The problem of evil can be solved through rational discussion among a slew of other things to help decide what is moral. Doctrine says killing adulterers is okay
(1) The worldviews that give the best explanation of suffering are the worldviews that posit that there is no inherit problem with suffering existing, which Naturalism falls into. Christianity may be able to semantically get out of the problem of evil, but on a "human level" it's pretty obvious to see that the problem of evil is inductively a serious problem that no Christian can provide a satisfying answer to.
Valuable brother Even if the Christian worldview is not true you can still believe and follow because it's better than not any other worldview n way of life.
(2) Obviously some non-Christian worldviews like Naturalism are FAR superior at explaining suffering because under Naturalism there is absolutely no conflict with unnecessary suffering. Under Naturalism the world was not designed by a benevolent being, but instead guided by blind naturalistic forces that are ambivalent to suffering. The fact that he over looks this is mind numbing, unless I misunderstood him. I don't understand what you mean by analogy of repair, please elaborate.
(2) IMO, the best arguments against Christianity I have found are: arguments against Free Will (because without Free Will the deductive problem of evil essentially succeeds, and many other serious problems follow), arguments against the origin of sin/evil (without a good explanation of sin/evil, Christianity is incoherent), and arguments about divine hiddenness (good arguments in this realm basically eviscerates Christianity by forcing the Christians to cling to weak retorts that are absurd).
How I cope with this is pretty simple: I know that God created all good, and he hold the ultimate standard to what is right and wrong, good and evil and however he judges it he correct and right way. What SHOULD happen, will happen and by accepting this it brings me peace to let the chips fall where they land. This doesn't say that I am saying "don't evangelize", because of course we have to but what my point is is that I do my job and the lord will do the rest.
Weird how there are a bunch of good arguments agains theism, yet greg doesnt seem to know a single one. And doesnt seem to be "in the know" about the problem of evil in the first place, since he mistakenly thinks its a problem for non-christians which it, for obvious reasons, isnt a problem for many other religions and certainly isn't a problem on non-belief in deities.
You said, "complaints about the bible are not arguments against God" but according to the bible "the word is God" John 1:1, So any "complaint" or argument against the bible (the word) is an arguments against God and can hold some weight in an argument. All scripture is inspired by God, so his own word can be use as a form of argument against him.
"...it's practically an argument from ignorance...." no - it is affirming ignorance - so we are dissmissing an argument because of ignorance. argument would be solved some way if not due to lack of knowlege.
So how does animal suffering fit into "god repairing"? Please do go into detail. Also I agree god generally doesn't punish (though there are clear examples in the bible) because when he commits someone to hell there is no hope for the person to correct their actions and end their suffering. It is far worse then punishment.
Consider the "evidence" that Zeus doesn't exist, and you'll understand the argument against theism. That is to say that it is logically impossible to prove a negative, which greg surely knows but isn't telling you. However, as the canaanite roots of yahweh have been archeologically traced and we know that the hebrews are an off shoot of canaanite culture and pantheon. So, there is a creator diety, we can reasonably conclude that it isn't the yahweh, just as we may conclude that it isn't zeus either.
Absolute and utter bunk. Didn't happen. You are an idiot, learning from idiots. >However, as the canaanite roots of yahweh have been archeologically traced and we know that the hebrews are an off shoot of canaanite culture and pantheon.
well, they would never have the choice of believing that brand of crazy and would probably be following a different brand of crazy, thus making the leader of your brand of crazy insanely jealous and he would burn them forever (wow crazy).
(1) The problem of animal suffering is an especially potent version of the problem of suffering because the Christian has no good rebuttal to it. Animals don't have free will, and cannot commit sins, but they are capable of experiencing extreme unnecessary emotional and physical pain. Yea Koukl is dead wrong here, and I can never tell if it's because he has never met a competent non-Christian or if he is just that ignorant.
Haha, Santa Clause doesn't exist. Why did you call whoever a moron? This seems to be a common denominator in atheism where if they don't have a good argument, they then resort to name calling and emotional rants.
There are many reasons why evil is allowed from the Christian viewpoint. Man has created evil. Man has been given choice and many choose to commit evil acts. Evil tests Christians' faith. And lastly, WE Christians are the answer and solution to evil as Jesus taught us to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, give water to thirsty ones, visit sick and imprisoned and use our talents and resources to overcome evil with good. If there was no evil there would be no distinction between good and evil.
