Much like I leave the theological questions to the shamans, con-men and TV evangelists.
@@fredc.meekinsjr.5553 Why would a being who is described as omnipotent and omniscient have a creator? Isn't that what a GOD would be? I see you can't get your mind to think outside of time and space. I guess since you reject the unlimited possibilities of an entity who lives outside of those parameters then there is no point of discussing it. The big bang is a theory and completely nonsensical. Can you show me anywhere in nature where explosions do anything other than destroy? Seriously..... It's complete cognitive dissonance.
@@MostAmericansAreClueless1 Actually I research a lot. I don't talk about things I am not capable of articulating. Besides, once you start character assassinating your opponent you've already lost. Good job. If that's your best retort then you need to really work on your skills. Seriously.
If the universe and possible worlds are infinite. Then you are infinite. There's a version of you at present not reading this comment or eating a raspberry reading this comment to infinity...
If the universe is finite and ordered as it appears to be at present then there is a Creator. Cause and effect establish that.
I'd refer to the ontological argument and khalam argument which I find logical and consistent with our observations.
We call that thing, which precedes the known and unknown universe. "God". There can be no predecessor to that which precedes all.
"You can't possibly understand the laws of God." - Dinesh D'Souza
"Here is exactly how plate tectonics are necessary for life on Earth, and an omnipotent god couldn't have figured out any other way to create humans without this specific phenomenon." - Dinesh D'souza
laws of God and plate tectonics are two different subjects genius.
@@westannex1655 Since God made the earth could be same subject just different book.
Lol
he is a grifter....("D'SOuza".....)
He should feel really stupid saying these things if we can`t understand it why follow it
I love listening to D’Souza, so entertaining, his arguments always make me laugh out loud and when I realize he is serious I laugh even harder
You laugh because you're afraid that what he says is true
Dinesh has all these funny little allegories, metaphors and anecdotes that ultimately have nothing to do with the discussion. It's funny watching him try to apologize for being a Christian in the face of ALL the facts.
I detest D'souza, but he did better here than I was expecting considering how thoroughly he was out of his depth. He completely lost the plot when he doubled down on his incredibly ill-informed claims about animals and torture, however.
He had a debate with Peter Singer a few years ago where he more or less had no choice but to go pseudoscientific and claim only humans can suffer and that to assume other animals can is actually to spit in the face of god, because he made humans in his image. So, basically if you think animals deserve to be considered morally then you are actually being immoral. It’s bonkers.
Did Dinesh REALLY just assert that Christianity had some sort of a monopoly on forgiveness??
Wow.
@Benjamin J Park LOL!! I didn't even see his reaction when I first saw this. That was fantastic!
@VOTERFRAUD BIDEN Are you able to provide any adult commentary?
@VOTERFRAUD BIDEN you don’t know anything about me or what I know how to do. I’ll repeat my question: are you capable of adult commentary (or dialogue)?
@VOTERFRAUD BIDEN yeah. Ok.
@VOTERFRAUD BIDEN huh?
D'Souza doesn't reference or even argue the Bible, and I doubt he's ever read it. Dude was all over the map. He rambled aimlessly.
His argument is insanely weak, that's why, so he hides the weakness underneath a thick layer of highfalutin language.
Of what relevance is that in arguing with one who doesn't believe God exists? You reference the Bible to a religious person.
@@emmanuelchinedu8094 when defending the nature and actions of your god, why wouldn't you reference the only "record" of his communication and actions, especially when your opponent is?
Matt James, Dinesh referenced scripture several times in this debate and in every debate he participates in and of this topic especially. He "rambled aimlessly"?? Maybe you should watch the debate again lol.
@@mattjames7430 that's not the only record of his communication. Science and everything in creation are part of record of his communication.
It is interesting to me how D'Souza can't begin to grasp what the hell is Ehrman talking about when Ehrman talks to him about empathy and comforting people who are experiencing personal tragedy.
I think that these debates help the audience more than the speakers.
Dinesh D'Souza is a hate spewing clown!!
He’s a dishonest person to the core, and probably lacking in empathy like those he shills for.
@@skeptic_al Exactly!!!!!!
This is a good and honest statement. Does not mean the statement is true. When some people watch videos like this you come in with your own background and preconceived ideas that block your mind from accepting the truth. In the times of old God wiped out the human race brcause we were a lot worse than we are now. And back then they lives for hundreds of years. There anything that is happening here on earth is extremely temporary compared to notion of infinite future. When you look at the bigger picture and first give yourself a chance to understand that this place and universe can not create itself and that if you insist that by your faith you choose to believe it can... you really need to seek to find the answers. You go on living your life and spending less than x amount of time finding the real answers. I've spent over a decade seeking the truth. Developing the quests is only the first part... you need to find the answer. You should not sit still and believe that you already have the answer. Now, in the video he answers your question very clearly. I've watched this video over 10 times. You've maybe watched it once. He states very clearly the idea of having a whimsical universe. Secondly, he expressed that it was not always the way it is now and God created freewill to choose. All of this is in the video. You don't like the truth and want to sit in your sin? So be it. But I wouldn't go around spreading that message if you haven't even spent more than a week pondering what you have just said. Go and seek what the bible is, what it's medsages are, what the prophecies are, what the time frame is that everything happened, what happened to the apostles at the last moments of their lives, excetra...
The list goes on. It's more than months of constant research.
Once you go through it all you will determine well maybe I don't have the answers. Hopefully then you will have the desire to seek the truth.
The things that happen here on earth is more traumatizing than it is suffering. The real question is...
How is God going to comfort these people after they have already suffered enough torment.
Whatever that answer is... it's going to be a good one.
If you are going to insist on not listening to the truth at least come up with better things to say. I am wondering what exactly is so different before and after the flood. I can only imagine all of those dinosaurs running around. Why God made those creatures and decided to take them out and a lot more better questions than a 2 second thought you strawman and can read people's minds. Seek the truthful answers. Don't create your own question and answer it in the same sentence. It's not a truthful question. And by this time if you are still stuck in your ways that it's been over 11 months now... don't wait until the end of your life to seek out the truth. Give yourself some honest time to find the answer. You don't want to just go around with your hand covering your eyes. Pray to God he will show you the truth. Judgment will come and you're going to stand before God and you tell me... what are you going to say to God? If you have the capability to post this message you my friend are lucky and blessed. But truly who is blessed? You going to hell or that person who suffered temporarily that inherent the kingdom of heaven? The person who suffered has the desire to say "God help me." Count that as faith vs where you will go if you do not accept the free gift. Who is the one that suffers? You tell me.
DeSouza argues that it is both misguided and impudent to ask why there’s suffering in the world in part because how limited our minds and knowledge. The irony though is that he then answers the question as to why there’s suffering in the world, which is evidence that he himself has asked the question.
I think the problem he is citing is not the act of questioning per say .
He appears to argue that we are both misguided and imprudent when we ask the question with an implicit assumption
The implicit assumption is:-
"if God is all that powerful , surely God could have easily prevented it from happening . Yet , we have the problem . So , either God doesn't exist or it's not omnipotent "
Why doesn’t God do something about it? Why doesn’t God intervene? God did intervene! God provided the ultimate answer. His son Jesus. We live in a sinful evil world. This world isn’t the promise of God. Heaven is the perfect promise of God. We as human beings are to fix our world because we are the ones that screwed it up in the first place. But at the same time what one person considers a problem may not be a real problem and so what others consider an answer to that problem may actually be a problem in itself to the other people.
He had to answer the question as that was the topic of the debate
@@jeffreybonderman6897 k. As Ehrman pointed out, this does literally nothing to address suffering caused by natural disasters, where no human could possibly be blamed for screwing up the world to cause it.
@@Keira_Blackstone We could be a fallen people capable of inflicting pain on each other and still be able to survive in space. Haldane pointed out if god created anything in his own image, it'd be beetles (bacteria or stars would also be good candidates)
One uses imagination, one uses reality to debate
Notice when asked what each person does to help with suffering, Erhman stated he donated tons of money. D'Souza quoted a study but did not say what HE does.
Very telling.
