Animal Suffering is Overwhelming Evidence Against God
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 ส.ค. 2024
- Is the kind, degree, and distribution of animal suffering evidence against theism? We discuss why teleological evil, the scale of suffering in evolutionary history, and the moral randomness of animal pain is strong evidence against the existence of God.
Transcript emersongreenbl...
Tip Jar account.venmo....
Linktree linktr.ee/emer...
This is the best explanation I have ever heard on animal suffering as evidence against a god.
Then you haven’t really delved into this subject .
Mathis video destroys the animal suffering argument and actually shows how animals having more enjoyment as shown by scientific research debunks atheism and gives evidence for theism
The mark of a great truth seeker is the ability to question everything (including your own views ) to come to the most reasonable conclusion .
This is what caused me to become an atheist at age 40 and come back to theism at age 44 .
th-cam.com/video/g2S-oWzk-Ns/w-d-xo.htmlsi=3Gb46YO1lLTYBltX
I respect and admire you very much for addressing this issue that has haunted me since my childhood.I really thought I must have been insane for seemingly being one of not so many people I have known who had even, seriously, thought about this issue. I am a scientist and the pain I have witnessed is heartbreaking, traumatizing and the only important thing I need to know about the loving god they talk about. It is much more logical for us to believe in the non-loving deity or, perhaps, there is a sadistic devil that has created this nightmare universe, from the perspective of almost most sentient beings.
This is what convinced me to stop believing in god, at least in a caring god.
Why? He created this world with yin and yang. He will recoup every animal's suffering in the next world
Moreover, our closest relatives are chimps. And our brain is three times larger than them. That means the smartest animal can only suffer one third of what a human can.
The more we move away from humans, the less suffering comprehension animals have. Other Mammals suffer less than humans, birds suffer less than mammals, fish suffer less than birds... and so on
And when we reach insects, they don't have enough neurones to "feel", and cannot "suffer"
But still, God will recoup theit pain they had to endure in this world with yin and yang
@@abrarahmad-mw4dk Then that's not an all good god (I should have been more precise in my initial post). My claim wasn't that no god is compatible with this state of affairs, only that a perfectly good god is not.
Saying that non-human animals suffer less than humans is fine, but doesn't do away with the fact that they suffer terribly. That's not an objection.
Saying that God will make it up to them does not enjoy a lot of support in Christianity at least, but is also irrelevant. A world in which God did not permit those non-human animals to suffer in the first place would be better than the one which exists. Hence, if there is a God then that God cannot be both omnipotent and omnibenevolent.
So you have not provided any response to my argument (and again, I should have been more precise to begin with) and instead seem to be arguing for a God who is not all good, but also not all bad. I can't logically rule that out, but I don't see any convincing evidence for that being the case.
@@01Aigul Let me clarify i am not a Christian, i am Muslim. And in islam we believe both good and evil come from God. He can create both order and chaos, he can create both bliss and suffering, he can create both yin and Yang
But God's promise is that he will prefer mercy above punishment. He will eventually forgive everyone. He says he won't do injustice to anyone.
"Surely, Allah wrongs not any one even by the weight of an atom. And if there be a good deed, He multiplies it and gives from Himself a great reward." Holy Qur'an, 4:41
Quran also says animals, like humans, will return to their lord
"There is not an animal that crawls in the earth, nor a bird that flies on its two wings, but they are communities like you. We have left out nothing in the Book. Then to their Lord shall they be gathered together." 6: 39
Holy prophet ﷺ says animals will get their claims recouped
Abū Hurairah reported Allah’s Messenger ﷺ as saying: “The claimants would get their claims on the Day of Resurrection so much so that the hornless sheep would get its claim from the horned sheep.”
(Sahih Muslim, Book 45, Hadith 78)
What can a hornless goat do to a horned goat? Barely any inconvenience. But even that will be recouped
It is a materialistic tendency to view earthly life as whole life, and there is no life after death. But religion tends to see souls as eternal, or at least long lasting. So If you are going to talk about God, at least as a hypothesis, then you should also talk about things that come with God such as heaven and eternal life, which makes earthly life a very insignificant part of it.
th-cam.com/video/GjAsAFSleYc/w-d-xo.htmlsi=dwod3PyUhJBPivWv
@@abrarahmad-mw4dk It seems like you've never seen a nature video, and how much a zebra screams of pain being eaten alive by lions.
To me it was always obvious that God (if exists) is either caring or omnipotent.
Whenever I get into these discussions about the different problems of evil I always think
“So much suffering just so a very few can enjoy some complex story”
We stand on a mountain of clear unconsentual suffering and say “wow isn’t this great!”
It may be great for you and your loved ones. But that’s just an emotional position *wink nudge*
It just makes me want to ask “why do you want a plan that requires hurting so many individuals just to get a nice story?”
It’s seriously like the celestial dragons from one piece looking down on the rest of the population because they don’t just accept the powers at be.
Like if I had to rate the experience of this reality as a whole I’d give it a solid 5 out of 10. Average and can clearly use some very easy improvements. Like not making the food cycle a carnivorous one.
And I think that’s a generous rating biased by my privilege
@@Noah-ig6re I think there are some mistakes with what he says here though.
I would mostly agree that this is the case. Because pain always is for everyone this thing you need to get passed in order to enjoy living.
But there is a practical problem on one end with this, and then there is a philosophical problem on the other end.
I’ll start with the philosophical problem because I would say it’s the least problematic
And that’s with the terminology always. And you can only support the term always on an evidentiary basis. Which means this statement will be begging the the question on the terms that I can claim a position on the other end of I can’t remember what it’s called anymore. The Christian skepticism where you accept god is true on the mere possibility that he exists based on the ontological problem that you can’t disprove god.
Because you can’t prove ontologically that it’s always true then I can accept that pain doesn’t always supersede pleasure on the mere possibility that, that could be true. Sorry this part would be easier if I could remember the position.