He just equated the default view on a claim to be if the claim that is believed more than not believed in the world. There is an obvious flaw in this. The default view is the claim is wrong. The truth of a claim doesn't not depend on whether someone believes in them... Obviously... This is so basic it's a shame people have to point this out.
Historical scholars don't unanimously agree on anything, whether it's Jesus's existence or the holocaust. That being said the majority agree that some historical figure named Jesus did live at that time period, which doesn't really imply much, and is hardly a victory in any regard. Furthermore, please don't talk about "owning" someone. This isn't a game, or a contest. If you are actually here for intellectual discussion, do it for knowledge's sake, and not to intellectually bruise someone.
"... it is a "problem" for theism,that is the point...." Why? Evil afects everyone the same way - why atheist should be ignorant to the problem of their own suffering?
He pwnd me with a double standard? I didnt compare santa with big j, just asked him to prove that santa was not an historical figure. If i were to make a comparison, it wouldnt be based on their existence. Even if we accept the very sparse evidence for big j's existence, theres nothing to back up his miracles. So in that sense the caricature of santa and big j are very similar. Their existence is almost irrelevant. Its the claims of their impossible miracles that have no evidential backing.
"The problem of an evil god is certainly enough to dismiss the christian god." It is not a problem it is an argument of an evil god and it is logicaly flawed in it's premises so it is not even a chalange. Amould of evil in the world does not determine nature of God as it may have moraly suffitient reasons to allow that in ether way.
My point was that they dont deal in certainties. Only the imbecilic would believe them if they claimed to. Only the biased would hear certainty where there is non.
Actually that only gives a possible reason, it's doesn't make it probable. But regardless, that's not the Evil god problem. that's the problem of evil... they're not quite the same thing. The evil god problem is this... How do you know that there isn't an evil god, who has set the world in motion in order to propagate evil and suffering? If that is the case, then the amount of good in the world is meaningless, since the evil god may have sufficient reasons for allowing it.
Burden of proof is not determined by a majority vote. The argument from divine hiddenness is probably somewhat better as an argument for atheism. An all powerful god supposedly needs evil to accomplish good as part of his plan. This makes no sense. A perfect plan does not have collateral damage like that ( 4:00 ) . 4:33 - What worldview gives the best explanation for the problem of evil.Any godless worldview does not need to account for evil because it doesn't represent a problem that falsifies the worldview, unless maybe the worldview holds that people are all good. The problem is with an entity that is basically good that allows evils against the innocent. We would not call a government good if they allowed all crimes to go unpunished. 5:06 Without god there is no hope of resolving "evil" in society. Well yes there is. 1st world societies are less violent, more tolerant and more free than ever. We have actually managed to create hope by nurturing peace and liberty. No god needed. In fact hope in an imaginary entity does not resolve anything. Certainly atheism doesn't do the job. Yes because atheism is not a method for resolving problems, it is a conclusion. A singular conclusion. What is wrong with this guy!? I generally don't like the problem of evil. I prefer the problem of suffering. If humans can be evil toward each other some theology could possibly account for that, but needless suffering brought about by nature does contradict the idea that there is a god ape that is basically good. Yahweh is the author of suffering in the bible, and massively unnecessary sadistic amounts of it. If yahweh is good and loving, this makes no sense whatsoever. This is a really poor rebuttal.
Saw the timestamps in your notes so I watched the video first (assuming that this was really "the best" argument)... When he talked about "existence of evil being established" I went like "huh?!" then I went on and looked at their webpage and a sort of micro-paradox formed in my mind! Finally I returned to G+ post (I remembered your timestamps) to read your notes and find relief :D and well I agree with you :)
Andrew honest we are his childhood Ant Nest (those glass cubes filled with dirt and ants) :P he got bored and left us in the attic!! :D He is probably playing with the cool kids in Andromeda now... Have you seen that episode of Futurama with a similar theme?
I've been there too Andrew honest. It is a difficult place to be. I think apologists like the one in the video realise on some level that suffering presents a problem. I haven't seen any good explanations for suffering. When I became sceptical about my faith, I asked myself if I could tell someone who was suffering that it was all part of god's plan, and honestly believe that myself, and say it unapologetically. I couldn't.