If nothing else we've learned in the years since this debate that Dr Ehrman is a much better human being than Dinesh D'Souza
how lol. But what standard
I find myself shaking my head almost every 10 seconds at the silliness that comes out of Dinesh's mouth.
Im bored of atheists say shit like Dinesh is crazy or he is not smart or he is wrong or throw ad hominems But never explain why he is wrong. Grow up snowflake.
scottbignell Snowflake, a term popularized by the gay writer of Fight Club. Congrats on incorporating gay slang into your conservative arguments.
Dinesh destroyed fully Bart Ehrman's arguement on why we suffer
true if you don't use any facts or reason. He got nothing right in his opening statement when stating anything scientific.
Me too
Debate starts at 6:00
I think it's fascinating that both of these men with opposite opinions are possibly very well doing what they believe they was called to do.( whether or not they are called by Divine or Practical purposes..) I hope we all follow their lead..
Seriously? Don't you know that the Christian cheated on his wife and ended up spending some time in jail for other reasons?
The atheist is actively working every day since several years to rise money for the poor and hunger. So please, don't put them in the same boat.
@@vejeke damn !! no I didn't
Really informative. I feel Bart has raised some important points here..
I believe you are correct in that Bart has been used by god to strengthen faith in him and salvation through Jesus Christ. His long history in education in the word of god and his lack of faith in god has led him exactly where he is now in this debate as gods tool.
@sabrositocooking8680 "...used by god..." How utterly repulsive and demeaning.
You may not agree with Bart, but there's no need to be rude and insulting.
@@tulpas93 "humility is a Christian virtue" my ass am I right?
@Chickennuggie1498 The whole "I have a personal relationship with the creator of the universe, and you can't have one unless you agree with me." has got to be the pinnacle of arrogance!
At 57:00 we get to see Dinesh argue that mice lack the ability to feel fear and pain and have no survival instinct. Then at 57:15 he admits that they *do* have a survival instinct, but claims that it doesn't count.
This guy's worse than any lawyer; you can tell he's lying not just when his lips are moving, but whenever his eyes are open.
I wasn't going to add to this, but I'm at 1:13:00 and I just heard Dinesh claim that "non-religious liberals" were the wealthiest group in the country, and they do the least for charity. I wasn't aware that blatant lies were an acceptable form of debate, but I am now. The next time I argue with someone over anything, I now have the freedom to make up my own facts, which will help immensely. Thanks, Dinesh!
Edit again. @ 1:29:30; *REALLY?!* There's no concept of forgiveness in any other religion than Christianity? My god, the Buddhists, Sikhs, Muslims, Jews, Asatrumen, Wiccans, Yazidis, and Hindus must be told!
That's not nice, those mice are the world to him!
Clearly God isn't the only fictional character D'Souza believes in. He also believes in the poor republican.
I think the point is balanced on the word torture. Torture is a malevolent action utilized to elicit a reaction in the victim the torturer finds satisfying. The cat is playing with the mouse in a manner that is satisfying but not because of the fear of the mouse. Yes, it's reacting to the mouse's instinct to survive, but not to its level of fear. If the mouse played dead the cat would lose interest.
You must be a Democrat
@@danielgilman4547 If the mouse played dead the cat would eat it, I have 2 cats and they are evil. Your definition of torture is slightly off what about the CIA's torture tactics and other organizations that tortured either as punishment or to extract information? The torturer does not have to be satisfied by his torture for it to be counted as torture otherwise waterboarding should be legal and acceptable as long as the victim does not give the interrogator the information he wants. Up till the point the victim cracks and tells all its fine to pull fingernails and cut off fingers and such under your assessment.
Listening to Dsouza talking about animal suffering is a torture
Listening to you criticize with zero refutes or suggestions...
Is torture.
@@bquick6317 I dont need to refute Dsouza. He does a pretty good job refuting himself.
D'Souza's argument about what a cat does to a mouse not being torture is such a strange argument. Emotional pain is bad but extreme physical pain is always worse. I've had a few rats in my garage recently so I've been putting out snap traps. The traps kill about half outright but about half are wounded and then need to be finished off. Imagine lying a floor with your spine and rear legs crushed for 6 hours before death. There's no reason to think that other mammals feels less pain.
It was funny to hear someone who belives in Adam and Eve talk about "modern science".
Yeah, you didn't listen to his argument at all; why even bother comment?
Dinesh on evil - “we don’t have all the facts so we can’t possibly conclude why god might do bad things”
Dinesh on the existence of god “we don’t have all the facts but we absolutely can conclude god does exist”.
Mmm…..
Can you give timestamps for your quotes?
If you have ever had a wet fart in public then you will prove to yourself that there is no intelligent designer
@@drmontague6475 How could uou evolve a human body so sophisticated that it CAN release the gas produced by retain foods, as the body absorbs nutrients and pro c essential the waste, by which farting is one of the strange, yet magnificent means to accomplish the processing g of waste. Plus one bodies actually, regularly heal themselves; cuts heal. We just apply bandages, alcohol, whatever. T b e body coagulation it's own blood. Then heals itself in time. That's anaccident? Or evolution? Consider the law of entropy.Dinesh's delivery is/should be secondary to his message. But if his must.#!
@@stephencarter6392 It's amusing how a god helps you find your car keys. "It's a miracle!!!!!", said no amputee ever.
Dinesh’s position is squarely centered on political agendas. He uses god just like all humans have used god throughout history. God is useful for controlling the gullible
Just to be clear: I must love unconditionally an entity that will promise unending happiness after a period of time if I gratefully allow it to inflict whatever painful trials, tribulations it deems fit on myself and anyone else, whether or not they are known to me? And, allow it to constantly test my unswerving love and devotion while performing all these physical and emotional traumas for it's being secure in my love for it?
Yup that about sums it up. And yet Christians will insist that god is love.
@@janglandis773Funny
a Cancer patient beats Cancer and Thanks God
Another Beats Cancer yet is a non believer yet believers prayed for them
Who is better here morally?
Though i find it ridiculous
When humans can benefit from Hardships of their own and what not
it seems they have done the impossible
when someone uses God as an example for their reason to actually beat that trial they were in despite immense suffering then Thanking God for strengthening they are delusional ,Sounds like suffering without God in the picture is more applicable despite the fact that humans tend to do almost to nothing to better the suffering of other without involving themselves in
I started out in Bart’s corner and firmly remain there however I expected dinesh to win this debate with his slick debating skills. Sorry I underestimated you Bart, well done!
welcome to the village of independent thought.
Reminds me of my dog who has a mind of it's own and stubborn. Until someone decides that they may be wrong and look at things from another perspective their minds will continue to remind locked in their own view of things. Have you changed your mind in the last 3 years, Dec 25, 2021 ?
Imagine thinking Dinesh has the brains to even be considered slick
You started out in Bart’s corner and never changed…you were biased from the beginning.
@@mazsroy9 He also thought Dinesh would win but changed his mind after listening to the debate.
Dinesh's answer starting at 50:37 is a big moment. Dinesh admits that he believes that almost all of the prayers of Christians have no supernatural effect on their lives, which is a huge contrast to the teachings of almost all Christian preachers. This is the basis for Bart's later suggestion that Dinesh's answers are "intellectualized" which is just a euphemism for callousness IMO. Dinesh is saying that he's OK with millions of Christians putting their false hopes into prayer for God's intervention.
I completely agree. Also - Dinesh asserts previously that God CAN'T interfere to reduce suffering, because that would make the world capricious, and undermine the cause-and-effect of moral consequence. Except then he asserts that God does the very thing which his own argument requires not to happen.
He says God "can and does" answer prayers and "can and does" intervene, but does so only rarely. But he doesn't provide any evidence or reasoning whatsoever to support this belief. Which prayers and interventions does he know of, and how does he know of them? More importantly, the clear implication of his statement is that God much more often makes a conscious decision not to answer many prayers to alleviate/stop suffering. And in that one statement, he confirms Ehrman's central point, and loses the whole debate. Game set and match, Mr Ehrman.
You are all re tar did.
He says word for word that he does believe that...
Yet 40 of you people have liked this comment.
Its like watching flat earthiers congregate. You are all just wrong and so stupid that it actually is draining my brain cells to read this 😂
Wow. Very intriguing and thought provoking. Great job guys!