But the bigger problem is the practical problem.
Which is that most pains you get through in life to become a happy person are fairly easy. It’s not that uncommon for people with a lot of privilege to mostly live a happy life and forget the pains of their childhood. While most other pains they experience are consensual pains like in competition. The pain of competing is enjoyable for me. So I often don’t really remember when I’m upset later. I mostly remember the times I improved.
And I’m only objecting because I think the statement leaves a lot to be desired in this aspect. The only reasons I have trouble with depression now is because of external factors like I can’t find a job that I don’t hate that provides for my fiancé and me enough to be worth it for our life together. Im a creative type and I’m doing hard labor strictly because the economy sucks
And the second is her health which drives a level of uncertainty in my psychology that’s breaking me on the inside. And this modern healthcare system in America is being driven by culture wars, billionaires, and politicians who don’t care about fixing anything.
I don’t care about these plights. And I would be living a much better life without them.
Pain may always be greater than pleasure. But certain kinds of pains are disgusting and unneeded. I live in a world of vomit that I don’t care to overcome
Great example with the Celestial dragons 😂
On Hume's quote: do theists consider that if their deity did not exist at all, their theodicies would be equally applicable?
This is what made me lose my faith in a loving God. I still consider myself a Christian because I follow the teachings of Christ. But no supernatural.
Ironically, historical theists (substance dualists) even denied that animals are sentient beings. They treated them as insentient robots, propagating even more horrendous treatment of them.
That's more evidence against theism right there
What theists believed is not necessarily an argument against theism
@@agnes8340 Yeah, I didn't say that. Ironically the consequences of what they have believed for years are evidence against theism.
I'm an atheist but, in my experience, there is never a slam dunk argument with theists. They always find a way to wriggle out, with "mysterious ways" being a standard device. I'm pretty sure some would say that Earth is a level of Hell, and the souls are suffering for past sins. Or they might say that suffering is very short and small compared with the eternity of heaven. Debating theists is like wrestling with a cloud.
There are rarely slam dunk arguments with anything, let alone theism. The best one can do is form a set of evidential arguments (like the argument from teleological evil) to make theism majorly improbable.
@@t.d.2016 That's about all you can (sensibly) do. There's a tendency for people, Christian or otherwise, to underestimate the sentience of other species and their capacity to suffer.
Every theistic attempt to deal with the problem of evil and suffering shows contempt for the reality of human suffering, or indeed any intense suffering. They try to trivialize it. That shows something about their character, something immoral.
That's the cost of arguing with religion on it's own turf. You're bringing critical thought to an ad hoc explanation fight. Arguing with fan theorists over plot holes. The only reason it's worth doing at all is the chance of gradually making them and/or their audience more aware of their own defense mechanisms. That's partially what happened with me as a fundie.
@@XavIsOnline You are right. There is no reason to privilege the claims of Iron Age Abrahamic religion. Why not Ming Dynasty Confucianism, Daoism and Buddhism? It's just cultural bias.
Animal suffering stems from the fact that an animal that fears death is more likely to survive than any peers that don't fear death.
Also, an animal that responds to injury (via pain) will survive better than one that does not notice its injuries and fails to tend them.
If we zoom out, we can consider the journey of the Earth from its formation to its period as a molten planet after the collision with Theia. Then the rocks gradually changed and surface chemistry complexified until biology emerged. From there, we have biology co-evolving with geology.
There may be much more of this story to come. Perhaps suffering will one day become just a relic of the "bad old days" back when we were biological?
One thing I know is that life itself, while being driven to suffer by evolution, strives to avoid suffering. Hopefully it will find a way.
// monologue :)
Alex O'Connor (Cosmic Skeptic) also considers animal suffering in it's debate with Trent Horn. Very good video man, you have a new follower
Animal suffering is one of the strongest reasons I don't believe in God.
Me too, I guess that for this reason, religious teachings (at least christians) tend to despise animals in their "theology"
@@juancarlosv5136 What? Despise animals? In Christian theology, the entirety of creation is a living icon of the face of God. animal suffering is understood to exist because of humanity. It was humans who fucked the world up. Our sin isn't merely a abstract acknowledgement of a transgression, but taints reality and is a sickness that we wish to be purged. Our salvation necessarily includes that animals will also be redeemed, because humans are the summation of existence. And in the lives of the saints (people who Christ manifested in them profoundly) often had special relationships with animals, even dangerous ones.
There are allot of problems with the Christian world view but non human existence is one of the biggest for me.. Just like humans animals are thrown into existence with all sorts of potential struggles and suffering.. there is no reasonable justification or fairness for what animals are forced to go through from a Christian perspective…
Why think that God can’t have justifying reasons for animal suffering ? I can see how animal suffering could be considered evidence against tri-Omni theism, but the claim you’re making here seems unjustified.
@@Sugarycaaaaaandygoodness when it comes to God I personally think what ever the totality of reality is can be labelled as such. I think this God is beyond human comprehension but that animal and human consciousness is one aspect of it.
But muh fallen world! Eve ate the fruit therefor the omnipotent all loving God had no choice but to torture animals
People seem to down play that, but it is truly an amazing thing when one sees animals or insects at each other or even bacteria, theres an aweness that can be recognised in even the way they suffer or fight or live or threaten
This was an excellent video, I believe Cosmic Skeptic has also made one about the same topic. But I have to repeat myself here: This is not evidence against God, but evidence against our prevalent concepts of God. It says nothing about the possible existence of a God who does not adjust to our concepts.
You mean there may exist an evil or indifferent God?
@@renegadelaw9303 Those are two possibilities. There are many more. Pantheism. Panentheism. A god that's only potentially tri-omni, because that concept taken to its extreme consequence would render him non-existent. A god that's neither evil nor indifferent, but unperceivable from our point of view, and which we only get to know and understand when we change that viewpoint (e.g. through death). A god that materializes (AKA incarnates) within each and every being of his creation, and in doing so, forgets that he's actually god until he sheds this particular avatar again. Who's to know who and what a really existing god actually is?