I became an atheist when I realized the world we live in is not compatible with the claims of theism. In theism, god is good by definition and for *no other reason*. We don't seem to live in a world governed by a supremely moral and intellectually perfect intelligence. What we see and experience in the world is better explained under naturalism.
Also the term atheism is not wide spread so if you want a more accurate poll ask the question do you believe in a hod and you get 1 in 4 americans who say no
ok,try this one... Why does your god allow 40,000 different sects of christianity? Why does he allow thousands of other religions to exist at the same time as his does? Why does he allow thousands of religions to exist before his was created? Especially the god of the bible would not allow this to occur (see first 3 commandments). Dont say free will either, because the people that lived before your god was created never heard of him and the same is true for many cultures in remote regions today.
There is no unanimous opinion that jesus definitely existed. Just that it is fair to give his existence the benefit of the doubt based on balance of probability. Just because you take that to mean that he definitely existed only displays your wilful bias.
Santa Claus is a product of traditional folklore. In fact the latest version was concocted by Coca Cola, and displays the colors of Coca Cola. So we can clearly see that it is a developing myth. In fact Santa can be proven not to exist not on the evidence that doesn't exist but on the evidence that in fact does exist. The Biblical God does not have the qualities of a developing myth.
Irony is you believing in a creature that created the whole universe but also watches you take a poop and cares about you, while at the still time trying to differentiate between said imaginary character and another based on some mainly ignorant book. While non christain scholars just see it as an interesting document, watching christain scholars talk about the bible is akin to tweenage girls finding meaning that isnt there in the lyrics of the most recent boy band release.
Lol, that's your response(or lack of) to my comment?? Santa Claus is not s spirit, he doesn't live at the North pole, or go down anyones chimney, it's provable he doesn't exist. Again, y bring Mr. Claus into it?
Interesting! I hadn't thought of it this way. I would like to hear an atheist's detailed argument FOR atheism. They don't respond to the problem of evil, they just eliminate hope. Which is fine, if that's what they want to do, but then---why do they even get up in the morning if they have no hope? I think if I were an atheist and I had no basis for right and wrong or any hope, I think I'd just stay in bed.
melissasw64 When we look around, we see material. We see humans, animals, objects, etc.. But then comes an individual that makes a claim that there is a god. Wait a second, this person is claiming that there exists a supernatural being, when all we've ever really seen is material things. Why should we believe him? The burden of proof is on the individual making the claim that there is a god, just as the burden of proof would be on me if I claimed that I can juggle elephants. Atheism comes across as rude and dismissive, but it is nothing more than a patient philosophy. "I will believe it when I see it". Once an atheist finds evidence for something, he will begin to believe. But until then, he finds no reason to believe.. "I think if I were an atheist and I had no basis for right and wrong or any hope, I think I'd just stay in bed" You are correct, atheists do not believe in objective morality. Any atheist that claims there is an objective right and wrong is an absolute idiot. I myself have three things that create order in my life, even though they are subjective and arbitrary: My conscience, Social Contract Theory, and Epicurean Hedonism. The first two deal with morality, and answer the question of "why won't I murder and steal and cheat, despite having no objective morality?". The third one, Epicurean Hedonism, is what drives me to get out of bed. I get out of bed in order to seek pleasure and try to minimize negative feelings such as shame, helplessness, fear etc..
H Hijazi Interesting. I had to Google "Epicurean Hedonism." That was a new term for me. Thanks for that. The part I still have trouble with is conscience. If all there is is the material world, where does your conscience come from? You have it but you can't see it, feel it, weigh it, measure using any scientific method. This makes me believe there is something supernatural. I'm not talking about a Christian God specifically, just something beyond our natural world.
H Hijazi The perfection of the universe, where the big bang came from, and I what C.S. Lewis calls "the law of human nature" which is the idea that there is an objective right and wrong. I think those are the three main reasons I believe.
The first two are very good points indeed. I always wonder about the impossibility of these things myself. However, don't you think that an individual would be committing a fallacious leap by proclaiming that a god definitely did all this? The maximum you could go is to say that *maybe* a god did it. After all, it is reminiscent of the gods that pre-historic men invented as a result of not knowing what thunder is, or why the sun emits heat. I do not want to persuade you, or even make you question things. But I am definitely curious what a fellow human being thinks about these things.
