@@TheWorldTeacher Hey teacher, "lady" can be used as a respectful,polight way when talking about a woman. But teach us what we're missing. I'm in the U.S. where are you ?
Good job Stephen. You were a gentleman and didn’t hold her feet to the fire. I couldn’t help but notice she barely answered your questions but didn’t forget to plug her book over and over. Seemed like a nice woman at least
For someone who wrote an entire book on the subject, she seemed pretty unprepared to tackle standard objections. While the interaction was pleasant, she really did poorly at defending her arguments. Stephen tried pointing out over and over that the "but you can't explain" evil was missing the point... But it seemed to be the only point she had.
And yet she conveniently ate up many minutes in whining that morality from evolution does not provide an "ought", -- while it doesn't bloody have to, lady!
@@joshuataylor3550 ofc not, its about giving sound arguments - which she didnt. it would have been reasonable for stephan to corner her, but he let it slide. which is fine too.
@@joshuataylor3550 it is for the religists. i just want an answer so we can move on, but the religists says they have the answer - all the time pretending i am the one with preconceptions. there may be a god, i'll deal with that when one of these ignorant liars presents me a god.
@@swagikuro i like stephen and his pre-recorded stuff is great, and he has made absolutely brilliant open speeches to his debate, but he seems to get nervous and he falters, he ought to spend more time with people like tjump who have their point of view down to a fine art so he doesn't stumble so much. i love his content, not so much his interactions. he did well here, but he could do better.
I’m very pleased with the moderator. He seems to be doing his best to steel man both sides, and allowing the debaters to clarify. It shows a lot of honesty
never trust a christian is my motto. anyone who supports "gods right" to flood the planet and kill everyone is sick. god has no more right to act the way he does than anyone, we don't judge people "morally" we judge them by LAWS and by any measure god breaks all laws, with god you get no counsel, no representation, there is one crime (sin) and one verdict - you burn. god is imaginary, a total wish fulfillment fantasy, but the sick individuals who back his criminal ways are disturbing, people who can justify genocide. "it's okay when god does it" no it isn't.
No doubt about it. The lady just waffled around and said it was hard to say and there were many points but never wanted to settle on one without so much verification she couldn’t be pinned down. The atheist did an amazing job making sense of it- only to be interrupted by the moderator each time he cut a bit too close to harming some holy cow in Christianity.
The most persuasive answers lie where there isn't so much bending over backwards to explain how an all good and all powerful being allows cancer in newborns.
Or how Josef Fritzel kept his daughter locked up for all her life repeatedly raping her while she was forced to give birth to her sisters/daughters and not going outside for 25 years. According to the theist or the Christian or Muslim, this is all part of a grand plan. If you can believe this, everything ever falls into some grand plan.
I’m surprised that Sharon says “I feel an empathetic response to the victims of natural disasters, therefore God”. Instead of saying “I feel empathetic, therefore empathy”
Wow, do you normally take one sentence out of context and base a whole judgment on that? what about her book and the conversation content before and after that strawman much?
@@MJ-tj3nd We’re taking the conversation into account. Sharon is stating that Naturalism is a better explanation of Natural Evil than the Christian view, and she chooses Christianity because of an emotional intuition. She doesn’t understand/accept Stephen’s naturalist explanation of emotion, and that’s why she’s bending over backwards to reconcile a Good God with Natural Evil.
@@lifefindsaway7875 I suppose the fair steel man of that is that it's about why we are empathetic. Natural sciences like evolutionary psychology can make accounts for evolutionary reasons why we may be empathetic in some circumstances towards some people, but there are some cases of empathy or grief that could be very difficult to give an evolutionary account for. Some examples are empathy towards terminally ill people, grief over miscarriages that stops women from having more babies and empathy towards the suffering of distant undomesticated animal species. This might suggest that there is something about human minds or souls that transcends the merely natural rational state of things. From a naturalistic stance you can't just grant yourself empathy or morality you must ground those human concepts in nature.
Typically, when I hear a statement by a theists as the one at 9:56, it's usually the believers saying " ...well I've had personal experiences." But generally they mean "experiences" that are reasons or partial reasons that they believe in a god. However, when I hear this said by a theist applied to nonbelievers, I hear it quite differently. To me, it's sounds like, "...oh, you must have been hurt by someone or you're mad at "God" because you must have lost a loved one or something." Maybe this isn't what this particular theist means by "some people have experiences that cause them to decide that God doesn't exist." This just makes me wonder how many atheists she's actually heard give their story.
Given the word salad and oblique angles she took to answering Stephen's direct questions, this was a frustrating podcast that didn't go very far. Stephen pulled his punches and the result is she talked in circles and didn't make a compelling point that I could take away. Perhaps Stephen is following Alex O'Conner's strategy of just letting his opponents layout a case so weak that only unjustified faith can substantiate.
At 48:53 she mentions Job. Yet in Job 42:11 it literally says "All his brothers and sisters and everyone who had known him before came and ate with him in his house. They comforted and consoled him over *all the evil the Lord had brought on him* .
Sharon does bring up the morality of natural evil, and is very careful with her words; Stephen is being unusually charitable to Sharon, very refreshing to see. Applause for Stephen is in order. The way Stephen is now, he is very formidable with his intellect; much respect. Would very much like to see a debate with Stephen and Jimmy Akin, that pairing would be a worthwhile watch
no one uses morality as a guide though, we all use law. and we are innocent until proven guilty, we have counsel, we are judged by a jury of peers, or at least experts, and we are sentenced according to the crime - god just throws you on the fire regardless of the crime in question - god is the criminal. when did you last use the "morality" IRL?
Romans 10:17 (KJV) “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” Romans 1:17 (KJV) “For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.”
@Starchaser63 Hey! I'm on your side of this debate, but I caution you, there's isn't evidence against a God, there's just a deficit of compelling evidence that a God exists.
@@B0SS330 using the bible as the authority that the bible is the authority is the "Begging the question" fallacy and is frowned upon in polite society.
@@gimblegiil exactly, there is insufficient evidence for a God ... the fact that another human has to speak on behalf of their God proves the point every time...
As an atheist, I do give Sharon credit for expecting issues like this to have good explanations that humans can understand, instead of patting us on the head with a "mysterious ways" quip. I agree that she gets it wrong. But she doesn't allow her cognitive dissonance to mock the world's suffering with dismissive platitudes... which is incredibly easy to do as a believer (as many of us know).
Kudos to Sharon and Stephen for making this discussion so calm and respectful. But, really, I feel very sorry fo Sharon. It's just impossible to ground your point of view when your ground is so fragile and shaky. Her arguments really sound ridiculous and it looks like she was understanding that during the discussion.
What I never understood, is how a Christian could possibly be comforted by this version of God who would allow immeasurable suffering in service of some greater good that we can never see or understand. This to me seems functionally equivalent to hell.
Amazing. Steven is so eloquent. Sharon seems like a very gracious person and a decent debater -- but she doesn't seem to realise all the inconsistencies in her arguments.
57:40 Stephen is 100% correct. She is conceding the argument. The romantic idea of a god wanting to be among us in a broken world is inconsistent with an all-loving, all-powerful god. It implies a god that is fine with unnecessary suffering. Under Sharon's world view, "god" left the world broken and then send "himself" down to earth (in the form of Jesus) to help us cope with the fact that he created the world broken in the first place. What a twisted character does that make "god"?
Nope, God created a perfect world and place Adam (and Eve) within it. He then warned His creation not "eat" (allegorical meaing) from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, or they would introduce death and suffering into their world. Genesis 2 (KJV) 16 “And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:” 17 “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” But since God is the Alpha and Omega, He knows the ending from the beginning, so He had a rescue plan in place. His Son would eventually be born on the Earth, to reconcile man back to God.
@@B0SS330 If God had foreknowledge that things are going to go wrong but created the world anyway, that's not a "perfect" creation. If God absolutely knew that the evil talking snake was going to deceive Eve and cause the Fall, then sending his son is just a loophole for the rules that he created.