@@DoloresLehmann but there seems to be no point of worship or prayer to the type of God that you are suggesting.
@@renegadelaw9303 Well, first of all, that would depend on the type of god. I've suggested several. And second, well, worshipping and praying seem to be fundamental human instincts. It doesn't need to make sense. That also has no bearing on the question whether (a) god(s) exist.
That's just appealing to semantics as far I'm concerned. Why should we worried about every concept of god there is? We just use one unifying definition of god and roll with it. But then, that's why I'm an igtheist.
This should also put any notion of the simulation hypothesis to bed.
A lot of theists believe that God created man to rule over the rest of creation with him, under his guidelines (this is actually the common Baptist view)
And believe that we were presented an option to either rule creation on our own terms (taking the apple), or under Gods rules
We, of course, took the apple, which lead to a fallen world, where the innate carnal state of every being, along with man’s, came out, where the world was thrown into chaos, because God left it to us to rule over creation (and therefor made it our job to create a peaceful world, in which the carnal nature would be tamed, animal suffering would be stopped, etc.)
And that in the millenium god would take back his hold and all beings would be tamed, suffering would come to an end
So I know it’s a bit of a cop out, and to be clear I don’t hold this view of the fall (I’m mormon), but it’s a valid explanation that I do think needs to be considered as a genuine opposition to this argument against theism. The argument that chaos is the natural state of things and man was put in charge of controlling this chaos, and is horribly failing
I agree with most of your video, but there’s one thing that struck me as a bit off.
You frequently seem to use a style of argument that is not exactly kosher from a probabilistic point of view. You rightly point out that if E is evidence for, then ~E is evidence against, but then go on to characterize ~E at an inappropriate level of granularity.
So your argument here is about the kind, degree, and distribution of animal suffering we observe, but the negation of that hypothesis includes every other combination of kind, degree, and or distribution from extremely good to extremely bad. That’s just because the negation of a sharply specified E is a broad ~E.
This is really applicable later in the video. You go on to say something like “if the world was better, that would be evidence for God,” treating these better worlds as hypothetical evidence E and noting that our observed distribution entails ~E. But it doesn’t follow that anything that entails ~E is evidence against God. That follows if confirmation is transitive, but it’s not. So E1 can be evidence for God and so can E2 even though it implies ~E1.
In practice I agree with the point you’re making, but I think there’s a methodological point here that is being expressed way too hastily. And I’m not trying to nitpick-I think people miss this point and end up making silly counterarguments in return. So take that Capturing Christianity video a while back where he says that animal suffering isn’t evidence against god because animal suffering entails fine tuning or something like that. I think that’s a silly argument, but it’s kind of a fair response given how you’ve structured your argument.
[I edited this comment considerably to sound like less of an ass]
What does that all mean?
I've had this worry. Can you point me to any reading material on this?
Suffering is a perception.
Reality can and is painful, but no pain no gain.
Stating that one “suffers“ is a weakness.
No one needs to suffer, as for animals they don’t have the ability to understand the concept of suffering. Yes they may feel pain but that is not the same as suffering, which strictly is a human construct.
Luckily there is Animal Heaven to make up for all the animals' earthly suffering. But only for the animals that accept Jesus.
(yes, this is me reupping my request for an animal universalism video)
I wonder if the problem of animal suffering has driven some progressive Christians back to literal 6 day creationism for the sake of simplicity.
Eliminating 99.999% of animal suffering in evolutionary history from our data would definitely change things. Of course, if there's a *kind* of suffering that's logically incompatible with theism (e.g. gratuitous suffering), then just one instance of it would be enough.
Probably not much.
Though I’m sure it has gotten some evangelicals to creationism… but I doubt if you already bit the bullet on like. Gay people or women in church, then it’s difficult to get to YEC.
This is evidence against God as defined by traditional Christianity (creeds nonsense) but it's not evidence against the possibility of a God.
It's evidence against a *loving* god.
It would be interesting to see invoking theism and Emerson have a discussion on the topic
We did, last year (the title is Defeat, Evil, & Hell). There were several of us drinking together in a hotel room during a conference, so it might not be the *highest* quality conversation we could've had...but we did talk about it a bit
Have you seen Tim Howard's and Kyle Alanders more recent response to this argument? As an agnostic I honestly dont see anyway to salvage this argument against their criticisms. And that is coming from someone who is very sympathetic towards it.
how can we find the response you're talking about?
@@jujuleslen you can go to their channels or just type in Christian idealism and the problem of evil
if god doesn't exist
where ur getting moral standard of good and bad
and if its subjective then tell u/s/@
2 bl@st ch!na athèîstic nati0n with at0mic b0mb bcz their crû/elty is such that they êat snakes bats dogs @live
and if its subjective then tell u/s/@
2 bl@st ch!na athèîstic nati0n with
at0mic b0mb bcz their crû/elty is such that they êat snakes bats dogs @live
at0mic b0mb
I took three screen caps of the Quentin Smith quote, the Koala Bear Burnt Up, and the Felipe Leon quote for my debate tonight on MDD. I made sure to tag your info on the slide. - Ozien
I think the message of this video boils down to if God is a all good all intelligent and all that good stuff kind of God.
Then he would have made everything perfect and flawless, like there would be no room for error at all.
That means he wouldn’t have made satan in the first place if he already knew he would rebel.
He wouldn’t make the apple tree if he already knew we would fall for it.
Otherwise he just proves to us that we are nothing but an experiment for his entertainment, that he is a sadistic God.
"Who is like the LORD, who will judge what I have done, or what I will do, who will council me. I AM the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, before all this was I AM, when all is dust I AM. Besides me there is no saviour, beside me there is no God."