Burden of proof is on the athiest because Only 2% of the world is atheists? So the person making the claim is the person rejecting the claim because it's two against one?
Wow... that's the best he can come up with? I've rarely seen people use the problem of evil, it's not necessary. The problem of an evil god is certainly enough to dismiss the christian god. But why bother? But still... pretending that you're not aware of arguments, doesn't mean they don't exist.
"....god couldn't have done any better at saving souls,(which to me seems obviously false)..." you could give some argumets to justify your asserton. I cannot see how he could do any better.
Personally, i know that given the 2 mentions in historical documents of jesus' existence (neither of which mention any miracles), are not even remotely enough to reach certainty. In scholastic terms, big j's existence is nothing more than 'benefit of the doubt'. Just as anything else would be if supported by similar evidence projecting from 2 millennia ago. A historian that says he knows for a fact that jesus existed is a fucking liar. You can be forgiven as ignorant.
Wow... that's the best he can come up with? The problem of evil isn't even a good one at all. The problem of an evil god is better. But still... pretending that you're not aware of arguments, doesn't mean they don't exist.
You are the one using argument from authority fallacy. I never said he didnt exist, i just said 'lets assume the meagre facts of his existence are accurate', and you muddle that to suggest i was saying he didnt exist. The main point is, the video maker still hasent proven that santa doesnt exist. He will claim that im required to prove he does, but he cant even reach that standard about bug j at all, let alone any of the bullshit miracles that are attributed to him.
But then if that didnt perfectly express your intellectual impotence, theres no evidence he ever performed a miracle either, but you probably believe those too. You have zero credibility.
Greg: you are confusing evil and suffering. The atheist view of the POE is that there is an inconsistency between a loving God and SUFFERING. You muddy the waters (a VERY common error by Christians) by presenting the atheist position as making a metaphysical commitment to the existence of "Evil." We are not. (Your John Lennox quote is cute, a good preach-to-the-choir line, but intellectually vapid.) Without God there is no POE. You also show your lack of expertise by not being aware that EVEN IF the atheist believes in the existence of that thing called "Evil", there are many world-class naturalist philosophers specializing in metaethics who are quite ably showing how that can be done without God. It is unfortunate that you (and most of your non-PhD colleagues in apologetics) appear to not be aware of this. Perhaps' it's time to take a break and do some advanced academic study?
The reason Atheism is so small is because Term Theism is ridiculously broad. "God" can mean anything. Anything From a piece of paper to Yahweh can be categorized as "God" or somehow theistic. If the Best Argument you've heard is the argument of Evil then this video is a waste of time. This is one of the weakest arguments out there.
In the viewable universe (what we are currently able to view) the milkyway galaxy is bearly a speck. And you religious idiots believe a puny god that some uneducated primitive people came up with could conjured up such a vast universe. It is just dumb thinking believing in god, just plain dumb.
![กี่หมื่นฟ้า | Your Sky Series EP.1 [1/4]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/vLGjxFL6U_I/mqdefault.jpg)
The problem of evil can be solved through rational discussion among a slew of other things to help decide what is moral. Doctrine says killing adulterers is okay
I appreciate the uploads. I look forward to the next video.
(1)
The worldviews that give the best explanation of suffering are the worldviews that posit that there is no inherit problem with suffering existing, which Naturalism falls into. Christianity may be able to semantically get out of the problem of evil, but on a "human level" it's pretty obvious to see that the problem of evil is inductively a serious problem that no Christian can provide a satisfying answer to.
Valuable brother
Even if the Christian worldview is not true you can still believe and follow because it's better than not any other worldview n way of life.
@@watchman.servantif it's possibly false, and there are worldviews that are true, how could the false world view be better to hold?
Koukl technique..."Just say anything"
(2)
Obviously some non-Christian worldviews like Naturalism are FAR superior at explaining suffering because under Naturalism there is absolutely no conflict with unnecessary suffering. Under Naturalism the world was not designed by a benevolent being, but instead guided by blind naturalistic forces that are ambivalent to suffering. The fact that he over looks this is mind numbing, unless I misunderstood him.