@@onionbelly_ God creates in perfection, but His creation is then given the freewill to choose their destiny... That is what God is seeking, souls that FREELY choose Him over evil.
@@B0SS330 God knew that imperfect humans were going to use their supposed free will to disobey him. God knew that he's going to punish them even before creating them. That's not a perfect creation.
@@onionbelly_ God knows all because He is an eternal spirit and everything He creates exists in perfection, as long as they abide in Him. If they choose to take their own path (like Lucifer did), then they are left to your own fate. The punishment is self-inflicted, since the soul is choosing to deny God... actions have consequences. God will try to draw them back to Him but ultimately, the decision is with them, since they have FREEWILL. John 8:12 "Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life."
Why does an all-powerful deity have to incorporate tectonic plates and diseases into creation in order for life to exist in this world? Sharon's view not only entails that earthquakes and diseases were part of creation before the Fall, it significantly undermines the supposed omnipotence of this loving God. Not to mention that this was Sharon's only attempt at presenting an actual theodicy throughout the entire discussion, she spent most of the time giving vague answers and shifting the goalpost. This was especially obvious when the issue of animal suffering was addressed.
Hi, you ask good questions...Tectonic plates are essential for life on the planet and the underlying causes of disease, ie, viruses and bacteria, are an essential byproduct of evolution...I personally don't believe in 'The Fall' (in the literal sense)...I accept Evolution by Natural Selection as the process which accounts for all life on earth...This isn't a 'perfect world', nor was it meant to be, as if it was, then we'd at least suspect God exists, ie, no war, no famine, no disease, no suffering, just a paradise on earth...Then you'd be pretty confident a God exists, but that isn't the way God works...He has to be not so obvious, or open to empirical/scientific testing, or 100 per cent conclusive evidence of God's existence would take away our choice to believe in Him or not...Peace...
@@El_Paracleto An all-powerful deity could've easily designed the world without the need for tectonic plates and diseases for life to flourish and survive. Given that there are egregious amounts of suffering that's inherent in natural selection, I find the idea of an omnibenevolent god choosing evolution as the process to bring about life on this planet patently absurd. To your other point, the angel Lucifer absolutely knew that God existed, and Lucifer still chose to disobey this God, so I don't find your "God has to be not so obvious for you to have free will" argument convincing at all. You're also overlooking all the parts of the Bible where Yahweh makes his existence very very clear to certain people. Paul supposedly became a Christian because of this. Anyhow, thanks for your response anyway.
@@onionbelly_ Yes, but regarding your latter point, i was referring to 'scientific/empirical' evidence which mean't everybody could know for sure, not one off appearances to people which isn't empirically verifiable...Overall, yeah that's fine and you're welcome...
@@El_Paracleto That makes no difference. Under libertarian free will, you have the ability to choose between loving/hating and obeying/rejecting beings that you can scientifically/empirically verify with maximal certainty. People do this with other people all the time. There's absolutely no reason why a God being empirically verifiable violates your supposed free will.
@@onionbelly_ i see, then what would you call somebody who didn't give you a choice to believe in him or not??? And i'm still waiting for you to tell us how God should have done things, but you can't, can you, hence the rant about 'God could have done it without the need for tectonic plates and disease'...Really??? You haven't thought it through...Whether you find 'my' argument about God implicitly needing to remain 'unobvious' to respect our 'free choice' to believe He exists or not, is irrelevant to me, you're an atheist and it's what i'd expect, given your cognitive bias and the fact you don't know God...You like to pontificate against God, but you can't offer us a way of how He could/should have done it, can you...i'm confident God will want to know this too, as you seem to think you know more than Him...
"No one doubts that an ordinary man can get on with this world: but we demand not strength enough to get on with it, but strength enough to get it on. Can he hate it enough to change it, and yet love it enough to think it worth changing? Can he look up at its colossal good without once feeling acquiescence? Can he look up at its colossal evil without once feeling despair? Can he, in short, be at once not only a pessimist and an optimist, but a fanatical pessimist and a fanatical optimist? Is he enough of a pagan to die for the world, and enough of a Christian to die to it? In this combination, I maintain, it is the rational optimist who fails, the irrational optimist who succeeds. He is ready to smash the whole universe for the sake of itself." G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy
@@trinitymatrix9719 An insult to his intellect, very christian from you, you actually shouldn't say that given the negative correlation between religiousness and IQ
bruh. this lady was taken apart slowly from the top down. i understand i have my bias coming into this but maan. how can anyone watch this and come out theistic. and lord god jesus if this lady plugs her book ONE more time 😣
I just had to scroll a very long way to find any comment in support of the theistic argument. Stephen doesn’t seem like a smug guy, but he would have good reason to be!
What did God say to Adam in the Garden?... Genesis 2 (KJV) 16 “And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:” 17 “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” What did Adam and Eve do?... they DISOBEYED God ! And because of this, they were allowed to experience "good and evil". It's as simple as that, my friend. But God will bring an end to this fallen world... just make sure you have accepted Christ into your heart before that happens.
@@B0SS330 i don't get why god designed his first lady to be dumber than a snake. the eden story is a really, really, really crappy story and i can improve on it, and even save all of humanity with one paragraph of changes.
@@HarryNicNicholas God gave Adam and Eve freewill, but He also warned them of what would happen if they disobeyed their creator. They chose to take their own path, just like Lucifer and here we are in this fallen world. Eve wasn't dumb but naive and Satan (Lucifer in his fallen state) took advantage of it. Satan told Eve that they could be like "gods" (much like the New Age does today) and they chose to experience this path, disobeying God in the process. As you know, actions have consequences, but God has a salvation plan in place... all you have to do is accept it.
@@B0SS330 No, *you're wrong, read your Bible.* * God: _"but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat from, for in the day that you eat of it surely you shall die."_ (Gen 2:17) * Also, _"altogether Adam lived 930 years, and then he died."_ (Gen 5:5) * 930 years isn't the same day, and so the information God gives them in the story *wasn't true.* So you're wrong to say he told them what would happen. Do you understand the implication of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good/evil? They describe it as "desirable for gaining wisdom" (Gen 3:6) so it doesn't appear to be just some fancy name. The implication is they didn't know good/evil. So this God character punishes not just Adam/Eve but all humans forever for a decision made *before they knew of good/evil!* Does that sound like justice to you? (Even the 'all humans' part isn't justice. Certainly the 'forever' part isn't justice.)
56:43 She just proved Stephens' assertion that Christians believe its all the "plan" even if we don't see it in this life. Plus, if god created satan and everything else, he therefore created evil. Hence the problem of evil all over again. These Christians really don't see the incongruence in claiming that god, at once, created everything and can do anything, (and loves us ;) but humanity must fight some bitter, endless war against his "enemies".
Even if EVERY SINGLE evil/disaster/disease in history, big or small, had a net positive impact for the world, the problem of evil would still be, IMO, one of the greatest flaws in the theistic worldview. If your god truly is all-powerful, benevolent and all-knowing, they should be able to create a world which functions and develops perfectly fine without any amount of suffering or evil whatsoever. If I had the will and means to allow my loved ones to live their whole lives without strife or pain, I simply would - I wouldn't put caveats in place where one of them steps on a lego-brick every other month to allow another to enjoy a lego-free floor all year around. And I think that indulging theists in labouring this whole argument about human failure and greater good simply allows them to take the discussion completely off-topic and splitting hairs instead of addressing the real issue. If your god truly is so powerful and good, there would be no disasters or evil to debate about. The fact that a single animal ever had to suffer in order for another to survive is enough for the problem of evil to be a thorn in theism, never mind earthquakes, tsunamis, floods and plagues. EDIT: Also, holy shit. If this sort of weak-pants, no-argument rambling and platitudes is enough material to build a career, publish books and get invited on podcasts and debates, the whole conversation is at such a lower level than I thought... it's tragic.
How can people give the deity credit for all the things they perceive as naturally good and beautiful yet give the deity a pass for the things they perceive as naturally evil and assign the blame to humans as Sharon posits?
She really struggled to answer Steven's questions through the entire debate... well it's not easy to promote a book while realizing that your opponent has really great points you never thought of.