I would happily judge what God has done because I’m not a spineless coward who wilts in front of authority. Even God is subject to the moral law. How incredibly revealing is it that theists, rather than argue the problem of evil on its merits, resort to this medieval peasant attitude that I have no right to assess God’s supposed actions as good or evil?
@@EmersonGreen there is no moral law without God, he isn't held to some standard of right and wrong, he is righteousness, the source of all that is good ✡☦🕊
Exactly! Well phrased!
I often come to the rather grim, misotheistic view that - given the suffering in the world and given the nightmares the monotheistic deity seems to bring to the world - God is EVIL. David Litwa’s “The Evil Creator: Origins of an Early Christian Idea” explores this subject and how Marcion arrived at a similar conclusion. I sometimes tease my atheist friends with this: look at the world, the agony, the millennia of creaturely suffering, disease, natural calamities…. OF COURSE THERE MUST BE A GOD! (Why, pray tell me, assume he is benevolent?)
What if things were opposite then would it still be evidence against God?
I haven’t seen the video but I am addressing title. It’s absolutely ridiculous coming from anyone who claims no God (authority).
Let’s address man first. If a lion conquer a pride, after brutality fighting the king the new king finds and eats the cubs not because of hunger but annihilation, and the mothers moments later go into heat the same day if the new king is willing! That’s natural and good because there’s no God needed (but hierarchy is present). If a man sees a Dog who is malnourished and the Dog has Fefe the cat in its mouth then yanks the cat free and shoo the Dog is unnatural and cruel therefore Evil, no God needed for the act (no hierarchy).
Man who measures puts the ruler stick as his hierarchy is an Evil bastard (technically).
When God creates he ends with “and it is Good” Good as potential, as you would see your first born.
Now let’s take this spoiled rebel suburbia teenager perspective and I must say embarrassing it’s an argument that others made before now, I haven’t seen this video but title and thumbnail tells me this last piece is necessary, kind of foresight but I wouldn’t claim all knowing as a man.
Example: if mommy Bear in the woods came across poison or bad food and ate it and her body gets sick and now dying a world of life in her is created doing there part, mommy dies😢 now the cubs crying and making noise attracts a pack of hungry wild dogs and they feast on brother bear alive kicking and screaming. The pack of wild dogs with full belly’s and mother’s milk now feed their cute babies and young ones meat to be nourished and healthy for tomorrow. Now the left overs of the now dead Bear family is consumed by the earth and all its creatures and the cycle of life continues, the end😊.
God created the heavens and the earth and all living creatures etc etc “and it is GOOD” only Love like this can come from a God who is Good by nature, who wants to see his creation flourish as you would want for your first born.
Now why even bother commenting? Ask yourself are you an Atheist or the Anti-Christ alliance or a wolf in sheep’s clothing? Is this TH-camr making a buck or believe in his movement, like those preaching for a buck no difference? Ask yourself…wait a minute! Asking yourself is unnatural and no proof that even exists that’s only testimonies and best guess…Oof, I’ll let y’all chaise your tails.❤
Much love and in Jesus name praise Yahweh!
Consider this.
The Christian worldview is one in which the Earth, this physical realm is not our true home.
Chrisitianity teaches us to not "Love" or be attached to the things of the world. To not worship creation but rather its creator.
Once a Christian realizes this concept, the idea is so that they do not become fearful of death and its consequences becasue once one is saved living in Eternal salvation is rationally more preferable than living a temporary life of physical toil and suffering on this Earth no matter how many earthly pleasures abound in it they all pale in comparison to what Heaven offers. If anything we look forward to it but do not attempt to go there ourselves because dying on our timetable versus Gods is considered sin and blasphemous.
As rational moral agents the burden of Man is actually greater than that of the animals. Because Man can choose between good and evil.
Animals howwever lack this fundamental conceptualization. Which tracks with the bible as Man was the only creature to actually consume this knowledge.
So for Humans our afterlife destination depends on the virtue of our hearts, minds, and Souls as well as accepting the creator as our God.
However onc can make the assumption that a moral and just God would not require this level of expectation of the other creatures that lack this capacity and would simply manifest them into his kingdom as spiritual entities once they die.
Yes animals experience suffering within the span of their own liftime, but that is such an insignificant speck when considering the concept of an Eternity in which you exist forever in a perpetual state of euphoric bliss.
TO put it simply, it is very likely that animals do not go to hell, and are brought with Humans - who are saved - into his Kingdom as part of that heavenly experience.
People on both sides of this argument just assume animals do not become spirits themselves but my guess is that God wants Heaven to be a place much like the Garden of Eden once was, where Man and Beast both walk together in peaceful co-existance.
Good job
Animal rights is the way. That's why I'm leaning towards Konkokyo now, which, while unfortunately seeing meat as okay, at least permits believers to be that way. Christianity seems like it not only is not for animal rights, but is opposed to it.
I'm thinking God really has to be brought down to our level, very vaguely like Vishishtadvaita, mixed with a bit of pantheism. I admit your video on why cosmological arguments aren't convincing has partially influenced me to this direction.
Of course, we can debate if it's more or less parsimonious to believe that there's some conscious "oversoul" which is almost equivalent to the universe (though not necessarily like panpsychism), which we should call God and worship, but it's my very raw thoughts as of now.
Isn't it humanities job to take care of earth so why not remove suffering ourselves instead of blaming God
As someone who has studied Nature I do Not agree that animals are innocent Nor that they are Not Moral agents. To Proof that you would have to Proof that 1. Animals have No History before birth. 2. That the mind of animal is inferior to our mind in any aspect in all periods of it's existence. I seriously doubt especially the later. What WE See Here and after birth could Just because the endpoint of a Long fight. Seeing that endpoint could be the Moral lesson God wanted to teach US. Atheism lacks the Imagination to Go beyond, before and after this world, when trying to construct explanations.
Would you agree that rocks are innocent?