I don't understand what you mean by analogy of repair, please elaborate.
(2)
IMO, the best arguments against Christianity I have found are: arguments against Free Will (because without Free Will the deductive problem of evil essentially succeeds, and many other serious problems follow), arguments against the origin of sin/evil (without a good explanation of sin/evil, Christianity is incoherent), and arguments about divine hiddenness (good arguments in this realm basically eviscerates Christianity by forcing the Christians to cling to weak retorts that are absurd).
I like this guy. Can't believe I've never seen him before. Defiantly will watch more of his videos if I can find some.
Thanks! A clear and simple explanation just like all your other videos.
Yeah, I mistyped that. I meant to say, there is no default view except 'I don't know'
Thats a super interesting statement you made there. I wonder if that applies to all things?
How I cope with this is pretty simple: I know that God created all good, and he hold the ultimate standard to what is right and wrong, good and evil and however he judges it he correct and right way. What SHOULD happen, will happen and by accepting this it brings me peace to let the chips fall where they land. This doesn't say that I am saying "don't evangelize", because of course we have to but what my point is is that I do my job and the lord will do the rest.
Weird how there are a bunch of good arguments agains theism, yet greg doesnt seem to know a single one. And doesnt seem to be "in the know" about the problem of evil in the first place, since he mistakenly thinks its a problem for non-christians which it, for obvious reasons, isnt a problem for many other religions and certainly isn't a problem on non-belief in deities.
That looks like a comfortable chair.
You said, "complaints about the bible are not arguments against God" but according to the bible "the word is God" John 1:1, So any "complaint" or argument against the bible (the word) is an arguments against God and can hold some weight in an argument. All scripture is inspired by God, so his own word can be use as a form of argument against him.
You also gotta define witch god you are posing for, otherwise you will commit a shifting the goal post fallacy
"...it's practically an argument from ignorance...." no - it is affirming ignorance - so we are dissmissing an argument because of ignorance. argument would be solved some way if not due to lack of knowlege.
"...The default view is the claim is wrong..." How come?
So how does animal suffering fit into "god repairing"? Please do go into detail.
Also I agree god generally doesn't punish (though there are clear examples in the bible) because when he commits someone to hell there is no hope for the person to correct their actions and end their suffering. It is far worse then punishment.
Consider the "evidence" that Zeus doesn't exist, and you'll understand the argument against theism. That is to say that it is logically impossible to prove a negative, which greg surely knows but isn't telling you. However, as the canaanite roots of yahweh have been archeologically traced and we know that the hebrews are an off shoot of canaanite culture and pantheon. So, there is a creator diety, we can reasonably conclude that it isn't the yahweh, just as we may conclude that it isn't zeus either.
Absolute and utter bunk. Didn't happen. You are an idiot, learning from idiots.
>However, as the canaanite roots of yahweh have been archeologically traced and we know that the hebrews are an off shoot of canaanite culture and pantheon.
well, they would never have the choice of believing that brand of crazy and would probably be following a different brand of crazy, thus making the leader of your brand of crazy insanely jealous and he would burn them forever (wow crazy).
(1)
The problem of animal suffering is an especially potent version of the problem of suffering because the Christian has no good rebuttal to it. Animals don't have free will, and cannot commit sins, but they are capable of experiencing extreme unnecessary emotional and physical pain.
Yea Koukl is dead wrong here, and I can never tell if it's because he has never met a competent non-Christian or if he is just that ignorant.
The atheist challenge of evil as presented here sounds more like a complaint than a legitimate challenge.
Haha, Santa Clause doesn't exist. Why did you call whoever a moron? This seems to be a common denominator in atheism where if they don't have a good argument, they then resort to name calling and emotional rants.
There are many reasons why evil is allowed from the Christian viewpoint. Man has created evil. Man has been given choice and many choose to commit evil acts. Evil tests Christians' faith. And lastly, WE Christians are the answer and solution to evil as Jesus taught us to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, give water to thirsty ones, visit sick and imprisoned and use our talents and resources to overcome evil with good. If there was no evil there would be no distinction between good and evil.
He just equated the default view on a claim to be if the claim that is believed more than not believed in the world. There is an obvious flaw in this. The default view is the claim is wrong.