I find it very interesting that Dr. Ehrman brought a copy of the Bible, whereas Mr. D'Souza did not (or at least it does not seem to be present on the table).
Dr Ehrman has studied that book and subject his entire life while D’Souza is a shady huckster. It’s a charade that they even occupy the same stage.
That was a very enjoyable debate! Kudos to them!
damn Bart you let a perfect opening pass right by when you said you had no opinion on the foreknowledge question because we all know if we just tweak Dinesh's example to more accurately reflect the problem of suffering he would be forced to admit he would intervene to prevent his daughter's suffering. He wouldn't respect her free will or her choice and he wouldn't dare to suggest there was value to her suffering if for example she was instead of being born to him, born into a brothel in Calcutta.
Always moving the Goal Post The Christian Believer
The Very thing the Bible Bangs on About is Sin were did it come from still Hasn't t Been Answered, Know One Seems To Know,Well Hello there ,,Wakey. WAKEY
Ehrman didn't have to say anything to prove D'Souza wrong.
Dinesh D'Souza made a fool out of himself.
I think D'Souza made clear points and the agnostic view twisted the scriptures. For example he failed to mention that God was not pleased with the ones advising Job, nor did he explain that he blessed him with twice as much as he had before his affliction, nor did he mention that it was Satan that was challenging Job, not God. God had confidence that Job would uphold him. Free will won out with the faith of Job staying true to God no matter how much the evil demonic realm afflicted him. But no one could take his life. The bigger moral to the story is this - that regardless of what the devil can do to you through his evil in the flesh, no one can take your soul from God's hands and only you control what you will or will not choose to believe. Job's friends had their opinions and they were not of God, but of man's thought processes. Job held to his faith. It is easy to be godless, the strength comes from holding to one's belief in the face of adversity.
No way. I thought dinesh put forward the better argument
I could bet Bart on his death bed will call Jesus. After all he has already proven how a flip-flop weak mind he is.
Interesting that in view of dineshes comments on infidelity , he had to resign as president of King College for that reason and in court his wife told the judge to throw the book at him !
It was a terrible example in multiple ways- if there was this consistent small voice telling men not to have sex with multiple women why so many men with multiple wives in the Bible?? I guess god changes his mind… completely overturns idea of an all powerful/perfect being giving us an unchanging morality
Interesting that Ehrman refers to Ecclesiastes in summation…what he conveniently left out was the WHOLE culminating point of the Ecc. writer: the ultimate conclusion is “Fear God and keep His commandments for this is the whole duty of man.”
Ehrman is a brilliant scholar. He has a mastery of the Bible that I’ve not seen in others, though I believe there are others equally versed (excuse that word, please). And, he has such a supple and orderly mind. Only a master can make something simple. Bart is a master of his subject and he can explain things simply and directly. He is a treasure in the academy.
The Devil has all these qualities
Paul is not mentioned by any secular sources he can't be certain that Paul wrote those letters.
Bart is idiot..no master whatsoever
Bs
@@keithboynton Keep thinking like that and you'll find out!
"There is something within human nature that longs for life to go on." - D'Souza
Of course there is a longing for life to go on, because all we know is exsistence. The idea of "non-existence" is un-desirable. So it is honestly no surprise that human beings with the capability to understand that at some point they will die can imagine a world where there is no death and no suffering.
Its much simpler than that. Organisms that don't instinctually strive to stay alive tend to die before they can pass on the genetic traits for not caring if they stay alive. Thusly, all organisms tend to "long for life to go on" or it simply won't.
Natural selection perfectly explains it too. Dinesh made a lot of silly points in this one. Clearly out of his depth.
"The Secularization of America" by Chuck Colson, U.S.M.C., Founder of the Prison Fellowship, Washington, D.C, was made available to donators of P.F. work 30 years ago. If anything, societal disintegration has only worsened from then until now.
@@Gweidemann
the same chuck colson who went to prison for abetting the nixon whitehouse in the watergate affair. where they trampled the privacy rights of the DNC and individuals serving it, and lied under oath as well as a host of other felonies. Colson became a christian while in the big house. Maybe jeezus will forgive him but I won't.
@@tracyavent-costanza346 Your life of despicable errors, and slandering members of our species past and present, will catch up to you. Be sure your sins will find you out. As the statement goes forth 'as a dog returns to his vomit, so does a fool return to his folly.'
“Easy answers in the face of real suffering are cruel”. I totally agree. “He’s in heaven now” doesn’t ease my pain one bit or provide comfort. It makes me angry. i’m with Bart on this one. It. not OK. my healing actually started when i accepted that there may not be a god to blame fo my pain. life is random and the laws of nature are what they are. A loving god who causes the kind of grief of losing a child/love and stands by in silence when he could have prevented it just causes me more grief anger and disappointment.
He is not in heaven. He is in the grave totally unconscious waiting to see his resurrection. ECCL 9: 4-10
if your truly in pain, why wouldnt u want a loved one being in peace and happinenss at another place?
@@FM-dm8xj Does it matter what I want? I seek truth, proven truth. and Nobody can give me evidence beyond a shadow of doubt of where my child is or where we go after we die. Truth may not be what I want but I’ll take truth over fairy tales.
@@nicholasmburu1198 that is not an arguement.
May be you should atop being materialistic
You should say !
You gave ! You took !
THY NAME be blessed
Tell a child dying of starvation she shouldn't consider God a "cosmic bellboy" when she begs for food. De Souza is a good reason to avoid Christianity.
Dinesh D'Souza is completely out of his league on this one...
We must have been watching a different debate
Bart got beat so bad, he was singing We are the World out of tune in his final remarks
Yo Barts TALKING AS LOUD AS HE CAN tactic is the best he could muster, and Dinesh toyed with him. The militant Atheistism of 2002 to 2013 was crude, arrogant as hell and distastefully immature. They won brownie points with a small minority turning off other atheists who measured there heroes performance by the measure of insults.
Thats not debating that's entertaining a crowd of angry little cheer leaders bent on dissing where there answers are missing.
Have we every found a Hitler Lion King that says Hey" I want to wipe out all the Zebras.
Bart well cats kind of torture mice for hours, for hours on end So I believe Hitler was just a over sized cruel cat
Would have been nice to see how many hands were raised in the bginning
a really enjoyable debate
See why it’s not a good idea for adults to have imaginary friends and gods? Mental illness has a source.
It's astounding, and scary.
Yet now... when most people today are atheist and agnostic... there is even more Mental Illness then before...
You re tar d’s need to go back to church honestly.
Old video, but still... Ehrman's rebuttal from 40:00 is one of the most emotional and touching explanations of theodicy and pleas for humanity ever.
I didn't really like his debate tactics how he constantly used scripture to make his points. I enjoy much more so the logical, "not from authority" approach that dinesh uses
@@jeremysquires4472 the debate is about the god of christianity, of course he uses the bible. i know christians hate bringing that old thing up they claim to stand by.
@@smitty1647 ouch!
Really? Spoken like a true atheist
Dinesh 'mopped the floor' with Bart's balding head.
@@comanche66100 Now this convinced me.
I love it how D'Souza brings uo twice the example of infidelity and claims that thanks to god he is not cheating on his wife, but the debate is old, because in 2014 he did cheat on his wife and god's laws didn't stop him.
I Dream Of Logic,
And that relates to this discussion other than you are petty?
@@davidreinhart2508 That christians do not actually believe what they preach.
ApaX1981,
No human believes totally in any cause. But we believe enough in a cause to decide to pursue it. And like all humans, our strength of belief fluctuates up and down depending what stage along the path we are. The fact that you would say that Christian don’t believe in what they preach tells me you have a ways to go in your travels through life to get to this understanding.
I was an atheist and I have always been big into science and math. I BELIEVED lock stock and barrel into the THEORY of evolution. Until i discovered how complex our world and beyond is and how interwoven all of its systems are. And without this complexity all woven together in concert it would all fall apart and earths eco system would be dust just like the moon or mars, etc. My belief in the laws of probability tell me that the chances of this complex world coming together then evolving and staying in tune to sustain all the simultaneous systems in place through a series of accidents called evolution is astronomically less probable than what a Christian believes in. Mathematically it makes far more sense in believing our world and universe was created rather than accidentally formed then maintained.