Your argument is a fallacious argument from ignorance.
@@BurntCookiesYT I have a very clear reason why I think the Minds of animals have at least in principle the same strengths as ours. I am Just Not willing to share IT with people anymore. And for their Moral behaviour: I have grown Up on a Farm. I have seen baby herbivours kick and bite each other. This whole Idea that animals are better or more innocent than WE IS very romantic but propably false. Beside this WE are Here in the realm of methaphysics when discussing the Problem of evil. I do Not have to Proof that animals are fully responsible moral agents to counter the Problem of evil. IT Just have to be POSSIBLE to count AS a solution (compare: Definition of philosophy versus Definition of science). Saying that this IS an Argument from ignorance hence fully Miss the Point what metaphysics IS about.
@@chad969yes rock are pure
they act like animal are innocent creatures when they not plus they lack a high conscious mind compare to us unless we comparing intelligence creature like ape, dolphin, and elephant but they lack a strong speeches range they don’t have a high complex language they more limited by their body compare to us their a lot of reason why human has a higher sense conscious superiority compare most creatures living on this planet
I feel as if every variety of the problem of evil and suffering can only be potent in reference to Abrahamic faiths. Zoroastrianism has a sufficient and fulfilling answer to this.
What is that answer?
Christainity generally doesn't have a good answer for evil because evil is a privation of the good and doesn't exist really "exist" and is more like a parasite. It is, in the truest sense of the word, irrational. It cannot be explained because it has no reason. To explain it is, in some way, justifying it and that can't be done.
Excellent work.
Uh, didnt Yahweh Require slaughter of animals to worship Him at the altar?
Great video, thanks!
I believe they go to heaven automatically, we don’t.
God is just as much of the animals as he is the worms that eat their dead bodies.
waiwaiwaiwaittttt xD the fact that god makes people suffer isn't a proof of his non-existence, that's starting the search for a proof with a christian bias (because christian consider god all-loving) as muslim we have a different view, god isn't loving everyone, and his reason of being (shouldn't be of our concern but...) is not to love us, it's to test us, and animals being also part of the creation, they also do suffer, because they're part of all that makes this world coherent
A proof that the universe being made of randomness (and infinite odds) would be: a dog attacks a cat, the cat transforms into a rock, if the universe, big bang, would've been created by randomness without any external being dictating the codes of how it has to work, there's no reason why something like that couldn't happen
I like the fact that you tried to make a well research video on trying to disprove god (as muslim, it's also our duty, the quran tells us to try a few time throughout the book) but, we have to be objective, and be knowledgeable of our biases
I personnally believe god as the christians see it, can't be real (or at least i don't believe in what they think god is) he created us to love each other, pain is from satan (which makes their god weak, because nothing happens but by his will) and it contradicts the first reason he wouldv'e created us: to love each other
then there's hell and heaven, and his litteral son, who's himself, died for the sins of humanity, so you can now sin, but not really, but if you do it anyway, but believe he died for your sins, you go to heaven
TLDR: Good video, but there's a bias that god is the way christian see it
The only god compatible with the one we live in, and that life itself has lived in for 2 billion years... Is either one of two things:
One that is EVIL
Or one that is powerless, in which case how the fck did you create a whole universe...?
I believe in a version of God (not the Abrahamic one) but I can't explain animal suffering.
We are God's answer to suffering! Excellant video btw😊
What about the suffering that occurred during the past billions yrs?
What if God is the demiurge?
@mithunbalaji8199 what about it? Please let me know
@@mithunbalaji8199 will you please let me know what a demiurge is?
Demiurge or the creator god/false god in gnosticsm. This entity is evil and indifferent varying between gnostic texts simply put what if god is not a loving one
There are harsher realities to grapple with within theism. This piece brings up some great questions and well articulated arguments. As a theist I'm still not convinced, there are many valid arguments you conveniently sidestep. This issue certainly isn't new although this is a different take wondering how a good God can allow any degree of evil to exist.
I don't believe that pain/suffering is unfair since Jesus (God incarnated) also suffered from an immensely painful death, while also living a perfect life. So he suffered from the same thing he Himself created.
This, however, doesn't make it a good thing. But I don't believe it's supposed to. I mean, the Bible constantly says that the world we live in is corrupted from the beginning, because of our choice to rule it according to our will. He did create a world with no pain, but we chose not to live on it.
I don't know. I don't see it as an "evil" thing. Just as a natural one, that forces all the living things in this planet to move and adapt. A painful force that is promised to be removed once God takes the leads of this world again.
What is the big man waiting for? How do you explain animal suffering before humans like dinosaurs
So did Jesus die a permanent death with no expectation of rising from the dead??? If so, you have a point. Obviously you don't
Every living thing could super easily be like a tree. Absorbing love and goodness from God like sunshine.
Predation isn't necessary if you believe God was behind life.
The laziness of the faithful on this topic is tiresome.
@@skippy675 I don't get your point. Yes, he expected to rise from the dead, but that doesn't make it less painful does it? Also, in the Bible says that we all will rise from the dead to receive judgement.
But trees don't have free will, do they? Free will is a quality of sentient beings, creatures capable of making choices
@paulobrifficado741 if you told me that my torture and execution which would last less than a day would erradicate childhood cancer, i would immediately sign up. Even without hope of getting better 2 days later like Jesus. Even if I never got any credit for it.
What Jesus is said to have done is laughably uncouragous. He was supposedly guaranteed a seat on the throne at the right hand of God before time existed. Boo hoo for poor little Jesus. JESUS needs to grow a vagina and talk to a real hero.
I don't think this is a good argument against the Christian or Abrahamic god in general because, according to these religions, the universe is not yet in its final phase and the world will be renewed by God, who will transform the universe into an essentially good and incorruptible world, cleansed of evil, but who, before doing so, leaves his creatures free to act according to their will, even so that they can define themselves according to their own intentions.