The truth of a claim doesn't not depend on whether someone believes in them... Obviously... This is so basic it's a shame people have to point this out.
The best argument is the god of gaps
Historical scholars don't unanimously agree on anything, whether it's Jesus's existence or the holocaust. That being said the majority agree that some historical figure named Jesus did live at that time period, which doesn't really imply much, and is hardly a victory in any regard.
Furthermore, please don't talk about "owning" someone. This isn't a game, or a contest. If you are actually here for intellectual discussion, do it for knowledge's sake, and not to intellectually bruise someone.
Using your reasoning, can you prove that Socrates existed or do we just give him the benefit of the doubt?
Absolutely. Thats why they loose arguments.
"... it is a "problem" for theism,that is the point...." Why? Evil afects everyone the same way - why atheist should be ignorant to the problem of their own suffering?
Depends if your are arguing for a earth centric god that goes against geological evidence then you can argue disproofs for that god.
He pwnd me with a double standard? I didnt compare santa with big j, just asked him to prove that santa was not an historical figure.
If i were to make a comparison, it wouldnt be based on their existence. Even if we accept the very sparse evidence for big j's existence, theres nothing to back up his miracles. So in that sense the caricature of santa and big j are very similar. Their existence is almost irrelevant. Its the claims of their impossible miracles that have no evidential backing.
"The problem of an evil god is certainly enough to dismiss the christian god." It is not a problem it is an argument of an evil god and it is logicaly flawed in it's premises so it is not even a chalange. Amould of evil in the world does not determine nature of God as it may have moraly suffitient reasons to allow that in ether way.
My point was that they dont deal in certainties. Only the imbecilic would believe them if they claimed to. Only the biased would hear certainty where there is non.
Actually that only gives a possible reason, it's doesn't make it probable.
But regardless, that's not the Evil god problem.
that's the problem of evil... they're not quite the same thing.
The evil god problem is this...
How do you know that there isn't an evil god, who has set the world in motion in order to propagate evil and suffering?
If that is the case, then the amount of good in the world is meaningless, since the evil god may have sufficient reasons for allowing it.
Burden of proof is not determined by a majority vote. The argument from divine hiddenness is probably somewhat better as an argument for atheism.
An all powerful god supposedly needs evil to accomplish good as part of his plan. This makes no sense. A perfect plan does not have collateral damage like that ( 4:00 ) .
4:33 - What worldview gives the best explanation for the problem of evil.Any godless worldview does not need to account for evil because it doesn't represent a problem that falsifies the worldview, unless maybe the worldview holds that people are all good. The problem is with an entity that is basically good that allows evils against the innocent. We would not call a government good if they allowed all crimes to go unpunished.
5:06 Without god there is no hope of resolving "evil" in society. Well yes there is. 1st world societies are less violent, more tolerant and more free than ever. We have actually managed to create hope by nurturing peace and liberty. No god needed. In fact hope in an imaginary entity does not resolve anything.
Certainly atheism doesn't do the job.
Yes because atheism is not a method for resolving problems, it is a conclusion. A singular conclusion. What is wrong with this guy!?
I generally don't like the problem of evil. I prefer the problem of suffering. If humans can be evil toward each other some theology could possibly account for that, but needless suffering brought about by nature does contradict the idea that there is a god ape that is basically good. Yahweh is the author of suffering in the bible, and massively unnecessary sadistic amounts of it. If yahweh is good and loving, this makes no sense whatsoever.
This is a really poor rebuttal.
Saw the timestamps in your notes so I watched the video first (assuming that this was really "the best" argument)...
When he talked about "existence of evil being established" I went like "huh?!" then I went on and looked at their webpage and a sort of micro-paradox formed in my mind!
Finally I returned to G+ post (I remembered your timestamps) to read your notes and find relief :D
and well I agree with you :)
Andrew honest we are his childhood Ant Nest (those glass cubes filled with dirt and ants) :P he got bored and left us in the attic!! :D He is probably playing with the cool kids in Andromeda now... Have you seen that episode of Futurama with a similar theme?
I've been there too Andrew honest. It is a difficult place to be. I think apologists like the one in the video realise on some level that suffering presents a problem. I haven't seen any good explanations for suffering.