Science still still can’t recreate how life started and still cannot explain where the matter needed to even cause and form the Big Bang came from. And the more scientist find discover they are getting closer to realizing that this world and was created. And before you bring into your thoughts that aliens created us ask your self where did the aliens come from.
So to finish with your thought that we Christians believe in what we preach, your right. Because it is impossible for any human to completely practice what we preach. But we try. And we try. And we try. And we get better and better and better. And the main thing thing we try and get better at is believing and loving our fellow man/women as we would love ourselves.
God sent his son to earth to die for all of our failures to practice what we believe. Because He know we can’t. But he has asked us to try knowing that we will get better and better at it. Even all the while others are trying to convince us we are wrong.
Try it. You will then begin to understand why and how I believe in what I believe but don’t always practice it.
@@davidreinhart2508 i have tried. The more i try the more silly it gets.
@toklaut and another Jesus can helphim do anything....I guess.
"Millions long for immortality....who get bored on a rainy day" (unknown)
I respect both of these guys, and I think both sides made some good points, but I think Dinesh comes off better here...
It's strange. At one point Ehrman states that we ought to use our intellect to address the question of suffering in the world, and later he accuses Dinesh of "intellectualizing the problem."
Personally, I'm agnostic, but I've never found the problem of suffering to be the issue which stands in the way of faith.
You ever suffer?
@@tesmith47 of course.
We often hear of a gang of thieves plotting to rob and murder a man, and laying a plan to entice him out that they may execute their design, and we always feel shocked at the wickedness of such wretches; but what must we think of a book that describes the Almighty acting in the same manner, and laying plans in heaven to entrap and ruin mankind? Our ideas of His justice and goodness forbid us to believe such stories, and therefore we say that a lying spirit has been in the mouth of the writers of the books of the Bible.
-Thomas Paine
agreed. the christian apologists with their revisionist-version of US history, tend to summarily ignore the well-documented statements of vocal atheists including Paine and Franklin and deists like Jefferson.
They were NOT "christians" at least in the current definition thereof, and some were quite defiant of such political pandering.
God plans the murder of our faults that prevent us from re entering paradise. Paradise is perfection. Faults such as revenge keep us out. Paine is the son of satan who says that instant satisfaction comes with revenge where forgiveness is quite difficult but it's rewards are eventual perfect happiness. I was blown away by the 2 black ladies who said we forgive you to the creep that had just killed several of their church members.
Absolute Idiocy, either you are 10 years old, or a troll. And you used a Islamic first name and paired it with a Hindi last name.
@@davidwadsworth8982
there are quite a lot of people in india and probably also some in pakistan who have both hindu and moslem family lineage.
I also come from a mixed family; my dad was apparently some kind of republican and my mom was a registered democrat.
@@mysticwine
great, so maybe you can explain why god (supposedly a brilliant creator, see...) creates "paradise" but does not apparently but her own creations in it.
Instead she creates a profoundly inferior place and her humans (supposedly made in her own image) are placed there.
She designs them to be inherently flawed, then judges them for not "earning" a place in this ideal environment, by behaving as they were created.
What possible purpose could this serve.
For extra credit: why would she expect to be eternally praised for that, if the purpose is not explained.
D'souza is a christian magician. He gives clever answers in the moment that dazzle the uncritical mind. When you make it your life's mission to reconcile the irreconcilable, to rationalize the irrational, and make reasonable the unreasonable, you become good at it. He has mastered his craft, in that respect. However, his arguments fall apart under critical analysis. Same old arguments repackaged. Clever, yes. Convincing, NO. You can be very intelligent and still suck @ following where truth leads. Having a preconceived worldview primarily based on revealed truth, divine authority, and threat of eternal punishment has a way of not letting honest inquiry run too rampant.
Nailed it.
Lots of hard work goes into these delusions
“Dazzles the uncritical mind”, perfect description of what a sophist does
@@fireinthebrain Dinesh: "There are miracles in the bible, but only done for spiritual purpose." So I guess changing water into wine and the everlasting bread and fish are strictly religious purposes? Yeah I don't buy that. Dinesh does a reasonable job for someone attempting to twist and conform all facts and supposition around his faith in something he has zero proof exists. He can point to various things and say they are evidence, but that's not the same as proof.
I don't find the man compelling on this or any other topic I've heard him talk about. He's a conservative. I saw him years ago in a debate with a Black woman. The issue was affirmative action and he argued that the biggest benefactors were white women. When the woman agreed, he shot back, 'Then why do you support it?' He has the mind of a child.
how do you know that you are doing enough to alleviate suffering? how many homeless have you invited into your home?
what are you willing to sacrifice and suffer to help another? are you good, moral, enough?
D'Souza's last question to Ehrman misses the point of Bart's argument entirely. Dinesh's question revolves around the relief of survivor's suffering, when the actual thrust of the original argument speaks to the suffering of the actual victims. This is a huge difference.
I totally beg to differ because I really believe that the reason for suffering on Earth is for the fact that man does not know God and because man does not know God because man has free will this is also for the evil in the world notice that evil is also in the world and suffering is in the world also because if God was in the world with us there would be no suffering but man chooses to have a world without God hence why the suffering and this is what's the atheist fails to recognize the atheist says he doesn't even know there is a God and that's quite arrogant for you to live a life eat a man's food enjoy all the multifacets of life but you don't even know if the guy exist and the reason why you don't know is because you don't want to know and you don't ask the question and then you rather blame him for all the choices that you make and those causes of suffering in the world. First of all who causes most of the suffering in the world? Man! How can man blame God because God doesn't stop him from harming other people? People starve because of wars and people who controlled regions of land. Kids start because man neglects those kids. As the Indian guy was saying it's Christian folk who give more than any atheist so atheist really doesn't care about suffering else he would do something to alleviate the suffering. An atheist only cares about himself it's like the atheist philosopher Thomas Hobb says man are inherently evil and selfish. So mankind is a selfish evil entity if you want to call it and this causes suffering in the world because we can all help each other but we don't. It's the Christian that has to be reminded by his faith that God gave His only begotten son and so we learn to give as a result.
@T And Me Nor can you prove He isn't there, and you have no alternate explanation for existence that can be proven.
@@albertdepeal9658 As Denish already admitted, it is not our burden of proof to show that he is NOT there, it is on you to show that he IS. Science has already offered your alternative.
@@Eric_01 So where's the proof of the alternative explanation? I take it you're referring to materialistic evolution which genetic science shows is, at best, highly improbable. Which is why I indicated it cannot be proven.
@@albertdepeal9658 Seriously? Where's the proof of scientific research and discovery? It won't be found up your ass, which is where your head is. You are clearly an imbecile and I'm not wasting my time with you.
And by the way, torture is infliction of severe pain, not the “playful tossing about with death by bayonet possible”. In fact, tortured people will beg for death after so much “tossing about” as Dinesh calls it.
I do wonder how many such tortures that Dinesh has observed while calmly taking notes for later trend-analysis.
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
Malevolent to who?? The Nazi praying to killing the all Jews or to the Jew being killed in the gas chamber? Its subjective and not objective because if the purpose of the life on Earth is to only exist in a brief time on Earth then sure it could be malevolent, but that is not the ultimate purpose of life on Earth in the Christian belief.
@@hross1991 The post had nothing to say about prayer; it referenced evil. Do you have any difficulty in seeing where the evil lay in the Holocaust? It seems that God could have figured that one out as well.
God is great! Please seek him and come to peace with having a ever lasting and loving life.
Dude, the bible promises that 100 billion humans will suffer in an Egyptian style lake of fire for eternity for the simple fact of never having heard about Jesus. ;-)
@@schmetterling4477 Sounds fair to me.
@@janglandis773 You will be one of them. ;-)
@@schmetterling4477 I was being sarcastic. People burning in a lake of fire because they never heard of Jesus is a cruel and unjust punishment.