I agree somewhat. God allows the world to run as He designed it, but with no limits to natural actions. God does not cause the volcano to erupt so he can "call home" some souls. No, it is part of how this creation works. Christians do call up the name of God, but God does not intervene, except on rare occasions.
@@JosiahFickinger so you are trusting in a god that ordained slavery, rape of virgin girls, genocide, misogyny? I'm humble enough to trust that the natural world is chaotic (stars explode, cosmic collisions occur continuously, volcanoes erupt) humanity can improve and we are more moral than the bronze age writers who created your particular choice of a god. Just so you know you are as much of an atheist as I am....I just go 1 god further.
I’m inclined to think that Sharon is not one that can best articulate her ideas, especially in a debate setting. I hope her book is more convincing then what’s presented here cause her responses gave me a massive headache.
Sharon, like so many excusagists (aka apologists) provides less than an argument that boils down to: "...because I chose [or was indoctrinated into] a team, and now I have to cheer for my team."
At 8:55, why in the world would she say that the first thing that comes into your head about even a God that you don't believe in is the most important thing about you? That is a very egocentric view of the world. Is what she thinks about Vishnu the most important thing about her?
Sharon is an expert in acrobatics: saying a lot, saying nothing. Nor does she sound convinced of her own words. Incredible she even has a book on this topic... For me, the point about the problem of evil that was not said is that this problem addresses the nature of god (god or bad, omnipotent or not), not existence.
Apes are social animals and have instincts wired in to maintain social cohesion. Mutual survival the root of our "ought". Religion isn't the sole source of morality.
I feel that she is by far the weakest debater that I have heard Stephen interact with. He was very kind. Although it was hidden by her gentle demeanour some the things she was saying were outrageous. But how do Christians think they can get away with disregarding the maxi problem.
It feels like Sharon would probably have brought up viruses as evidence of "the fall" in another conversation, even though she's calling them vital in this one.
Thanks for this! I noticed that apologetics is almost always dependent on the assumption of libertarian free will, even though this seems to be an incoherent concept and lacking even slightest evidence in favor of after clearing up semantics. I think Christians would probably have an easier time if they just said god is not Omni-max anything and that he is just powerful and caring and doing his best under the circumstances to bring things in to order from chaos over a period of time that still isn’t complete. At least then they wouldn’t have to just assume the way things are automatically the greatest possible world - such as the massive amount of suffering, mass extinctions of other beings, and the majority of humanity burning in a crockpot for infinity over a finite crime that god designed them with the desires to do…regardless, I think all the theological arguments are just an outer shell covering up the real reasons they believe in god - a mix of deep desire, hope, indoctrination, sense of community, tradition, an easy way of making sense of complex things, practicality, and tradition.
0:45 "When we call something a disaster ... we are actually saying that there's something wrong with the world." No, we don't. We say that something happened that had detrimental effects on something we care about. This does not make the world "wrong". A child would think that something is "wrong" when it things don't go its way. An adult understands the laws of nature and deals with them. This has to be the world record on losing the interest of a rational viewer; she didn't need more than 30s to tell me that I should go into this with the lowest of expectations.
Yea I think Steven was being too easy here on her. If evil exists, and God is the supreme creator, god must (not negotiable) create literally all perceived evil ever.
I am not really concerned about what any particular person BELIEVES. You may believe that there is an old man with a white beard perched in the clouds, that the Ultimate Reality is a young blackish-blue Indian guy, that the universe is eternal, that Mother Mary was a certifiable virgin, or that gross physical matter is the foundation of existence. The ONLY thing that really matters is your meta-ethics, not your meta-physics. Do you consider any form of non-monarchical government (such as democracy or socialism) to be beneficial? Do you unnecessarily destroy the lives of poor, innocent animals and gorge on their bloody carcasses? Do you believe homosexuality and transvestism are moral? Do you consider feminist ideology to be righteous? If so, then you are objectively immoral, and your so-called "enlightened/awakened" state is immaterial, since it does not benefit society in any way.
Her take on angels is one of the many reasons why Christianity should never have been superglued to Judaism as they couldn't be further apart on angelic will. If angels do have freewill then Judaism cannot be the 'father of Christianity'...At that point they are two entirely different religions.
@@El_Paracleto no, you just pretend it does, like the trinity, if you don't understand the trinity you can't get into heaven, so like the emperors new clothes everyone makes up BS explanations - using non standard logic if you want to appear really smart, but really it's smoke and mirrors and crap. horse poop. voodoo in fancy dress. blood sacrifice. human sacrifice.
@@Grandmaster_Dragonborn Yes really! How so? Well, Christianity doesn't "make sense" because God does not exist. We now know this. This has now been proven.
As usual, the theist doesn't know her Bible. "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." Isaiah 45:7
I am not sure how we are at a stage where people can create AI but believe in an all-mighty/good, etc. god that created them considering our current knowledge of evelution and the world as a whole
God warned His creation, but they chose to disobey Him. Genesis 2 16 “And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:” 17 “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” But God offers grace to everyone who accepts it. Isaiah 55 (KJV) 6 “Seek ye the LORD while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near:” 7 “Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.” 8 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.” 9 “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.” James 4 (KJV) 6 "But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble." 7 "Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you." 8 "Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded."
The life sustaining role does not fly for me either. That is not true on other worlds. Tectonic or weather activity is by no means limited to planets with a biosphere. Would that not indicate that then having any connection to the sustaining or promoting of life is a vanishingly small effect? And much more likely to be a background effect life evolved around rather then it being made for life in the first place. I also find that there is a difference between saying that yes, volcanic activity can lead to an increase in plant growth fertility and saying that ongoing volcanic activity is required for the sustaining of plants globally. I do not think the latter is true as we have wide scale plant growth in areas of the world with no volcanoes or earth quakes.
I guess it all comes to intelectual honesty. We either choose to see world through logic and reason and build our worldview around them or deciding to dismiss it and let ourselves to throw there a belief system where logic and reason is replaced by faith, which is in many cases not supported by logic and reason. God of bible is one of them and i don't see any debate where that even shake that conclusion a little. Still waiting for one. The moment when reasoning and logic comes to possible esplanation of it its at this time its simply game over.
Yeah, she seems to take a different peculiar stance than some other Christians I've come across because by saying the things she did and does, it makes God (if he exists) look like either an awful God or an impotent one. Take your pic.
Does god exist without humans? Because with humans, there are many thousands of different gods. Humans define what a god is - so a god can be anything. A god has to exist in a linear timeline - god can not go back in time - a child born without limbs will not suddenly oh miracle have limbs - so what good is a god that can not change things that have gone wrong -
I can envision a God who might have created a world with minor suffering, but not with moderate, major, or horrific suffering that we see in our world. So, if he did exist, God would not create, cause, or allow things like the Holocaust or the Great Asian Tsunami of 2004.
God warned Adam and Eve, but they disobeyed Him anyway... so we now live in a fallen world. Genesis 2 16 “And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:” 17 “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”
@@B0SS330 The story of Adam and Eve is just fiction. It never happened. If God did exist and if an Adam and Eve disobeyed him, the punishment would not have been unjust, as it is described in Genesis. There it is too harsh and transgenerational, both immoral.
I really appreciated the decorum of this debate. However the absolute cowardice in shutting down Stephen’s final point is very telling as it would have blown this whole premise wide open. Otherwise, great conversation and moderation.
Is it not "putting the cart before the horse" to say morality is explained by theism without substantiating theism first? Especially in light of there being naturalist explanations for morality in a social specie.
At almost any stage in christian theology outside the last 50 years or so she would of been banished way, imprisoned or burnt at the stake if we went further back in history. god is whatever can be socially permissible within the current society you live in, ever evolving and mutating. Here is a great example on show.
First, I'm all for the exchange of such ideas in a civil manner that democratic societies offer. However, with her superstitious, primitive beliefs, and lacking justification for them, Sharon is unworthy of her PhD. In fact, it should've been granted to Stephen Woodford for his superior arguments which, as far as debates go, should be considered a sweeping victory. Skin in the game would indeed make these debates more interesting.