When I became sceptical about my faith, I asked myself if I could tell someone who was suffering that it was all part of god's plan, and honestly believe that myself, and say it unapologetically. I couldn't.
Fucking steaming pile of bullshit. Bleugh...
I became an atheist when I realized the world we live in is not compatible with the claims of theism. In theism, god is good by definition and for *no other reason*. We don't seem to live in a world governed by a supremely moral and intellectually perfect intelligence. What we see and experience in the world is better explained under naturalism.
Also the term atheism is not wide spread so if you want a more accurate poll ask the question do you believe in a hod and you get 1 in 4 americans who say no
ok,try this one... Why does your god allow 40,000 different sects of christianity? Why does he allow thousands of other religions to exist at the same time as his does? Why does he allow thousands of religions to exist before his was created? Especially the god of the bible would not allow this to occur (see first 3 commandments). Dont say free will either, because the people that lived before your god was created never heard of him and the same is true for many cultures in remote regions today.
There is no unanimous opinion that jesus definitely existed. Just that it is fair to give his existence the benefit of the doubt based on balance of probability. Just because you take that to mean that he definitely existed only displays your wilful bias.
It appears most of the time atheists create a false God in their minds and then argue it doesn't exist.
Santa Claus is a product of traditional folklore. In fact the latest version was concocted by Coca Cola, and displays the colors of Coca Cola. So we can clearly see that it is a developing myth. In fact Santa can be proven not to exist not on the evidence that doesn't exist but on the evidence that in fact does exist. The Biblical God does not have the qualities of a developing myth.
Irony is you believing in a creature that created the whole universe but also watches you take a poop and cares about you, while at the still time trying to differentiate between said imaginary character and another based on some mainly ignorant book.
While non christain scholars just see it as an interesting document, watching christain scholars talk about the bible is akin to tweenage girls finding meaning that isnt there in the lyrics of the most recent boy band release.
Prove that Santa is not a historical figure.
Lol, that's your response(or lack of) to my comment?? Santa Claus is not s spirit, he doesn't live at the North pole, or go down anyones chimney, it's provable he doesn't exist. Again, y bring Mr. Claus into it?
Interesting! I hadn't thought of it this way. I would like to hear an atheist's detailed argument FOR atheism. They don't respond to the problem of evil, they just eliminate hope. Which is fine, if that's what they want to do, but then---why do they even get up in the morning if they have no hope? I think if I were an atheist and I had no basis for right and wrong or any hope, I think I'd just stay in bed.
melissasw64
When we look around, we see material. We see humans, animals, objects, etc.. But then comes an individual that makes a claim that there is a god. Wait a second, this person is claiming that there exists a supernatural being, when all we've ever really seen is material things. Why should we believe him? The burden of proof is on the individual making the claim that there is a god, just as the burden of proof would be on me if I claimed that I can juggle elephants. Atheism comes across as rude and dismissive, but it is nothing more than a patient philosophy. "I will believe it when I see it". Once an atheist finds evidence for something, he will begin to believe. But until then, he finds no reason to believe..
"I think if I were an atheist and I had no basis for right and wrong or any hope, I think I'd just stay in bed"
You are correct, atheists do not believe in objective morality. Any atheist that claims there is an objective right and wrong is an absolute idiot. I myself have three things that create order in my life, even though they are subjective and arbitrary: My conscience, Social Contract Theory, and Epicurean Hedonism. The first two deal with morality, and answer the question of "why won't I murder and steal and cheat, despite having no objective morality?". The third one, Epicurean Hedonism, is what drives me to get out of bed. I get out of bed in order to seek pleasure and try to minimize negative feelings such as shame, helplessness, fear etc..
H Hijazi Interesting. I had to Google "Epicurean Hedonism." That was a new term for me. Thanks for that. The part I still have trouble with is conscience. If all there is is the material world, where does your conscience come from? You have it but you can't see it, feel it, weigh it, measure using any scientific method. This makes me believe there is something supernatural. I'm not talking about a Christian God specifically, just something beyond our natural world.
melissasw64
Are there other things that make you realize that there must be a god?
H Hijazi The perfection of the universe, where the big bang came from, and I what C.S. Lewis calls "the law of human nature" which is the idea that there is an objective right and wrong. I think those are the three main reasons I believe.