@@janglandis773 Is it? :-)
D'Souza argues that criticism of God is invalid because we are judging God from a limited, human perspective in which we are not in possession of all the relevant facts. If we're in no position to judge God as Bad, then we're also in no position to judge God as Good for the exact same reason. One day Christians will realize this.
Gordon college should be commended for allowing these 2 men to speak to each other without interruption.
Ha, Dec 25 , 2021, and look now after 6 years of the spiraling down of humanity.
@@davebonar1 what “spiraling down” do you mean? That of the abuse of religion by the right wing? Those that have forgotten what Christ Himself said needed to be done to gain entry to heaven?
Did you feed the hungry and provide water to
Those that are thirsty?
Did you help the immigrant and give a place to stay to those without ?
Did you visit people in Hospitals and prisons?
These were HIS requirements to enter heaven.
If we’ve strayed it is certainly from these words in the Bible said by Christ Himself, do you agree?
Pain is a signal that something is wrong. To me it works in all walks of life.
Pain is felt to say you're alive.
Why should be anything wrong?
@@danamoldovan9135 because you stepped on a Lego
If God created everything, couldn't he give another signal that something is wrong? Something that doesn't include suffering and pain?
I agree.
You will reap what you sew. This applies on a national or city wide level at times and also on a personal level often. This explains the "problem" of evil which is a tutor of what NOT to do and who to run to.
christians claim a god who is all powerful, all knowing, and all loving, yet there is abject pointless misery in this world (for instance babies being born with bone cancer which causes a slow agonizing death). the problem of evil is the fact that the world we observe contradicts the supposed attributes of god
I was raised in MBTS and worked at Gordon College many years ago. I look back now that my walk with the Lord Jesus Christ is solid, and I don’t believe Gordon College is truly a Christian school.
I really appreciate Dinesh's description of the difference between knowledge and belief. As a believer I accept that I cannot have full knowledge of all things. We believe that in our present condition, born into this world, according to the flesh and while we are still in the here and now; the full knowledge of God cannot be apprehended. There is much about God we can comprehend in the here and now. The scriptures speak of the unsearchable riches and knowledge of God.
"Such knowledge is too wonderful for me! It is high. I cannot attain it." Psalm 139.
This is a standard Christianity 101 answer. With a scripture thrown in. Funny, the most important Book we should know, is something that we will never know. This is why their are so many different Christian cults, reading the same few scriptures, which totally change, dependent on whose interpreting them. A On top of which they love telling other people they are going to "go to hell." Their fear tactics ruin lives, especially a child who is exposed to this lie. Let's not forget the countless versions of the Bible. The Countless changing of the Bible & it all boils down to one thing. I don't know what the hell I'm talking about.
@@kimberlyjohnson7409 neither did the people that wrote that book.
Dinesh is a conman & criminal & is literally against everything Christ taught us & is everything Christ was against. You are a FOOL if you think Dinesh is right about ANYTHING. I’ll pray for you.
I challenge dinesh to debate with a hindu vedantin. He will run off pooping all the way.
Dinesh reveals his immaturity when he offers his belief that providing a platitude such as "in the afterlife we will be reunited w/ a loved one" or "its part of God's plan" can assuage someone's pain or circumvent the grieving process that blossoms when one experiences the pure despair that only an untimely loss can create.... I'm not claiming to know what occurs & I'm not speaking of the grief that timely loss brings, such as the death of a parent or sibling or the stress that unfolds in the normal course of life that can sometimes be devastating, being displaced, rendered temporarily homeless & losing all ones worldly possessions in a fire would be an extreme example. I'm speaking of the sudden senseless loss of a child or spouse, the news that you or a loved one has been diagnosed w/ a terminal illness and will suffer horribly before dying anyways. No silver lining, true or untrue, can not and frankly should not salve that type of deep mental & emotional trauma. Its a process that takes time & patience & it can sometimes be frustrating for people to constantly validate that suffering by emphasizing w/ the person in grief. And that brings us to a very real issue that these platitudes are offered b/c the person offering the easy way out of grief are more often uncomfortable with the emotional exchange and are themselves aggravated with a person who" needs to move on with life!" You can not offer something b/c it's convenient and if we want to experience the extreme joys of life we must suffer through the sadness and that bargain also works with relationships. If we want truly valuable relationships then we must allow people to cry on our shoulder & grieve w/o offering a platitude such as you will meet again in heaven even if we do happen to believe it's true & maybe it is, but I can tell you from personal experience it doesn't make losing some you love before their time hurt any less... I'd much rather have a hug and genuine concern......
I understand your pain Thomas Donnelly and I am truly sorry for you. I have lost loved ones in my life as well, some suddenly, some not. I also understand how you could harbor anger towards someone like Mr D'Souza who so plainly speaks of life after death and seems to disregard the pain that the loss of a loved one can bring. I feel that this is misguided and a case of misunderstanding. While I believe he surely could be more sympathetic to someone who is grieving. I too understand the peace that knowing you will see that loved one again, can bring. I understand that me saying sorry is of no concequence and offers no real consolation. Though, I truly pray that you can find the peace that God can bring to you. The promise of existence after death as well as being with our loved ones again. I pray that God works in your life and brings you close to Him, taking away your pain and bringing acceptance and joy that your loved ones will never again experience pain or suffering. I do not claim to know everything, hardly do I even claim to know anything. Though I hope to enjoy the experience of learning forever and I pray that I will get to share in the Joy of you and everyone else who finds peace in our Lords plan. I hope that you will listen to this words that I write to you as I have no alterior motive. It does not benefit me in any way as I am sure you would agree. I though am a follower of Christ and his love cannot be contained in me, it must be shared. As this is the life of a true Christian, the betterment of the lives of others. I want to leave you to reflect on these two verses
Proverbs 9:10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.
Matthew 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
The choice should not be made lightly. One offers life eternal, the other eternal damnation. Don't be fooled. The choice is in your mind and thus your actions. May God be with you and comfort you.
Devin Van Mersbergen I'm very happy that you admitted your conclusions were based on "feelings" and not any imperical evidence. First, I'm not in any emotional pain at the moment, although I have certainly experienced loss and will again as all humans do. Second, I reread my post several times b/c I'm certainly prone to mistakes & writing can be very subjective, but I can't figure out how you concluded that I was angry or harbored any anger towards Dinesh. I enjoy Dinesh even if I do believe his thinking is immature, but that is common for us all in our pre 45 lives. Third, you actually demonstrated my point, although your remarks may have been sincere, you weren't able to offer sympathy without offering your belief system in conjunction and that was my entire point. The stories in the Koran are identical to the bible, imagine if you were grieving the loss of a loved one and a person approached you and offered condolences with the addendum that your pain could be dampened if you left behind your childish Christian beliefs, that btw, you only possess b/c as a child you were exposed to them by the adults in your community and now is your chance to accept Allah & his one true messenger? Would you feel his condolences were sincere? Or replace that guy w/ an atheist in the same scenario. "I'm so sorry for your loss but here is your opportunity to act like an adult and investigate your childish belief system that there is an afterlife and realize that just like Islam, Christianity stole everything in the bible from earlier faiths and these stories have historically been used to control illiterate, agrarian peasant communities and if it weren't for the emporer of Rome calling the council of Niceea to codify the modern bible no one would even know about Christianity to today, it's time to grow up." Would that make you feel as though that person really cares, they came to their beliefs as honestly as you apparently did, or would you feel as though they took an unsolicited opportunity to validate their own beliefs system in the midst of their own grief? And that was my main point, are you making it about them or you? And in my humble opinion, offering sympathy, a hug, is there anything I can do for you? And then actually following up that offer with some tangible help is making it about the person in need, that was my point. And finally, since you quoted the bible, you can't read into it, you must read out of it and there is a big difference, you don't pick & choose passages and fit them into a context, if you are biblical Christian then you must follow it 100%, Jesus owned no property, did not engage in premarital sex, you must forgo all worldly possessions live by that example. There are many concrete injunctions and you must follow every last one or you can not claim that book. Strict diet, no shell fish or pork for example, no blended fabrics, blasphemy is punishable by death, no divorce, no masturbation, no shaving if you are a man, must be circumcised, if married, the wife must live away from the family during menstruation, judging or gossiping commits you to Hell- that's in Matthew, you must hold no grudges and forgive everyone, especially the people that hurt you the most.... I hope I was more clear this time, I'm not a an atheist either, if you really care about the suffering of others sincerely offer sympathy then quietly demonstrate your veracity by doing something for that person, believe me doing goes a lot further than talking and the example you set will attract people and then they will ASK about your faith, then you can share it.... doing a drive by preaching while someone is vulnerable only sew the seeds of discontent.....