Here's a parable to illustrate why I don't think that's a good counter-argument.
Imagine a father says to his young son, "if you steal from the cookie jar, immense suffering will enter this household". In order to ensure this promise, he installs a device on the cookie jar that activates a shock collar on the family dog whenever the jar is opened. One day, the son chooses to open the jar and steal a cookie. This activates the shock collar, causing the dog hours of immense suffering. Now imagine you're a police officer who's called to the house for the first time. You discover that the father has created a device that ensures a causal connection between the son's disobedience (stealing from the jar) and the suffering of an innocent animal. Upon learning this, you consider this question: is the father's decision to install that device, more likely on the hypothesis that he's a just, kind, and loving person? Or is it more likely that he would install that device on the opposite hypothesis: that he's NOT a just, kind, and loving person? I think most reasonable people would recognize that the father's action is evidence for the latter hypothesis, and against the former.
But now here's where your response comes into the analogy. Suppose the father tells you that he didn't intend for that device on the cookie jar to be permanent. Imagine he says that the household is not yet in its final phase, and he only intended for the dog's suffering to be a temporary consequence of his son's disobedience. His plan was that one day, everyone in the house, including the dog, would live in harmony. Upon learning this, should you change your mind about whether the father's action is evidence against the hypothesis that he's a just, kind, and loving person? It seems the answer is obviously "no". Regardless of whether the father wanted the device to be temporary, it's still highly unlikely that a just, kind, and loving person would have installed that device in the first place, because that dog didn't deserve to suffer for the son's transgression.
In the same way, it is highly unlikely that an ALL loving, just, kind God would ensure the causal connection between human sin and animal suffering, REGARDLESS of whether God intended for animal suffering to be temporary. If God is omnipotent, then he had a choice as to what the consequences of sin would be, just as the father had a choice as to whether to install that device on the cookie jar.
If you can spot a relevant dis-analogy between this parable and the Christian account of animal suffering, I'd love to hear it.
@chad969 nice analogy.
It actually seems like when someone surrenders their credulity (becomes faithful) the ability to consider "what if" scenarios like you put together disappears.
The Bible literally says in Proverbs somewhere to "lean not on your own understanding".
I thank goodness that logic and reason took hold of me (or me of them) instead of faith. I have made the point many times that even the Christian has to admit that at some point a logical (in their view fallible) human mind has to take the first step toward their beliefs. Unless coercion is compatible with free will, then a (in Christianity's view) currupted mind must find a way to seek truth on its own. This is self defeating. Christians can't seem to follow the thread or more likely simply don't care to.
This argument is incredibly stupid. Not all religions think God is good or moral. In fact, the original Christians (the gnostics) thought Satan(the demiurge)created this world to feed off the pain and suffering. It's a bit of a deep rabbit hole, but if you think suffering is evidence against God's existence, then you are nowhere near equipped to go down it
And though i dont know how, Allah appears to be aware of suffering and evil, i would assume then that its entirely possible to have a good goal like testing creation but the entailment is allowance of evils, and its that goal itself that is sufficient as a reason for why evil is allowed and why Allah is not held accountable, the one who has different desires and goals will not find it desirable, neither do i think that every person even feels that those reasons are justified but then i wonder well how are you justifed in following the goal of living, all you say it that i have the desire, instinct, feeling that its good to follow it through even though i know that it entails suffering or evil potentially by others or from my ownself to people, or from my generations in the future to others, or the environment doing evil or suffering to me or me being evil or causing suffering to the environment, yet i still pursue the goal of living despite that, well why? Its simply a feeling that just sufficiently feels justified, despite its obvious entailment that suffering and evil will come, why is it that we dont blame a murder victim to choose to live as her or his goal, but a murderers goal is disapproved of? Simply because we feel that living is justified by our instinct so we dont blame someone who also chooses that and incurs death even and we dont say they are evil for choosing such as it led to death or suffering or some evil as they knew based on humanity trackrecord that this will probably occur in many ways and forms. I mean really why aren't we killing ourself and ending this goal, simple because our instinct feels it to be fine or good or a higher priority then avoidance of even potential suffering and evil
After all, god is evil. He said it himself.
Deity can only ever do what is logically possible, and it's not logically possible to make matter other than what it is, which is limited, indeterminate, and changing. So there is no way to end animal suffering, as it is a result of the nature of matter. Since matter and what results from it are at the end of the chain of being, it is far from what is perfect or good, which is to be eternal, unchanging, and immaterial.
When atheists wish to critique theism by using such arguments, they cannot actually show what non-arbitrary principle OUGHT to be in existence to avoid such a situation, merely making a weak gesture to a concept of omnipotence which has been torn from it's original context and made to be something that comes out of a wand from Harry Potter.
Much of this problem, however, isn't the atheist themselves but is instead the result of really bad philosophy and apologia from the hands of theistic personalists. However, that this is often the low hanging fruit of philosophy and theology does not serve as an excuse for the atheist to constantly attack such positions when there are others that are more developed in explaining why the world is the way it is, and why that includes all kinds of suffering, animal and human alike.
This seems confused to me, why do you think it is impossible for God to have made the world without animal suffering? That's certainly not impossible on my view.
Perhaps there could have been a world in which there simply were no animals besides human beings, what is impossible about that?
@@billsherman1565 If there could be a world in which there are no animals BESIDES human beings, it would still be a world with animals, since it is implied in your above statement that WE are also animals. So the question of animal suffering proper would still be present. Moreover, there still remains the more basic question of how one would make indeterminate, extended, and changeable matter behave other than the way it does for any other material thing, since it is those very conditions of its existence that are the cause of suffering.
And it is specifically the atheist that does not have an answer to that question.
@@thoughtform21 "f there could be a world in which there are no animals BESIDES human beings, it would still be a world with animals, since it is implied in your above statement that WE are also animals. "
Yes humans are animals, this is why you will notice in my statement I stated BESIDES humans. I am aware humans are animals, why are you obfuscating?