If Sharon is really honest with herself, I cannot even imagine which levels of cognitive dissonance would take for a PhD graduate in a scientific discipline to hold the position she has. It almost looks like after learning so much about science she said "nope, I am not going to investigate the evolutionary reasons that brought humans to become a social specie, and I will pretend that it comes from a supernatural source, otherwise I might lose my faith". The existence of this woman deeply bothers me. I appreciate she is generally nice, however I cannot stop thinking she is either lying to herself, or shutting down voices in her head that lead to paths that are not religious.
This fallen world is Lucifer's domain. How did we end up here? Adam and Eve disobeyed God in the Garden. Genesis 2 (KJV) 16 “And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:” 17 “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” So God allowed man (male and female) to experience "good and evil"... but there is a time limit. The grace period will end soon.
@@LASLAY13 you will get to find out in due time... but by then, it may be too late. Seek God now, while he is close. James 4 (KJV) 6 "But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble." 7 "Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you." 8 "Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded."
Proof that going to Cambridge doesn't mean you're smart. Can't even string together a coherent argument or see the blatant flaws in her arguments. Shocking.
the responses from this woman were downright embarrassing. It sounds like she hasn't really given enough thought to some of the arguments against what she is saying
Natural disasters are not evil. There has to be some intent or neglect from an intentional being for some something to be evil. Because of this, natural disasters and examples of what seems to be natural cruelty are only an issue if you believe in God. Theists need to deal with the fact that God intended and maintains evil
If Gary sets up a rock so it will fall and kill the next person walking down the path, *is that evil?* If "yes" then could you remind me *is God all-knowing?* Meaning: when they set up the universe did they already know every natural disaster that would happen, including rocks that would be set up to fall on a person walking down the path eventually (I'm not talking about Gary's rock here; I'm talking about natural rockslides that were set up by God to kill people)?
i'd have more respect if they just said "i know it doesn't make sense but i like the idea and i want to be reunited with my pet goldfish" but no, they have to make up this crap and try to make a bad joke like god work.
Stephen, I must have seen the January bit, I recognize 'sharon'. You're superb in a debate, because...Rationality Rules! Ok, watching this, got to edit in. Why do theists always say, when they're not sure of their answer, 'that's a great question!'. As for job, no, scholars no longer believe job is the oldest book, and I call BS, on a couple other things. Job and god were arguing, (betting?), not 'it involved other things. And satan, really? He was friends with yahweh, not an evil being! And earlier, to say we shouldn't emotionally feel upset with 'natural evil' without a god. That's senseless, we need no god to have feelings! And if god wants us, why does he hide. On top of all that, yeah she really doesn't understand history or evolution. All the horrible things she mentioned, our elder care, rape, (as you said) has progressed with our species continued evolution! 👍💙💙💙🥰✌
Evil is just a label we put on things we really, really don't like. It's that simple. As such, to say that evil exists is to say that things we really, really don't like exist. There you go, evil has been accounted for. This also highlights the problem with these discussions. People need to define their terms. Sharon defined evil as, essentially, Satan. I am pretty sure that is not how Stephen would define it. And I am pretty sure they both define morality differently as well. If evil is Satan and morality is doing what God says to do, then I guess I don't believe in evil or morality. But I am still going to be against things I really, really don't like, and I am still going to want to live in a society that agrees with me about not liking them.
What incoherent rambling. "I can't understand how you can explain some things with naturalism therefore I believe I can live forever because 2000 years ago a man was nailed to a piece of wood then came back to life again and flew up into space" Is that basically what she's saying?
"The feelings about good and bad makes more sense if god exists" - even if that was truth (which isn't), it would than lead to illogical conflict with facts. And because the problem of god's evil is undefeatable, the only way is to attack another topic (evaluation of good and bad). "This is a good question..." followed with extremely long talk about nothing like reaction for the question.
People like this lady strengthen my atheism even more .
Do you understand the distinction between a woman and a LADY?
It seems not...
@@TheWorldTeacher Do you not think this is a 'lady', if not, why? Just curious.🥰✌
@@TheWorldTeacher Hey teacher, "lady" can be used as a respectful,polight way when talking about a woman. But teach us what we're missing. I'm in the U.S. where are you ?
@@TheWorldTeacher lol, when you have nothing to answer with, ask a question. koukles book of dodges page one. you little weasel.
@@laurajarrell6187 i suppose it would have been more accurate to say "this ignorant git".
Stephen is becoming a much better & better debater
i like the guy, i thought he was well-spoken and respectful, even if there were differences of opinion...i subscribed to his channel...
Agreed
And gracious with it while he asks the unanswerable.
@@El_Paracleto i love your ability to be patronising, keep it up, one day you might develop some morality too.
True, but terrible hair
Good job Stephen. You were a gentleman and didn’t hold her feet to the fire. I couldn’t help but notice she barely answered your questions but didn’t forget to plug her book over and over. Seemed like a nice woman at least
Good and bad are RELATIVE. 😉
Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱
For someone who wrote an entire book on the subject, she seemed pretty unprepared to tackle standard objections.
While the interaction was pleasant, she really did poorly at defending her arguments.
Stephen tried pointing out over and over that the "but you can't explain" evil was missing the point... But it seemed to be the only point she had.
There’s no coherent defense of her arguments no matter how much one prepares.
it's an idiotic argument, all she wants is what all apologists want, to sell some books.
@@HarryNicNicholas, kindly repeat that in ENGLISH, Miss.☝️
Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱
She's a typical apologist. The only difference between her and William Lane Craig is she's not wearing a suit.
Because...god does not exist, full stop. No amount of intellectual gymnastics will explain the apparent capriciousness of nature.
Stephen was very gracious here - if Sharon wasn't so pleasant, he could have really cornered her.
It's not about winning
And yet she conveniently ate up many minutes in whining that morality from evolution does not provide an "ought", -- while it doesn't bloody have to, lady!
@@joshuataylor3550 ofc not, its about giving sound arguments - which she didnt. it would have been reasonable for stephan to corner her, but he let it slide. which is fine too.
@@joshuataylor3550 it is for the religists. i just want an answer so we can move on, but the religists says they have the answer - all the time pretending i am the one with preconceptions. there may be a god, i'll deal with that when one of these ignorant liars presents me a god.
@@swagikuro i like stephen and his pre-recorded stuff is great, and he has made absolutely brilliant open speeches to his debate, but he seems to get nervous and he falters, he ought to spend more time with people like tjump who have their point of view down to a fine art so he doesn't stumble so much. i love his content, not so much his interactions. he did well here, but he could do better.
Stephen and Alex are the most wonderful and honest debaters.
I’m very pleased with the moderator. He seems to be doing his best to steel man both sides, and allowing the debaters to clarify. It shows a lot of honesty
Verily! 🎉
As a Christian I feel Stephen made the stronger arguments here
So u consider atheism then?
never trust a christian is my motto.
anyone who supports "gods right" to flood the planet and kill everyone is sick. god has no more right to act the way he does than anyone, we don't judge people "morally" we judge them by LAWS and by any measure god breaks all laws, with god you get no counsel, no representation, there is one crime (sin) and one verdict - you burn. god is imaginary, a total wish fulfillment fantasy, but the sick individuals who back his criminal ways are disturbing, people who can justify genocide. "it's okay when god does it" no it isn't.
No doubt about it. The lady just waffled around and said it was hard to say and there were many points but never wanted to settle on one without so much verification she couldn’t be pinned down. The atheist did an amazing job making sense of it- only to be interrupted by the moderator each time he cut a bit too close to harming some holy cow in Christianity.
why a christian then?
@@marycollis6900 She probably much more intelligent than u. Ur brain is not able to follow arguments so u just came up with absurd excuses.
Good job Steve. Smashed it.
Good and bad are RELATIVE. 😉
Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱
Didn’t even come close, just another anti-theist TH-camr bitching and moaning with no alternative to offer yawn
The most persuasive answers lie where there isn't so much bending over backwards to explain how an all good and all powerful being allows cancer in newborns.