Wait, so this wall of text boils down to your being offended by the WAY someone might be trying to console you after losing someone you loved? So because they put their arm around you and say, "You'll see her on the other side," that person, in your eyes, is climbing atop some high horse? Tell me you're fucking kidding. Maybe they truly believe that, and are absolutely sincere, with no theological motivation whatsoever; it's just a heartfelt, human-to-human sentiment. And since you admitted that you don't even know whether the afterlife is true one way or the other, how could you have any objection to it? You would take issue with a person offering genuine compassion to you, because you opt to see things in a political light. That's some sorry shit.
Black Death 1347 sorry about the long post. I'm not referring to what you described. Obviously heartfelt sentiment is always welcome & appreciated. I was referring to an occasion where someone takes advantage of a tragedy to propagate their personal beliefs- whatever they might be - and basically make it all about themselves, unfortunately I experienced this recently and Dinesh's comments touched a nerve. B/c I chose not to give details all that text can be subjective and/or ambiguous & I apologize for that....
Thomas, I see how you could see this as me taking an opportunity to preach at you. This is misunderstood. Wether or not someone could use this type of circumstance to fence a religion is neither here nor there as I truly did intend heartfelt sentiment. What you said however, was very well thought out and it truly made me rethink my approach next time the opportunity is presented to attempt to console someone. You don't have to believe me and honestly it makes no difference to me either way, though I only intended to present an opportunity for contemplation. While I will agree that Christianity and Islam both share many similarities, it is the differences that are important. True Christianity never preaches the hating of anyone other than satan and his followers. The same cannot be said for Islam and further, is responsible for the numerous deaths of its own people.
Awesome debate…very mature 🤝
Wow! Dr. Ehrman! Incredible interesting and full of passion and the idea that we are responsible for figuring this out together. Hmmm perhaps the Spirit/Energy of Us All together is It. Can we KNOW?! 🤷🏼♀️
Sometimes I forget how truly inadequate Christian responses are to the problem of evil.
right out of the gate Deshoesa claims Might makes right.
I have never understood the argument that the existence of evil is a problem. If God believes in progress, agency must be preeminent. If there is good, there must be evil. If there is right, then there must be wrong. So why would the consequences of ones agency, both good and evil be so confusing to those desperate to eliminate God?
@@donquijote6030 if god is all powerful, then he must also be all weak.
@@FoamySlobbers - Why would he be all weak if he were all powerful? Perhaps you are referring to merciful.
@@donquijote6030 your answer is in the question. can god make a rock so big he can't pick up?
I am so glad I found this debate. I really enjoyed the spirited give and take from both gentlemen. Well done - Thank you both !
do u read quran paul
Imagine, as your explanation for suffering, resorting to the answer "Well god let's it happens, but we cannot comprehend his reasons for allowing suffering, so it must have a purpose we're too dumb to understand". How utterly childish, feeble and cowardly.
Absolutely everyone suffers, however ones suffering is no suffering for others. And suffering is subjectively to oneself and there is no scale to measure the degrees of suffering. Hence all the verses quoted by 'Err'man can all be true at the same time.
"Something is not nothing!!!" So simple and brilliant and Dinesh still could not get it.
Do you believed there is nothing??? you will going to be very surprise after you die. You will guaranty that
BRYAN351 You can assume that but I will assume Dinesh does not get it. I hope we agree only Dinesh can set us straight on his actual thoughts.
sonia Mendez
"Do you believed there is nothing???" Until someone provides proof there is actually something else then yep!!! "you will going to be very surprise after you die." Do you have prove of that??? I imagine not!!! When you say something of real value we can have a real discussion
Brilliant? Hahahha
yet other apologist figures such as John Lennox and William Lane Craig, DO make that "something from nothing" argument repeatedly and oddly no one seems to call them on it, not even Bart himself so far as I have observed in their various debates. SOMETHING does not come from NOTHING. The big bang was a SINGULARITY not an absence of matter.
Dinesh learned that burden of proof bit from being Hitchslapped multiple times
yet does not appear to have recalled those lessons, or just not have learned anything from them.
He won both debates against Hitchens. Facts vs Statements. This debate was no exception.
george cobaleanu
You’re a fucking moron if you believe that.
Christopher Hitchens said about Dinesha "as very well matched as we are,...", In regards to debating him. Christopher Hitchens felt Dinesha could go toe to toe with him and was his equal.
@@oldscorp I've watched one of the Hitchens/Dsouza debates, and Dinesh won the substance of the debate. Hitchens won the aesthetic presentation as he always does, the weak minds get all giddy over it
Thanks for posting 👌🙏🏽🤩💐
I once was a born again Christian, Having suffered for much longer than Job ever did! For the past 15 years with M.E./CFS with no end in sight( debilitating flu like fatigue, all sorts of debilitating pain,forced to be lying down 80% of the time) (Lost friends, No Job or purpose,No money, No children, No hobbies, No exercise, the list goes on)this gives you perspective that only those who have suffered can have. I only recently stopped getting on my knees every night beging god for Healing and for
Spiritual help and reassurance that he is with me. I didn't get either prayer answered. Prior to my illness i would have trivialised and justified other people's suffering just like Dinesh does. But Dinesh is like the Ant that doesn't understand and I'm like someone floating in sky above him with a greater perspective 🤔
Love a good debate and both of these men do an amazing job. Would love to see a debate on Hell and the Devil, which were probably just metaphors of Jesus, just as we use them. Paganism was loaded with a belief in an god or gods of the underworld but Constantine decided it was good for a belief in hell and the devil to be included in his version of Christianity.
FWIW I do not buy the popular notion that "constantine" actually directly developed any of what is considered post-nicean-ideology. Rather I think as a consummate politician, he just positioned himself above the ideological prattle and allowed his bishops to hash out the details. Including the murders of apostate bishops and other factional leaders such as the Arians and Coptics and neo-Judaists. Which trend of course eventually materialized as very rigid anti-semitism and outright murder of pagans.
If you have ever had a wet fart in public then you will prove to yourself that there is no intelligent designer
@@drmontague6475 - An accident in, of, with, or by the designed does in no way negate the existence of the designer. Translation: the fact that a car is driven into a barrier in no way suggests that it's existence is an accident of nature.
@@dalehollins5744
but how is it that the fallible nature of humans, despite being supposedly made such by a "perfect" creator, is then somehow license for that creator to judge us and find us inadequate.
It is his own fault we are as he supposedly made us.
Or was that just an accident too.
@@michaeleggiman-ketter7080
"no" about what? I cannot find the context for your supposed response. are you sure it was even related to something I said?
Dinesh D'Souza starts this debate off badly with his who-are-we-to-question-god crap and then moves on to use the ol' Christian chestnut in saying we are like ants to god. His debating skills are sub-par overall, I would much rather listen to fundie William Lane Craig. At least his arguments are wrong but well thought out.
Ehrman more adequately used the Bible to explain suffering(which doesn`t do a good job of explaining suffering) but Hitchens and Harris have summarized the evils of religion more profoundly. Ehrman clearly wins this debate though.
hahahaha!
Hastein45 he just looked up the regularly trafficked “talking points” that are thrown around in churches all over the place. Just a pathetically inadequate attempt at real debate. His ideas just so easily refuted by your average 6th grader.
Your comment is retarded. Dinesh wiped the floor with that guy.
48:00 - 49:00
So if there’s no evil in heaven, good will have no meaning D’Souza
The good we know will not have meaning
and it never did.💀
@@ignipotent7276 like your post?
🤡
Thx. alot f. posting. I enjoy both Experts point of views. God is great. Mankind greatful to God. All we need is God. Thank God 😘
a lot. two words. count them.