'"So the question of animal suffering proper would still be present."
The argument is specifically about non human animals.
"Moreover, there still remains the more basic question of how one would make indeterminate, extended, and changeable matter behave other than the way it does for any other material thing, since it is those very conditions of its existence that are the cause of suffering."
The God in question is supposedly omnipotent. If God exists, it seems trivial to me that there could simply be only humans. Since he is the one who would have propagated said matter in the first place.
@@billsherman1565 Do you understand that omnipotence doesn't just mean God gets to do whatever he wants? And given that humans evolved, how could there be humans if there are no animals? And again, this does nothing to actually fix the problem of suffering entire, as it is a result of the nature of matter and you have not provided a way that matter would be expressed differently for living beings as opposed to non-living objects. So why are you obfuscating my main point? Show me how any living being can be made of matter, can grow, age, and move about an extended world, and not be subject to suffering.
Every predatory serial killer AGREES WITH YOU, on the Law of nature.
God is not the lord of this world.
This same argument was made by cosmic skeptic and it was trounced throughly by deflating atheism in that most of the time animals have more enjoyment and happiness in their life then suffering .
A very good study by an animal sociologist showed this.
Animals having more good tines than bad does nothing to diminish this argument. It's also certainly not the case for the 80 billion land animals killed every year for food.
I agree that pain is undesirable but i dont know how it follows that its evil, rather i think that one could look at undesirability as a sensation that has the quality of disliked experience, but would i say or judge now that its evil? When an ant kills some other insect or an animal does, i never thought they were commiting evil, i thought that is their natural function, it can even be fasinating to see intelligence of ants warring with other ants, the ingenuity of how they do so, even animals, yes undesirability hurts, agreed, but how is this relevant that a living thing killing another is evil?
It wouldn’t be evil for an animal to experience pain due to the actions of another animal per se, but the questions rests more within the question "why would this animal have to experience pain in the firstplace?".
If god were to be all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving, why would god create scenarios where animals can experience unneeded and unhelpful pain. A cat quickly pouncing on a mouse, killing it instantly, is not an evil or cruel act by the cat, nor is it inherently an evil or cruel act by god since the mouse died unexpectedly and painlessly.
But a bear pushing a deer down to the ground while eating it alive, while still not evil from the bear’s perspective, could very well be considered an evil and cruel act by god. Why would god willingly let this deer be eaten alive? Couldn’t god have made sure the original hit from the bear killed it instantly?
One also has to question why there even are predators and prey. God willingly created animals who’s sole method of staying alive is to attack and kill other living creatures. For example, why would god consent to the creation of parasitic hosts; animals who penetrate the insides of unsuspecting prey, while slowly tearing them up from the inside. To me, that seems like unnecessary suffering inflicted, by god, on a creature that can’t think rationaly, can’t make free, independent choices, and has no understanding of why or how it even feels pain.
Its all because you create a false dichotomy between us humans and other species, Deriving your morality from 'commandments'. Evil has a theological association. In a atheistic world view there is only badness or atmost you could define evil as badness which is different from 'breaking god's rules'.
What matters is sentience; conciousness and the ability to suffer matters. Equal consideration should be given to all interests of equal strength.
I also dont think Allah has the same obligations as us, clearly not, look at what hes created and sustaining, what human goal even captures an trillionth of what Allah has chosen to do and enacted, i find it strange that Allah would have the similar or exact same duties as us, why would he, his authority and moral playbook appear to be different, think of concepts of Day of Judgment or putting people in Jannah or Jahanam, is not Allah the Judge here, or how about the value of our existence, of our consent, what worth did it have before we were even given the ability, we were literally nothing, and he gave us these things, he has complete ownership over us, so if it is as simple as Allah allows animals to suffer living out the natural ingenius functions that he created them in which includes their biology which they act by and their environment, and that this is good or valuble in of itself with immorality being assumed not even being possible between the creatures, then whats the issue, are you going to say i wouldnt like it? Does my liking bear any weight on truth?
Why would a all loving god create a world which runs in such a cruel and fucked up way? Animals torn to shred as i type, some starve to death others succumbing to parasites and diseases and what not. A god who tells to be kind and love others at the same fucks the life of other sentient creatures over billions of years even before humans appeared on the scene. Sure you think whatever this deity does to these animals by definition is good but can you extrapolate the same thing to one more species aka Homo sapiens?
The world( if created)is the work of Demiurge.
There is no god. Time to grow up. These conversations are pointless.
Sounds like you have a lot of growing up to do yourself
@@EmersonGreen I did. Now I don't believe in fairytales and pretend things. Get on it bro.
Isnt this a self defeating argument? Proposing that an innocent creatures suffering is evidently evil and using this supposition to disprove an objectively good source which is God seems nonsensical. How can you use the existence of evil to disprove the existence of objective good? Dont you have to dismiss the existence of both evil and good to disbelieve in God? Asking why God would allow evil is an interesting discussion but trying to disprove the existence of God by pointing out evil doesnt work since evil doesnt exists without an objective good.
This argument points out a contradiction within the worldview in which one believes that a perfectly good God exists and in which gratuitous animal suffering is considered bad.
To expand on that: At bare minimum, this argument can be used to point out a contradiction within the worldview in which one believes that a perfectly good God exists and in which gratuitous animal suffering is considered bad (leaving it an open question as to whether objective good or evil actually exists).
Historically, traditions of objective moral good and evil have existed longer than the modern Christian understanding of God. One could use this argument to say that they personally feel strongly that objective good and evil exist but that there can't be a Theistic God because that God would be good and prevent gratuitous evil and that clearly doesn't happen, which is similar to what Emerson does here.
You personally may not understand how it could be possible to have objective morals without a theistic God, but many people do believe just that. Euthyphro's dilemma even throws serious shade on the idea that a Theistic God could provide objective good and evil anyway.