Or how Josef Fritzel kept his daughter locked up for all her life repeatedly raping her while she was forced to give birth to her sisters/daughters and not going outside for 25 years.
According to the theist or the Christian or Muslim, this is all part of a grand plan. If you can believe this, everything ever falls into some grand plan.
"It doesn't make sense emotionaly" - bingo. I think, this was very honest. She feels god exists, she feels that objective good/evil must exist.
I’m surprised that Sharon says “I feel an empathetic response to the victims of natural disasters, therefore God”.
Instead of saying “I feel empathetic, therefore empathy”
Wow, do you normally take one sentence out of context and base a whole judgment on that? what about her book and the conversation content before and after that strawman much?
@@MJ-tj3nd We’re taking the conversation into account. Sharon is stating that Naturalism is a better explanation of Natural Evil than the Christian view, and she chooses Christianity because of an emotional intuition. She doesn’t understand/accept Stephen’s naturalist explanation of emotion, and that’s why she’s bending over backwards to reconcile a Good God with Natural Evil.
@@MJ-tj3nd How precisely was this out of context? Has she presented any solid argument based on anything but personal feelings?
@@lifefindsaway7875 I suppose the fair steel man of that is that it's about why we are empathetic.
Natural sciences like evolutionary psychology can make accounts for evolutionary reasons why we may be empathetic in some circumstances towards some people, but there are some cases of empathy or grief that could be very difficult to give an evolutionary account for. Some examples are empathy towards terminally ill people, grief over miscarriages that stops women from having more babies and empathy towards the suffering of distant undomesticated animal species.
This might suggest that there is something about human minds or souls that transcends the merely natural rational state of things. From a naturalistic stance you can't just grant yourself empathy or morality you must ground those human concepts in nature.
Typically, when I hear a statement by a theists as the one at 9:56, it's usually the believers saying " ...well I've had personal experiences." But generally they mean "experiences" that are reasons or partial reasons that they believe in a god.
However, when I hear this said by a theist applied to nonbelievers, I hear it quite differently. To me, it's sounds like, "...oh, you must have been hurt by someone or you're mad at "God" because you must have lost a loved one or something."
Maybe this isn't what this particular theist means by "some people have experiences that cause them to decide that God doesn't exist." This just makes me wonder how many atheists she's actually heard give their story.
Given the word salad and oblique angles she took to answering Stephen's direct questions, this was a frustrating podcast that didn't go very far. Stephen pulled his punches and the result is she talked in circles and didn't make a compelling point that I could take away.
Perhaps Stephen is following Alex O'Conner's strategy of just letting his opponents layout a case so weak that only unjustified faith can substantiate.
she is the perfect idiot. another great advert for god.
At 48:53 she mentions Job. Yet in Job 42:11 it literally says "All his brothers and sisters and everyone who had known him before came and ate with him in his house. They comforted and consoled him over *all the evil the Lord had brought on him* .
Sharon does bring up the morality of natural evil, and is very careful with her words; Stephen is being unusually charitable to Sharon, very refreshing to see. Applause for Stephen is in order. The way Stephen is now, he is very formidable with his intellect; much respect. Would very much like to see a debate with Stephen and Jimmy Akin, that pairing would be a worthwhile watch
no one uses morality as a guide though, we all use law. and we are innocent until proven guilty, we have counsel, we are judged by a jury of peers, or at least experts, and we are sentenced according to the crime - god just throws you on the fire regardless of the crime in question - god is the criminal. when did you last use the "morality" IRL?
@@HarryNicNicholasalso god has infinite punishment for finite crimes, how is that morality?
Its difficult trying to provide evidence for a God when there is more evidence against a God ...
Romans 10:17 (KJV)
“So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.”
Romans 1:17 (KJV)
“For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.”
@@B0SS330 very good but you've provided a verse which is still not evidence 🤔
@Starchaser63
Hey! I'm on your side of this debate, but I caution you, there's isn't evidence against a God, there's just a deficit of compelling evidence that a God exists.
@@B0SS330 using the bible as the authority that the bible is the authority is the "Begging the question" fallacy and is frowned upon in polite society.
@@gimblegiil exactly, there is insufficient evidence for a God ... the fact that another human has to speak on behalf of their God proves the point every time...
As an atheist, I do give Sharon credit for expecting issues like this to have good explanations that humans can understand, instead of patting us on the head with a "mysterious ways" quip. I agree that she gets it wrong. But she doesn't allow her cognitive dissonance to mock the world's suffering with dismissive platitudes... which is incredibly easy to do as a believer (as many of us know).
Kudos to Sharon and Stephen for making this discussion so calm and respectful. But, really, I feel very sorry fo Sharon. It's just impossible to ground your point of view when your ground is so fragile and shaky. Her arguments really sound ridiculous and it looks like she was understanding that during the discussion.
True. As I said before, I don’t think she has engaged any normal thinking people with her ideas- just those in the echo chamber.
it's okay, she just wants to sell some books so she feels a bit more secure of a place in heaven.
What I never understood, is how a Christian could possibly be comforted by this version of God who would allow immeasurable suffering in service of some greater good that we can never see or understand. This to me seems functionally equivalent to hell.
I go with George Carlin :"He doesn't give a shit".
which I admire in a person, and would explain some of these bad results.
Sharon exhibits the same lack of intellectual honesty that most religious apologists do. The strange thing is she seems, to me, to realize it.
It's probably not intentional, she's a neuroscientist, not a philosopher and probably doesn't understand a lot of things.
Amazing. Steven is so eloquent. Sharon seems like a very gracious person and a decent debater -- but she doesn't seem to realise all the inconsistencies in her arguments.
57:40 Stephen is 100% correct. She is conceding the argument. The romantic idea of a god wanting to be among us in a broken world is inconsistent with an all-loving, all-powerful god. It implies a god that is fine with unnecessary suffering. Under Sharon's world view, "god" left the world broken and then send "himself" down to earth (in the form of Jesus) to help us cope with the fact that he created the world broken in the first place. What a twisted character does that make "god"?
Nope, God created a perfect world and place Adam (and Eve) within it. He then warned His creation not "eat" (allegorical meaing) from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, or they would introduce death and suffering into their world.
Genesis 2 (KJV)
16 “And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:”
17 “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”
But since God is the Alpha and Omega, He knows the ending from the beginning, so He had a rescue plan in place.
His Son would eventually be born on the Earth, to reconcile man back to God.
@@B0SS330 If God had foreknowledge that things are going to go wrong but created the world anyway, that's not a "perfect" creation. If God absolutely knew that the evil talking snake was going to deceive Eve and cause the Fall, then sending his son is just a loophole for the rules that he created.
@@onionbelly_ God creates in perfection, but His creation is then given the freewill to choose their destiny...
That is what God is seeking, souls that FREELY choose Him over evil.
@@B0SS330 God knew that imperfect humans were going to use their supposed free will to disobey him. God knew that he's going to punish them even before creating them. That's not a perfect creation.
@@onionbelly_ God knows all because He is an eternal spirit and everything He creates exists in perfection, as long as they abide in Him.
If they choose to take their own path (like Lucifer did), then they are left to your own fate. The punishment is self-inflicted, since the soul is choosing to deny God... actions have consequences.
God will try to draw them back to Him but ultimately, the decision is with them, since they have FREEWILL.
John 8:12
"Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life."
Praised be the god of asteroid slinging and volcanism!
Why does an all-powerful deity have to incorporate tectonic plates and diseases into creation in order for life to exist in this world? Sharon's view not only entails that earthquakes and diseases were part of creation before the Fall, it significantly undermines the supposed omnipotence of this loving God. Not to mention that this was Sharon's only attempt at presenting an actual theodicy throughout the entire discussion, she spent most of the time giving vague answers and shifting the goalpost. This was especially obvious when the issue of animal suffering was addressed.