Dinesh's answer is submission: Eternal slavery to an unseen force. Orwell understood this as bullshit and he was right.
Buster,
The definition of a slave is someone held against their will and forced to work for for the benefit of someone else without compensation. Jesus forces no one to do anything against their will. It’s your choice. I can reject Christianity anytime I want. I choose Christianity because I recognized a long time ago that what the Bible teaches is about how to love others as you would want them to love yourself. Humans by themselves cannot do this. We all fail at this; non Christians as well as Christians. The Bible is a guide to help. You may not agree and that’s your choice. But I invite you to explore if that interests you.
@@davidreinhart2508 What a bunch of lies!!?? There are very many atheists who love others, participate in philanthropy etc and are not dependent on the bible for this. An there you said that humans aren't capable by themselves.
So slavery to sin is better than service to God?
I don't think I've ever said this before, even as an atheist watching countless debates - but I'm 1 hour in and I think Dinesh De Souza so far, is either flatly wrong or fallacious in virtually everything he's said.
I was going to address some of them, but the further I go into the video, I realized that I'd be addressing almost everything!
In every aspect of his life and thinking, politically and otherwise. Flat wrong, always was.
I have watched this video multiple times. I learn something new each time. This is a deep and interesting debate. Dinesh did a fantastic job.
@@AlanWinterboy might not be the best at a theological debate....but please.....prove him wrong on his big lie explanation about the democrat party. I'll wait. I haven't heard anyone actually address and prove his points wrong.
@@Biggiiful There's no way for me to prove your guy wrong, even if I could figure out which of his big lies is the one you're referring to. Just an FYI: I'm not a Democrat who dislikes him for attacking 'my' party. I'm a registered independent who thinks there are big problems with both political parties (though one of them is closer to average American values and ideals than the other). But D'Souza, like his classmate Ann Coulter, has made his millions oversimplifying and distorting the everyday record, and demonizing and character-sliming whole groups of people. He divides the country and feeds negativity to the disgruntled, but then professes to follow Christ. He's a charlatan, no matter what he's debating.
I am a Christian, but I feel like he pivots the mirror just to refute a point over and over, but the end result is not an elegant model, just a series of facets.
Dinesh: we evolved morality. We can even see it in non-human animals. Living in tribes made it imperative we treated others well lest we be murdered in turn.
I lost a son in a car accident, he was 20, and when people, friends and the priest told me he was in a better place it got me angry, that did not console me! I don't care if he was in any place besides on this earth with me! So no, a dead loved one is in a better place does not fix anything!
Dinesh should really learn more about evolution and how selection works.
Evolution is false. Our modern society is direct proof of that. If evolution were real, not only would there be physical evidence EVERYWHERE, but homosexuality, and the entire LGBT movement would have been bred out of our genealogy centuries ago. The rise of the LGBT community is itself, evidence that evolution is false.
It seems you are the one who needs to better understand how evolution WOULD work, if it were real.
@@jeremiah6462 Oh, about homosexuality. Do you know that homosexuality is widespread in wild animals? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals
Dinesh does not strike me as one inclined to "learn new things" unless somehow they might serve his political aspirations. This given that the pool he swims in, which flows factually "conservative" and in that pool it is fashionable to hold contempt for education as "elitist", I am not going to hold my breath for Dinesh to exhibit evidence of new insights. Rather I fully expect him to continue to parrot the populist conservative line, since that is what plays well with his party's political base.
@@jeremiah6462 even among conservatives, there are rather bright people and some who are profoundly feeble minded. Evolution is a GRADUAL process, not an instantaneous one. If you expect dramatic special effects, I suggest you watch the Ten Commandments which feature the NRA president parting the red sea. This he seems to oddly do WITHOUT the benefit of a concealed-carry card, so it does require a certain suspension of dis-belief.
@@SurenEnfiajyan some animals eat their own babies and some females even eat the male after reproduction
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider_cannibalism
Does that make it right? Your argument that acts of homosexuality is right because animals do it kind of backfires because then you should have no problem with human cannibalism or female humans eating their spouse after having sex. Afterall, the animal kingdom does it. That's why humans are different than the animals. We have the cognitive capacity to determine what is right and wrong while other animals do not.
no, mr d’souza, plate tectonics do NOT separate dry land from oceans. the reason that there are no tectonics on stars (or the sun, for that matter) is that they are composed of hydrogen gas at huge temperatures (plasma) and not solid land
perhaps trump can pardon you of simpleton ignorance as well
Wow Chris is so smart
I bet even trump can't stand this tool
lately it comes out that tectonics are active on mars and venus and possibly even the moon, which hetertofore was thought to have a solid core.
This battle of theology is not over and is not going well for the christian apologists.
@XICODECOPA
yeshua had no authority to give the slave his freedom. he was, according to the story, owned by a roman citizen. yeshua was not a roman citizen nor did he own the slave.
freeing the slave would have been totally up to the roman. that was the law at the time.
What an idiot d'Souza is. Using simple metaphors to support his view is infantile in a debate at this level unless you aspire to be a prophet of the ignorant.
Without the possibility of forgiveness in some future existence, people would live better lives in this life.
If we could alleviate suffering, we wouldn't need salvation. The best we can do in this world is under the Old Law, that is to not add to the suffering if possible. The Old Law of "thou shalt not", is a law of NOT adding to suffering by allowing our lusts to bear fruit in works. But a true end to suffering can only be had under the New Law which ends the carnal life and begins a new, Spiritual life. As such, we cease adding to suffering and bring forth fruit in a Spiritual world instead. The end of this labor has not yet come, the Kingdom is within us individually and we labor for the harvest which will bring the kingdom to earth. This will end suffering forever, but it will also end grace and our ability to choose the free gift of salvation. For this reason, God waits. The suffering you hate, again, is extended in time for your sake. The tragedy of a suffering child dying inheriting eternal bliss is not so tragic to God as the bohemian partier who dies in his sin and receives the consequences of it for eternity. But again, you see the tragedy as missing the pleasures of iniquity, you are backwards.
This was a very good spirited debate... I appreciate Ehrman highlighting the intense suffering too many of us have to endure. There are many things in this life that do not make good sense. The Psalmist and other biblical writers had their questions as well. But I do not think that the presence of suffering and evil logically rules out a good, loving and all-powerful God. Christians, in particular, worship the God who entered into our suffering in a very real way... the God who stands with us in the fight against evil and suffering, and the God who will bring it all to an end one day. That, at least, is a hopeful thing. There are too many personal stories from people who have found inner strength from these teachings in face to face confrontation with both evil and suffering, to say it is not consoling in any way, as Ehrman suggests. Perhaps some of his passion comes as "pushback" against those who don't read or feel or experience the pain of others deeply enough, and try to give simple answers to complex mysteries. There is a large question that looms over every debate on evil and suffering - and that is the question, "Why is there so much good?" Ehrman is correct to close his argument calling us to enjoy the life we've been given, enjoy all the good things around us. "From whence cometh these good things?" That is as large a question as why there is evil and suffering in this world. I really think the great concern for evil and suffering in the world, is always played out against the background of the expectation of only good and pleasure in the world. What is the source of this good - and why do we expect only good? I think the Christian worldview gives the best answer, but not an exhaustive answer... only the best one.... and holds out the best hope for us all. Even if agnostics and atheists don't believe the Christian teaching about the end of suffering and evil is true, they should at least hope it is.... It does console the believer....
God's 12 Biggest Dick Moves in the Old Testament
I do find it amusing when I hear someone ask, "How can an unbeliever know what right and wrong are?" but then turn around and start to explain the reasoning of moral laws based on consequences (such as deceit, theft, murder...). I get the question seems daunting. But really? Reformed folks I know give solid reasoning behind moral stances all the time. The issue goes along with why I'm annoyed with people who say moral law can't come about by natural selection. Are you kidding? If the world is set up a particular way, that means there is an optimal way to approach it. The people who live in a way that fits that optimal way will survive in the long run. Bam, done, easy. Even believer tend to think that God granted us that knowledge of the natural world through the OT law, so that isn't even a secular understanding of morality.
The better question is usually, "Why do we have an inkling to what we OUGHT to do that collides with what we WANT to do?"