The first two are very good points indeed. I always wonder about the impossibility of these things myself. However, don't you think that an individual would be committing a fallacious leap by proclaiming that a god definitely did all this? The maximum you could go is to say that *maybe* a god did it. After all, it is reminiscent of the gods that pre-historic men invented as a result of not knowing what thunder is, or why the sun emits heat.
I do not want to persuade you, or even make you question things. But I am definitely curious what a fellow human being thinks about these things.
Reminds me of god in the bible. Regarding lots of things, he cant explain why other than he will smite you if you do/dont lol.
Burden of proof is on the athiest because Only 2% of the world is atheists?
So the person making the claim is the person rejecting the claim because it's two against one?
Wow... that's the best he can come up with?
I've rarely seen people use the problem of evil, it's not necessary.
The problem of an evil god is certainly enough to dismiss the christian god.
But why bother?
But still... pretending that you're not aware of arguments, doesn't mean they don't exist.
"....god couldn't have done any better at saving souls,(which to me seems obviously false)..." you could give some argumets to justify your asserton. I cannot see how he could do any better.
Personally, i know that given the 2 mentions in historical documents of jesus' existence (neither of which mention any miracles), are not even remotely enough to reach certainty.
In scholastic terms, big j's existence is nothing more than 'benefit of the doubt'. Just as anything else would be if supported by similar evidence projecting from 2 millennia ago.
A historian that says he knows for a fact that jesus existed is a fucking liar. You can be forgiven as ignorant.
If you atheists argue against the christian god then you would aim your arguments at that gods characteristics
I saw santa last christmas. Though like big j i saw no evidence he could perform miracles.
Free will, free will, thats a fallacy.
Wow... that's the best he can come up with?
The problem of evil isn't even a good one at all.
The problem of an evil god is better.
But still... pretending that you're not aware of arguments, doesn't mean they don't exist.
wow, can't even read the WHOLE comment b4 replying....oh never mind you probably did not even make it this far.
God does punish.
Ha, there's clear evidence that the Santa Claus that is portrayed in modern day doesn't exist. Why bring Santa into it?:)
You are the one using argument from authority fallacy. I never said he didnt exist, i just said 'lets assume the meagre facts of his existence are accurate', and you muddle that to suggest i was saying he didnt exist.
The main point is, the video maker still hasent proven that santa doesnt exist. He will claim that im required to prove he does, but he cant even reach that standard about bug j at all, let alone any of the bullshit miracles that are attributed to him.
But then if that didnt perfectly express your intellectual impotence, theres no evidence he ever performed a miracle either, but you probably believe those too.
You have zero credibility.
Greg: you are confusing evil and suffering. The atheist view of the POE is that there is an inconsistency between a loving God and SUFFERING.
You muddy the waters (a VERY common error by Christians) by presenting the atheist position as making a metaphysical commitment to the existence of "Evil." We are not. (Your John Lennox quote is cute, a good preach-to-the-choir line, but intellectually vapid.)
Without God there is no POE.
You also show your lack of expertise by not being aware that EVEN IF the atheist believes in the existence of that thing called "Evil", there are many world-class naturalist philosophers specializing in metaethics who are
quite ably showing how that can be done without God.
It is unfortunate that you (and most of your non-PhD colleagues in apologetics) appear to not be aware of this.
Perhaps' it's time to take a break and do some advanced academic study?
...
@Roper122
Those who upvoted this should be ashamed of themselves
Your video is highly uneducational
The reason Atheism is so small is because Term Theism is ridiculously broad. "God" can mean anything. Anything From a piece of paper to Yahweh can be categorized as "God" or somehow theistic. If the Best Argument you've heard is the argument of Evil then this video is a waste of time. This is one of the weakest arguments out there.
Santa Clause exists. Prove me wrong or its true.
Moron.
In the viewable universe (what we are currently able to view) the milkyway galaxy is bearly a speck. And you religious idiots believe a puny god that some uneducated primitive people came up with could conjured up such a vast universe. It is just dumb thinking believing in god, just plain dumb.
Please explain what "non-god" created the milkyway galaxy
This atheist demands proof. So drag this god of yours out here and let us see him.
That looks like a comfortable chair.