Hi, you ask good questions...Tectonic plates are essential for life on the planet and the underlying causes of disease, ie, viruses and bacteria, are an essential byproduct of evolution...I personally don't believe in 'The Fall' (in the literal sense)...I accept Evolution by Natural Selection as the process which accounts for all life on earth...This isn't a 'perfect world', nor was it meant to be, as if it was, then we'd at least suspect God exists, ie, no war, no famine, no disease, no suffering, just a paradise on earth...Then you'd be pretty confident a God exists, but that isn't the way God works...He has to be not so obvious, or open to empirical/scientific testing, or 100 per cent conclusive evidence of God's existence would take away our choice to believe in Him or not...Peace...
@@El_Paracleto An all-powerful deity could've easily designed the world without the need for tectonic plates and diseases for life to flourish and survive. Given that there are egregious amounts of suffering that's inherent in natural selection, I find the idea of an omnibenevolent god choosing evolution as the process to bring about life on this planet patently absurd. To your other point, the angel Lucifer absolutely knew that God existed, and Lucifer still chose to disobey this God, so I don't find your "God has to be not so obvious for you to have free will" argument convincing at all. You're also overlooking all the parts of the Bible where Yahweh makes his existence very very clear to certain people. Paul supposedly became a Christian because of this. Anyhow, thanks for your response anyway.
@@onionbelly_ Yes, but regarding your latter point, i was referring to 'scientific/empirical' evidence which mean't everybody could know for sure, not one off appearances to people which isn't empirically verifiable...Overall, yeah that's fine and you're welcome...
@@El_Paracleto That makes no difference. Under libertarian free will, you have the ability to choose between loving/hating and obeying/rejecting beings that you can scientifically/empirically verify with maximal certainty. People do this with other people all the time. There's absolutely no reason why a God being empirically verifiable violates your supposed free will.
@@onionbelly_ i see, then what would you call somebody who didn't give you a choice to believe in him or not??? And i'm still waiting for you to tell us how God should have done things, but you can't, can you, hence the rant about 'God could have done it without the need for tectonic plates and disease'...Really??? You haven't thought it through...Whether you find 'my' argument about God implicitly needing to remain 'unobvious' to respect our 'free choice' to believe He exists or not, is irrelevant to me, you're an atheist and it's what i'd expect, given your cognitive bias and the fact you don't know God...You like to pontificate against God, but you can't offer us a way of how He could/should have done it, can you...i'm confident God will want to know this too, as you seem to think you know more than Him...
"that's a good question..." in Sharonese means
1. "if I answer that, it will make me look silly."
2. "I don't know."
Sharon's arguments are not landing for me. Not at all
"No one doubts that an ordinary man can get on with this world: but we demand not strength enough to get on with it, but strength enough to get it on. Can he hate it enough to change it, and yet love it enough to think it worth changing? Can he look up at its colossal good without once feeling acquiescence? Can he look up at its colossal evil without once feeling despair? Can he, in short, be at once not only a pessimist and an optimist, but a fanatical pessimist and a fanatical optimist? Is he enough of a pagan to die for the world, and enough of a Christian to die to it? In this combination, I maintain, it is the rational optimist who fails, the irrational optimist who succeeds. He is ready to smash the whole universe for the sake of itself."
G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy
Perhaps God is beyond your mind and intelligence for u to understand everything
@@trinitymatrix9719 An insult to his intellect, very christian from you, you actually shouldn't say that given the negative correlation between religiousness and IQ
I am sure that giving it a couple more hours will do it. God bless
She cray cray.
bruh. this lady was taken apart slowly from the top down. i understand i have my bias coming into this but maan. how can anyone watch this and come out theistic. and lord god jesus if this lady plugs her book ONE more time 😣
The lady wrote a book about the subject too, and still performed this badly against the basic arguments.
“Yes Stephen, our god tries to kill us our whole lives, but just wait till after you die, that’s when the real fun begins!”
Christopher Hitchens Paraphrase .. nice one.
I think Stephen was too nice here but well spoken and concise so great job.
I just had to scroll a very long way to find any comment in support of the theistic argument. Stephen doesn’t seem like a smug guy, but he would have good reason to be!
Stephen absolutely BURIED this woman's "lack of argument". While this was a kind and gentle discussion, it was a bloodbath for Stephen's argument.
What did God say to Adam in the Garden?...
Genesis 2 (KJV)
16 “And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:”
17 “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”
What did Adam and Eve do?... they DISOBEYED God !
And because of this, they were allowed to experience "good and evil".
It's as simple as that, my friend.
But God will bring an end to this fallen world... just make sure you have accepted Christ into your heart before that happens.
@@B0SS330 i don't get why god designed his first lady to be dumber than a snake.
the eden story is a really, really, really crappy story and i can improve on it, and even save all of humanity with one paragraph of changes.
@@HarryNicNicholas God gave Adam and Eve freewill, but He also warned them of what would happen if they disobeyed their creator.
They chose to take their own path, just like Lucifer and here we are in this fallen world.
Eve wasn't dumb but naive and Satan (Lucifer in his fallen state) took advantage of it.
Satan told Eve that they could be like "gods" (much like the New Age does today) and they chose to experience this path, disobeying God in the process.
As you know, actions have consequences, but God has a salvation plan in place... all you have to do is accept it.
@@B0SS330
Meeh, sounds a bit far fetched to me.
@@B0SS330 No, *you're wrong, read your Bible.*
* God: _"but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat from, for in the day that you eat of it surely you shall die."_ (Gen 2:17)
* Also, _"altogether Adam lived 930 years, and then he died."_ (Gen 5:5)
* 930 years isn't the same day, and so the information God gives them in the story *wasn't true.* So you're wrong to say he told them what would happen.
Do you understand the implication of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good/evil? They describe it as "desirable for gaining wisdom" (Gen 3:6) so it doesn't appear to be just some fancy name.
The implication is they didn't know good/evil.
So this God character punishes not just Adam/Eve but all humans forever for a decision made *before they knew of good/evil!* Does that sound like justice to you? (Even the 'all humans' part isn't justice. Certainly the 'forever' part isn't justice.)
now this is what i call a good debate. two people from different view points that are happy to hear each other out.
I am reminded of the Doyle Dykes song, Hurricanes, Earthquakes and Tomatoes
Extinction of the dinosaurs. My go to example from now on.
Man has killed off a lot of creatures.
She short circuited when Steven mentioned the asteroid that took out the dinosaurs. 😂 Which showed the obvious flaw in her assertion.
His assertion is flawed, since he can provide no evidence to support it.
@@martinploughboy988 That humans weren’t around when dinosaurs were alive?
@@SupremeSquiggly Of course they were, dinos were created on the same day as man
@@martinploughboy988 All the evidence would suggest otherwise while dinosaurs being created and existing with us has no evidence.
56:43 She just proved Stephens' assertion that Christians believe its all the "plan" even if we don't see it in this life. Plus, if god created satan and everything else, he therefore created evil. Hence the problem of evil all over again.
These Christians really don't see the incongruence in claiming that god, at once, created everything and can do anything, (and loves us ;) but humanity must fight some bitter, endless war against his "enemies".
Even if EVERY SINGLE evil/disaster/disease in history, big or small, had a net positive impact for the world, the problem of evil would still be, IMO, one of the greatest flaws in the theistic worldview.
If your god truly is all-powerful, benevolent and all-knowing, they should be able to create a world which functions and develops perfectly fine without any amount of suffering or evil whatsoever.
If I had the will and means to allow my loved ones to live their whole lives without strife or pain, I simply would - I wouldn't put caveats in place where one of them steps on a lego-brick every other month to allow another to enjoy a lego-free floor all year around.
And I think that indulging theists in labouring this whole argument about human failure and greater good simply allows them to take the discussion completely off-topic and splitting hairs instead of addressing the real issue.
If your god truly is so powerful and good, there would be no disasters or evil to debate about. The fact that a single animal ever had to suffer in order for another to survive is enough for the problem of evil to be a thorn in theism, never mind earthquakes, tsunamis, floods and plagues.
EDIT: Also, holy shit. If this sort of weak-pants, no-argument rambling and platitudes is enough material to build a career, publish books and get invited on podcasts and debates, the whole conversation is at such a lower level than I thought... it's tragic.