Also, 1:27:35 actually goes really well with Deuteronomy 21:18-21.
You seem to have confused ethics and moarls.
Morality requires a higher authority. Otherwise someone thinking murder is ok is equally valid on a moral level.
Your argument of morality being the "optimal way" provided by systematic evolution is absurd. It is by far one of the biggest hurdles to optimum effectiveness we have as a species.
Ethics are the systematic rules for fair free market interaction. They are optimized for effectiveness ONLY in a free market setting.
A setting that is the best for people with a unified and higher moral code.
@@jacobnash7127 Which just goes to show how irrelevant morals are. Ethics, on the other hand ...
Fault in argument is people need hope and something bigger than selves. That is how people survive epic odds. They have a will to live because live to a higher meaning.
@@jackfrosty4674 Best I can say is... I don't, it's absolutely not a given. Why would you need to have a higher power for a purpose, or just life.
@Gods love Agape Exactly, the purpose of life IS absurd because there is none. We technically should NOT exist but there is always the possibility of life forming.
55:55 a coin is not punished for being turned into the dirt; but the man who put the coin there is punished.
As per experience. Suffering isnt a punishment for the sinners nor be rewarded if you're good and bore it righteously. You just either survive it or you don't, sinner or not.
This was a really good debate, though I do think there was a little bit of a wrench in the works when D'Souza brought up the topic of consolation - whether faith helps people or not.
That topic is problematic because consolation is relative. Does the Bible & its presentation of God SUCCEED at providing a great solution and consolation to people who experience or witness suffering? Yes, for many people. Does the Bible & its presentation of God FAIL at providing a great solution and consolation to people who experience or witness suffering? Yes, for many people.
But that's not the topic at hand, the topic was about whether the Bible & its presentation of God accurately lines up with how the world works. Ehrman himself said that he is not trying to rip people away from their faith, he simply wants people to find an understanding or framework that lines up with reality.
Say a chair is missing two legs and you intend to sit on it, fully confident it will hold you up. I tell you the chair will not hold you up. I'm not saying you are not confident the chair will hold you up - obviously you are confident in the chair. I'm saying that it won't hold you up, no matter how confident you are in it. That's what Ehrman is trying to accomplish with the biblical presentation of why suffering exists. Up to you whether there really is a leg missing or not.
Well said 👍
"That topic is problematic because consolation is relative"
Sure it's "relative" but the data still matters. According to NCBI belief in the afterlife helps people with the anguish of having a loved one pass away.
"But that's not the topic at hand, the topic was about whether the Bible & its presentation of God accurately lines up with how the world works."
You might want to read the title of the vid chief.
How does someone like Dinesh D'Souza become a standard-bearer for Christian theology? His opening gambit: Who are we to question the architecture of the universe? How are we qualified to 'second-guess' the blueprint of the universe?
That's also the point of the author of Job !
It’s obvious who won this debate here. For Christianity to survive into the future these critical and important questions must be thoroughly answered with equal or greater logic/reasoning. To answer these questions we must approach the questions with empathy without judgment, or they will never be answered in a exemplary and justifiable way.
The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it’s comprehensible. -Albert Einstein
I think this says a lot about this debate. We understand the laws in this lawful universe. But we don’t understand the lawmaker. Einstein was astounded that these laws existed and that they are rigid. String theory has this at the core of its strongest weakness and that is that it shows a glimpse as to how many different universes are possible. In other words string theory doesn’t constrain our universal laws but predicts any set of laws.
String theory is on its way out.
@@TruthDissident I think it should be, it fails to be predictive because we can basically make it do whatever we want. in the 90's you couldn't get a professorship unless you were studying string theory. so if you were a quantum gravity guy you basically had to do that in secret.
@@rayrocha4189 Completely agree, Ray.
Gotta love when Christians argue both that this "brief second" of suffering is so insignificant in the grand scheme of eternity as to not matter, yet it's that exact same "brief second" that is so fundamentally important as to determine how you will spend the rest of eternity.
That's how you know the argument is "frais du taureau" as they say in France. 😀
@Caller ID I'm not sure why you'd brag about misrepresenting someone else's position. Sounds like you're someone that thinks they make a lot of good points.
@@Theprofessorator Ribbit, la Frog!
Only thing the French know is running away, soiling themselves, and surrendering their women to better men
Oui, oui!
It means that your time on earth is finite, but you are here to exercise your free will, which in turn determines your state in the eternal realm. You don’t have to believe that, but whatever you believe, being wrong on that issue is no small matter…
@@bkfitnessandcombatives8658 thank you for breaking down for me what I already stated, like you're telling me something I didn't already know. I like how you ever threw the patronizing bit at the end there like you were correcting something I'd said.
I know you guys can't read, that's evident in your Biblical Literacy scores, but you don't have to be a dick about being illiterate too.
35:20 If things were different, things would be different.
there should be A WORD (maybe there is and I just don't know it) for "creating a hypothetical world, where just ONE variable is changed from the one we know, in order to make you right" as an argument tactic. It seems a lot of humans do this, and even in HYPOTHETICAL cases, variables would interact. You would not have JUST ONE thing different.
So if evil can only be done by human agent, that logic implies satan isn’t evil. 27:48
how much suffering is "just the right amount", it strikes me that there might be a fruit that we haven't discovered that will be the nicest, juiciest, most beneficial fruit, but we just don't know about it, likewise is there a pain or a pleasure we haven't discovered yet that would be the most painful or the most pleasurable? the problem of suffering is that it kind of implies i need to be shot in the head so i can benefit from the experience, is there an optimal amount of painful experiences we have to have and then we can die having decided god is the way? how many years exactly of pain and pleasure do we require to find or not find god? it appears to be about 100 years, but i think i need another 20, just to be sure.
if you want to fill an afternoon with thinking about crap that won't actually get you anywhere, the problem of suffering is brilliant.
I love the timelessness of this debate
You must be joking? Are you high?
@@tarhunta2111 He’s just dying that it’s a debate that has been happening, and will continue to happen, for thousands of years. He’s not saying there isn’t a conclusive answer, he’s simply saying that the rhetoric is similar to what has been said in the past and what will continue to be said in the future.
The difference is that since, Dinesh has been revealed to be an adulterer lol
@@Ninterd2 That has nothing to do with the validity of either argument. You should know better than to use lame ad hominem attacks
@@Ninterd2, and have Dinesh claimed to be a saint at any time? And you are supposedly without sin! Do not take delight in any person's weakness and do not put any person including yourself on a pedestal. Learn from them.
Very interesting debate. Thank you.
Basically Dinesh’s whole argument: “God works in mysterious ways”.
I saved you the time of listening to him. But Dr. Ehrman makes some good points.
Good points but he also directly contradicts his own personal stance but denies it by jumping with assumptions over a key point of reconciliation that one must pass through to follow his same path.
@@jacobnash7127
Which in no way has any impact on the nonsense Dinesh was spouting.
@@HughJaxident67 what nonsense? I was able to follow it all quite easily. He's incorrect to attribute all forms of higher thinking suffrage to just humans... there are animals that kill for fun or revenge. But aside from that small notion his major points were fair.
@@jacobnash7127
*what nonsense? I was able to follow it all quite easily*
Dinesh is synonymous for spouting crap, 'following it easily' is besides the point eh! And my previous point referred to your criticism of Ehrman which I correctly stated had zero bearing on the validity of D'Souza's arguments.
@@HughJaxident67 you may have but D'Souza was not the topic that I was replying to so I could equally say to you that your initial reply had nothing to do with anything relevant. Ehrman was the subject of the statement I replied to and his failings did not require D'Souza. I had not claimed anything about D'Souza or his stance at that point. So talking about how bad you precieve D'Souza to be based not on what he actually said but rather on some other popular opinion about him has no place here.
So are you really basing such a strong opinion on some old popular belief?
You have not shown at all how D'Souza was speaking nonsense but rather you doubled down on making yet another broad sweeping accusation without any backing.
I guess I'm just not lucky because video after video I can't find examples of D'Souza speaking in a manner that you proclaim him to be.
I’m a Christian and I think that the agnostic speaker destroyed the Christian guys arguments