Lawrence, suppose you saw a man torturing his dog. Would you need to know whether objective good and evil exist in order to infer that his actions are evidence against the hypothesis that he’s a kind and loving person?
@@chad969 No, because i do believe in objective good. If i didnt then id better think twice about saying something because then we are subject to the consensus of popular morality at the time and place we live. My point is, if objective evil and good exist then so does God. If everything is subjective then your example of beating a dog is pointless because i can claim that in my culture its acceptable to beat dogs. Who are you to judge another persons culture and enforce your subjective and fluid sense of morality on them?
@@lawrencekuhlman9405 Oxford languages defines the word "kindness" as "the quality of being friendly, generous, and considerate." Given that there's no mention of objective goodness in that definition, couldn’t one believe that kindness exists without believing that objective goodness exists? If so, then why would one need to believe in objective goodness in order to draw a conclusion about whether or not someone is kind?
How can suffering be evidence against God when Richard Dawkins says The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, NO EVIL, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference 🤔
This is a atheist TH-cam channel I get it, But come on you guys this question have been answered.
How has this been answered
@@billsherman1565 All Christians believe that God made the cosmos, But God is not ruling it. That is why we pray for God's kingdom to come. why ask for Gods kingdom if he is ruling right now..... The question raised in this video is against an evolutionary history, but if there is a creator then there is no evolutionary history.... So animal suffering is a result of not having Gods kingdom ruling.
The argument you’re putting forth is basically: how can you call something evil if you don’t believe evil exists. That’s silly, because the point is the refute the Christian worldview which DOES have absolute good and evil, and so even by Christianity’s own standards Christianity fails in the light of animal suffering.
@@danielduvana The argument you’re putting forth is basically: how can you call something evil if you don’t believe evil exists. That’s silly, I agree , That's why I quoted Richard Dawkins, Then the same Richard Dawkins says this Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose
The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1
The point is the refute the Christian worldview which DOES have absolute good and evil, and so even by Christianity’s own standards Christianity fails in the light of animal suffering. But it doesn't it fits with what we expect
We pray for God's kingdom to come. So animal suffering is a result of not having Gods kingdom ruling.
@@addersrinseandclean Animal suffering only fits with a worldview of an allmighty and all-loving God if you are forcing it to fit. The truth is that there's no good way to account for it, since such a God could always have avoided such pain and suffering that clearly can't be morally justified.
It's very simple.
God is teaching us good and evil in this world. A knowledge of good & evil, and thereby experiencing SOME suffering is requisite in order to learn how to be good.
Part of that suffering is observed in the animal kingdom so we can gain additional understanding.
This is not a reasonable explanation at all.
Undermining the animal suffering, and turning a blind eye to the horrendous amount of pain, disease, wounds and painful death, helps you to overcome this issue by saying SOME suffering ??? Thiests are completely immoral and religions suits them.
Oh no, now you guys are really reaching. How pathetic.
Genesis(written by Moses) says the specific reason for animal suffering is because of the sin of Adam(and all mankind in general). You can say it's evidence against, but by the explanation given by Moses(given to him by God), if God is real than it's either more evidence for God or needs to be not used as a measurement of evidence for either side, if you want to go that route.
God did not create the world with the purpose of the evil we see. A parent has their child vaccinated at a young age and the child may be angry at their parent for allowing it, but the parent knows more than the child, no matter how angry, no matter if the child says "I don't want you to be my parent anymore". Before sin, humans and animals ate plants and lions and lambs drank water next to each other with no intent to harm one another. Jesus said this will be how it is again when He returns for the final 1,000 years of earth's history.
As chaotic as the world seems, it still has a "natural order". Rules are followed in a sense and it's obvious when you think about it. A plane must be created, you can not leave a junk yard alone and find a 747 in 10, 1,000, 100,000, or 1 million years. All things decay, yet the birthrate of mankind and animals left unhindered, will increase over time. Suffering is indeed rampant, but so is good. You see one video where a croc eats a monkey and another video where a monkey saves a bird. You see lightning destroy a tree and kill all the animals from the forest fire, but afterwards growth is better and the brush is cleared for new life with more animals living there than before. You have mice that are multiplying in your barn and cats that will fix your problem. There is always a counter to any of it. If you count one as evidence against, you have to count the other too as evidence for.
When in the history of the world did lions not eat lambs? They are biologically carnivores. The history of world described by the fossil record is one in which long before humans came on the scene, natural predators and suffering existed for millions of years. Did humans exist in a different universe/plane of existence before being plopped in at a certain part of this universe's timeline? Did the fall of man retroactively apply to animals in the past, to animals which then evolved into humans?
Why would the sin of Adam and Eve cause a genetic change in animals making them carnivorous? Can you explain why that causal connection exists without appealing to the will of God?
@@chad969 because bible god is a sadist who wanted an excuse to torture animals
That makes no sense. So trillions of animals must suffer unspeakable agony because a man ate a forbidden apple on the urging of a woman made from his rib? How can people in the modern age believe such things?
@@josephtnied I was just saying that is what scripture says. However, there was a lion named Little Tyke who was famous for being a vegetarian if you want an example of what's possible. All animals can survive by eating plants, they just don't and the Bible says there was a time where they did all eat plants. There have been many assumed carnivores in the fossil record who had plant matter in their mouth or stomachs as well. The fossil record is interpreted. One view is granted and others ignored. Scientifically, it's not in 100% agreement across the board, like we're told. I don't believe in evolution, so it's not a problem I have to think about on my side(though I used to believe in it - I still believe in micro-evolution(aka adaptation which isn't really evolution). As far as humans go, there have been skeletons found that were fossilized. There have been human footprints found walking with dinosaur footprints. Take that as you like, but the facts are around and all of us are trying to figure it out. I believe the Bible though.