How can people give the deity credit for all the things they perceive as naturally good and beautiful yet give the deity a pass for the things they perceive as naturally evil and assign the blame to humans as Sharon posits?
I think I need to read Sharon's book.
She really struggled to answer Steven's questions through the entire debate... well it's not easy to promote a book while realizing that your opponent has really great points you never thought of.
The delusion is that something good happens -- "praise god". When something bad happens "god works in mysterious ways"
I agree somewhat. God allows the world to run as He designed it, but with no limits to natural actions. God does not cause the volcano to erupt so he can "call home" some souls. No, it is part of how this creation works. Christians do call up the name of God, but God does not intervene, except on rare occasions.
How is this delusion? It's called being humble and willing to trust.
@@winstonsmiths2449 so god is helpless to prevent the atrocities that take place daily, like the millions of children that starve to death each year?
@@JosiahFickinger so you are trusting in a god that ordained slavery, rape of virgin girls, genocide, misogyny? I'm humble enough to trust that the natural world is chaotic (stars explode, cosmic collisions occur continuously, volcanoes erupt) humanity can improve and we are more moral than the bronze age writers who created your particular choice of a god. Just so you know you are as much of an atheist as I am....I just go 1 god further.
@@winstonsmiths2449 so a pointless god. might as well not exist eh.
Just follow the flow of the conversation and you will see the relevance. You went on the side path of definitions.
I’m inclined to think that Sharon is not one that can best articulate her ideas, especially in a debate setting. I hope her book is more convincing then what’s presented here cause her responses gave me a massive headache.
I hope so too
She's selling a book.
Sharon, like so many excusagists (aka apologists) provides less than an argument that boils down to: "...because I chose [or was indoctrinated into] a team, and now I have to cheer for my team."
At 8:55, why in the world would she say that the first thing that comes into your head about even a God that you don't believe in is the most important thing about you? That is a very egocentric view of the world. Is what she thinks about Vishnu the most important thing about her?
Sharon is an expert in acrobatics: saying a lot, saying nothing. Nor does she sound convinced of her own words. Incredible she even has a book on this topic...
For me, the point about the problem of evil that was not said is that this problem addresses the nature of god (god or bad, omnipotent or not), not existence.
Stephen keeping it together when the presenter says that atheism is a world view :D
It is true in a way: When God doesn't obstruct your perception, you can actually have a view of the world.
Typical apologist non answers, she seemed more interested in trying to plug her book at every opportunity.
Half way through:
It appears that Steven is having a debate/discussion with an ad for a book.
why dusn't Unbelievable book Richard Carrier - he actually wrote a book about it.
I imagine it’s hard to maintain a straight face regarding the topic of devils. 😂😂
If God did exist, Satan would not exist. I can't believe that a neuroscientist like Sharon would believe in Satan.
Apes are social animals and have instincts wired in to maintain social cohesion. Mutual survival the root of our "ought". Religion isn't the sole source of morality.
Indeed, Robert Salporsky makes this very clear.
I feel that she is by far the weakest debater that I have heard Stephen interact with. He was very kind. Although it was hidden by her gentle demeanour some the things she was saying were outrageous. But how do Christians think they can get away with disregarding the maxi problem.
It feels like Sharon would probably have brought up viruses as evidence of "the fall" in another conversation, even though she's calling them vital in this one.
we're fixing all that stuff though - how? god slipping?
Thanks for this!
I noticed that apologetics is almost always dependent on the assumption of libertarian free will, even though this seems to be an incoherent concept and lacking even slightest evidence in favor of after clearing up semantics.
I think Christians would probably have an easier time if they just said god is not Omni-max anything and that he is just powerful and caring and doing his best under the circumstances to bring things in to order from chaos over a period of time that still isn’t complete. At least then they wouldn’t have to just assume the way things are automatically the greatest possible world - such as the massive amount of suffering, mass extinctions of other beings, and the majority of humanity burning in a crockpot for infinity over a finite crime that god designed them with the desires to do…regardless, I think all the theological arguments are just an outer shell covering up the real reasons they believe in god - a mix of deep desire, hope, indoctrination, sense of community, tradition, an easy way of making sense of complex things, practicality, and tradition.
New sub. Great stuff! Thanks!
0:45 "When we call something a disaster ... we are actually saying that there's something wrong with the world." No, we don't. We say that something happened that had detrimental effects on something we care about. This does not make the world "wrong". A child would think that something is "wrong" when it things don't go its way. An adult understands the laws of nature and deals with them. This has to be the world record on losing the interest of a rational viewer; she didn't need more than 30s to tell me that I should go into this with the lowest of expectations.
Cosmic prankster? More like a maniacal tyrant.
Yea I think Steven was being too easy here on her. If evil exists, and God is the supreme creator, god must (not negotiable) create literally all perceived evil ever.
@@ezpzlemonsqueezy90 Oh, Yahweh. A silly goose.
Also, maybe I missed an announcement or something, but where is Justin Brierley?
I think he might have retired from the show….not sure (hope not!).
Retired over a year ago- has his own podcast now. Totally different type.
And still no evidence for god. Plenty of evidence for the desire of one.
I am not really concerned about what any particular person BELIEVES. You may believe that there is an old man with a white beard perched in the clouds, that the Ultimate Reality is a young blackish-blue Indian guy, that the universe is eternal, that Mother Mary was a certifiable virgin, or that gross physical matter is the foundation of existence.
The ONLY thing that really matters is your meta-ethics, not your meta-physics.
Do you consider any form of non-monarchical government (such as democracy or socialism) to be beneficial?
Do you unnecessarily destroy the lives of poor, innocent animals and gorge on their bloody carcasses?
Do you believe homosexuality and transvestism are moral?
Do you consider feminist ideology to be righteous?
If so, then you are objectively immoral, and your so-called "enlightened/awakened" state is immaterial, since it does not benefit society in any way.
Exactly, her evidence was literally I want it to be true
Sill no evidence against the existence of God, either.
@@scotthullinger4684 That's why we all believe everything against which there is no evidence, right?
@@joshuataylor3550I feel it to be true therefore it must be. Emotion reasoning cognitive distortion
Her take on angels is one of the many reasons why Christianity should never have been superglued to Judaism as they couldn't be further apart on angelic will. If angels do have freewill then Judaism cannot be the 'father of Christianity'...At that point they are two entirely different religions.
Sharon sounded almost reasonable...then she started talking about Satan and, I'm sorry, she just became a crazy person.
Extinction of the dinosaurs is a little harsh. Just because Noah didn't let them on the Ark? 😊
Oh,oh. I'm walking on thin ice with this.......
It’s almost like Christianity makes no sense
Though it does to those who KNOW HIM...
No, it's exactly that it makes no sense.
@@El_Paracleto no, you just pretend it does, like the trinity, if you don't understand the trinity you can't get into heaven, so like the emperors new clothes everyone makes up BS explanations - using non standard logic if you want to appear really smart, but really it's smoke and mirrors and crap. horse poop. voodoo in fancy dress. blood sacrifice. human sacrifice.
@@whittfamily1Really? How so? I think it makes sense.
@@Grandmaster_Dragonborn Yes really! How so? Well, Christianity doesn't "make sense" because God does not exist. We now know this. This has now been proven.
As usual, the theist doesn't know her Bible. "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." Isaiah 45:7
Sharon, world champion verbal gymnast
It's a cool discussion. But once someone goes "it doesn't make sense on emotional level", I don't know what is the point of the discussion.
I am not sure how we are at a stage where people can create AI but believe in an all-mighty/good, etc. god that created them considering our current knowledge of evelution and the world as a whole
God is not interfering in our lives. God is far far away...
Buggered off.... thinking, shite, l made a feck up there.
@@tonyburton419 or just doesn’t care.
God warned His creation, but they chose to disobey Him.
Genesis 2
16 “And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:”
17 “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”
But God offers grace to everyone who accepts it.
Isaiah 55 (KJV)
6 “Seek ye the LORD while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near:”
7 “Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.”
8 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.”
9 “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.”
James 4 (KJV)
6 "But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble."
7 "Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you."
8 "Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded."
The life sustaining role does not fly for me either. That is not true on other worlds. Tectonic or weather activity is by no means limited to planets with a biosphere. Would that not indicate that then having any connection to the sustaining or promoting of life is a vanishingly small effect? And much more likely to be a background effect life evolved around rather then it being made for life in the first place. I also find that there is a difference between saying that yes, volcanic activity can lead to an increase in plant growth fertility and saying that ongoing volcanic activity is required for the sustaining of plants globally. I do not think the latter is true as we have wide scale plant growth in areas of the world with no volcanoes or earth quakes.
Tenuous and tentative. Guess which speaker I’m referring to. 😂
Sharon, of course.
I guess it all comes to intelectual honesty. We either choose to see world through logic and reason and build our worldview around them or deciding to dismiss it and let ourselves to throw there a belief system where logic and reason is replaced by faith, which is in many cases not supported by logic and reason. God of bible is one of them and i don't see any debate where that even shake that conclusion a little. Still waiting for one. The moment when reasoning and logic comes to possible esplanation of it its at this time its simply game over.
Yeah, she seems to take a different peculiar stance than some other Christians I've come across because by saying the things she did and does, it makes God (if he exists) look like either an awful God or an impotent one. Take your pic.
Sharon seemed a bit dishonest. Stephen annihilated her reasoning, she should just admit that.
Does god exist without humans? Because with humans, there are many thousands of different gods. Humans define what a god is - so a god can be anything.
A god has to exist in a linear timeline - god can not go back in time - a child born without limbs will not suddenly oh miracle have limbs - so what good is a god that can not change things that have gone wrong -
All evil is the devil and god won’t kill him even though he can, thereby allowing millions to suffer
"It seems suffering💀 is part of the God game🙃.
d🤕🇪🇺
I can envision a God who might have created a world with minor suffering, but not with moderate, major, or horrific suffering that we see in our world. So, if he did exist, God would not create, cause, or allow things like the Holocaust or the Great Asian Tsunami of 2004.
God warned Adam and Eve, but they disobeyed Him anyway... so we now live in a fallen world.
Genesis 2
16 “And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:”
17 “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”
@@B0SS330 The story of Adam and Eve is just fiction. It never happened. If God did exist and if an Adam and Eve disobeyed him, the punishment would not have been unjust, as it is described in Genesis. There it is too harsh and transgenerational, both immoral.
It’s ironic that the existence of God - a god who was once an elemental spirit - is now most challenged by those same elements.
I really appreciated the decorum of this debate. However the absolute cowardice in shutting down Stephen’s final point is very telling as it would have blown this whole premise wide open. Otherwise, great conversation and moderation.
Is it not "putting the cart before the horse" to say morality is explained by theism without substantiating theism first? Especially in light of there being naturalist explanations for morality in a social specie.
At almost any stage in christian theology outside the last 50 years or so she would of been banished way, imprisoned or burnt at the stake if we went further back in history.
god is whatever can be socially permissible within the current society you live in, ever evolving and mutating. Here is a great example on show.
First, I'm all for the exchange of such ideas in a civil manner that democratic societies offer.
However, with her superstitious, primitive beliefs, and lacking justification for them, Sharon is unworthy of her PhD. In fact, it should've been granted to Stephen Woodford for his superior arguments which, as far as debates go, should be considered a sweeping victory.
Skin in the game would indeed make these debates more interesting.
If Sharon is really honest with herself, I cannot even imagine which levels of cognitive dissonance would take for a PhD graduate in a scientific discipline to hold the position she has. It almost looks like after learning so much about science she said "nope, I am not going to investigate the evolutionary reasons that brought humans to become a social specie, and I will pretend that it comes from a supernatural source, otherwise I might lose my faith". The existence of this woman deeply bothers me. I appreciate she is generally nice, however I cannot stop thinking she is either lying to herself, or shutting down voices in her head that lead to paths that are not religious.
So she pretty much sums it up to its the devils fault
This fallen world is Lucifer's domain.
How did we end up here?
Adam and Eve disobeyed God in the Garden.
Genesis 2 (KJV)
16 “And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:”
17 “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”
So God allowed man (male and female) to experience "good and evil"... but there is a time limit.
The grace period will end soon.
@@B0SS330You have to prove that buddy. Otherwise it's just rambling
@@LASLAY13 you will get to find out in due time... but by then, it may be too late.
Seek God now, while he is close.
James 4 (KJV)
6 "But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble."
7 "Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you."
8 "Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded."
Proof that going to Cambridge doesn't mean you're smart. Can't even string together a coherent argument or see the blatant flaws in her arguments. Shocking.
the responses from this woman were downright embarrassing. It sounds like she hasn't really given enough thought to some of the arguments against what she is saying
She makes a bunch of claims and can not back any up. Her arguments hold no value beyond feelings which we know are often wrong.
Sharon's performance was the most underwhelming and utterly unconvincing.
Natural disasters are not evil. There has to be some intent or neglect from an intentional being for some something to be evil. Because of this, natural disasters and examples of what seems to be natural cruelty are only an issue if you believe in God. Theists need to deal with the fact that God intended and maintains evil
If Gary sets up a rock so it will fall and kill the next person walking down the path, *is that evil?* If "yes" then could you remind me *is God all-knowing?* Meaning: when they set up the universe did they already know every natural disaster that would happen, including rocks that would be set up to fall on a person walking down the path eventually (I'm not talking about Gary's rock here; I'm talking about natural rockslides that were set up by God to kill people)?
Huge "W" for Rationallity Rules!! These theists are delusional
Evil is a personified being - the devil. That one off me.
Oh dear, Sharon. Just gives up and say you're deluded.
i'd have more respect if they just said "i know it doesn't make sense but i like the idea and i want to be reunited with my pet goldfish" but no, they have to make up this crap and try to make a bad joke like god work.
Stephen, I must have seen the January bit, I recognize 'sharon'. You're superb in a debate, because...Rationality Rules! Ok, watching this, got to edit in. Why do theists always say, when they're not sure of their answer, 'that's a great question!'. As for job, no, scholars no longer believe job is the oldest book, and I call BS, on a couple other things. Job and god were arguing, (betting?), not 'it involved other things. And satan, really? He was friends with yahweh, not an evil being! And earlier, to say we shouldn't emotionally feel upset with 'natural evil' without a god. That's senseless, we need no god to have feelings! And if god wants us, why does he hide. On top of all that, yeah she really doesn't understand history or evolution. All the horrible things she mentioned, our elder care, rape, (as you said) has progressed with our species continued evolution! 👍💙💙💙🥰✌
Evil is just a label we put on things we really, really don't like. It's that simple. As such, to say that evil exists is to say that things we really, really don't like exist. There you go, evil has been accounted for.
This also highlights the problem with these discussions. People need to define their terms. Sharon defined evil as, essentially, Satan. I am pretty sure that is not how Stephen would define it. And I am pretty sure they both define morality differently as well. If evil is Satan and morality is doing what God says to do, then I guess I don't believe in evil or morality. But I am still going to be against things I really, really don't like, and I am still going to want to live in a society that agrees with me about not liking them.
Brain imaging scientist thinks there’s no naturalistic explanation for emotional responses? Derrrrrrrrrp 😜😝
What incoherent rambling. "I can't understand how you can explain some things with naturalism therefore I believe I can live forever because 2000 years ago a man was nailed to a piece of wood then came back to life again and flew up into space" Is that basically what she's saying?
"The feelings about good and bad makes more sense if god exists" - even if that was truth (which isn't), it would than lead to illogical conflict with facts. And because the problem of god's evil is undefeatable, the only way is to attack another topic (evaluation of good and bad).
"This is a good question..." followed with extremely long talk about nothing like reaction for the question.
1:10:05 can you show me "love thy neighbour in Islam?" Please remember neighbour in Christianity is other tribe.
it's probably in there somewhere, muslims are even more dishonest than christians.
apologize
express regret for
: to express regret for something done or said : to make an apology. for gods unforgivable nature.