After reflecting on the format more, I really like this formal flow. I’ve noticed that in some discussions, a single, sometimes unrelated, issue will hog most of the time. This allowed each person to get out their thoughts without being sidetracked with questions. No form of communication is perfect. All formats have advantages and disadvantages. Also, I agree with many of the commenters that both CS and IP did really well! They each made strong points. I thoroughly enjoyed hosting this!
As a visiting athiest I want to say I'm inclined to agree. What I would like to see is a continuation of the series. Start with a topic as you have then have the same speakers agreeing on the next video being a point raised in the debate to get into more detail and maybe have more cross examination/discussion in the next video. Really enjoyed this video. I'm always blown away by Alex. Makes me excited for the state of the world that we have such articulate young people like him.
IP went up against a real wall here, and he climbed up and overcame it. I love Alex, I think he's a good bloke to go out and have a beer with, but Michael was able counter every objection of Alexs' with ease, and beauty, and logic.
@@akuma1552Yeah I agree it's realiveing to see that some people are capable of having respectful and loving conversations and debates instead of somone screaming in your face with hate and pride.
@@lampad4549 It's my opinion and opinions are highly subjective so if you don't see how he does a good job then its a free world you can think what you like.
having debates that arent just people shouting or interrupting each other, but rather people making good arguments and discussing them is so much more enjoyable
I know this may sound like a cop-out, but after thinking about this as objectively as I can (full disclosure: at the end of the day I am still an atheist), I truly think Matt’s sanity-to say nothing of patience-has gotten frayed to microscopic dimensions from decades of dealing with arrogant, insufferable, _and simultaneously logically bankrupt_ theist callers. That’s a perfect concoction for anyone becoming grouchy. (Obviously, are there “saints” out there with superhuman patience who would have handled those decades of purgatory better than Matt has done? Sure, but we don’t judge human behavior based on the highest level of tolerance possible, otherwise murder would be legal since some extreme pacifists do tolerate being murdered.) And when you deal with not-so-well-informed theist callers, combine it with impatience, and you’re bound to come off as arrogant or rude to outsiders who never stepped into your shoes. Now, that’s all about grouchiness. I’ve yet to see how Matt has consistently dodged questions-quite the opposite compared to the theist callers he hosts, in my opinion. Can you give some examples?
@@ZhangK71ell said. As a theist I do have mad respect for Matt from his experience alone, but there is an undeniable air of 'kookiness' to him compared to someone like Alex.
@@areallycoolhat5427 I think I see what you mean by “kookiness”, and if I’m catching your drift, I agree. He certainly isn’t the most patient or friendliest guy out there; I’d wager that even if Alex were in Matt’s shoes for two decades, he’d at least manage to conduct himself with more class and less crass by account of his posh British demeanor / mastery of couching derision in sarcasm and subtle mockery 😆.
Well said! It’s good to build bridges and appreciate the positive aspects of both world views instead of sharing comments that create division and misunderstanding. They both did really well but I thought Michael was ahead and better structured on most points to be honest. All the best to you and keep safe during this Corona virus crisis ❤️
1:06:09 The answer to this is found in the final conversation between Jonah and God (in the book of Jonah) God feels for all of his creatures, ALL OF THEM.
The point Michael made about the types of books we read blew my mind. If we are desperate for Utopia, free from struggle, why do those types of stories sound awful?
Revelation 21:4 “And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes, and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain; for the former things are passed away.” I guess we better stop reading the Bible, then. Sounds awful
@SheepOfChrist818I think Docspelling was being sarcastic. A world without suffering can and WILL actually be fun and engaging, HOWEVER it just won't be realistic to do in this physical universe and physical world. This is why God -- when He comes back -- is going to completely wipe out and blow up everything to literally remake an entire new heaven ( the universe or cosmos) and new Earth where there will literally be no suffering. This is going to be incredible. Here's an example and reality of why a world without suffering and a true Christ Utopia will actually be incredibly fun--contrary to what we read in these Utopian books: for instance, in this current universe, I'm a serious writer and also an aspiring serious artist (drawer). But the fear and reality is, I personally wont live long enough to tell the stories I want to tell because my life is going to die and this really sucks. And, there is so much things to explore in drawing that I want to draw everything and more, but this wont be possible because I'm going to die. Again, this sucks. Also, the current environment is not ideal to fully explore stuff because massive sudden changes from evil may occur that will throw out my entire system of artistic work and way life. There is ra eality that my city could get destroyed by nuclear warfare. There is a possibility of an economic societal collapse. If this happens, gathering the tools to continue to draw and write will be incredibly difficult than it is now and would be full of immense suffering. Therefore, my point is, I want to be an immortal. But i dont want to be an immortal on this Earth because this current Earth is completely damned. I want to be an immortal human in a new universe and a new Earth so I can continue to do the things that I love to do without fear or suffering. And Jesus Christ is going to do this. I just have to be patient and continue to make every effort to live my life right so that I am worthy to attain this new and ultimate form of existence.
@@danielsmithiv1279 And also "triumph" does not require "suffering". Playing a game like chess, football, e-t-c has "triumph" or "victory" in the end with no requirement of suffering. There is accomplishment in your drawings when they are completed, with no requirement of suffering,. I think the "FALL" replaced this, let me call it "work through" with suffering.
Although Cosmic is certainly the most enjoyable online atheist to listen to, and held his own in this discussion... I ultimately think IP hits the nail on the head. The Christian and Atheist will always define "the good" differently. If the ultimate good is the pursuit of pleasure and avoidance of pain, then God might very well seem incompatible with the world we find ourselves in. If our highest good is the development of virtuous souls meant for deep, meaningful relationships for eternity, I see no inconsistency with God and the world we find ourselves in. A question to Alex would be, why pick an arbitrary aspect of human experience like pleasure to base a moral system off of, and then blame the creator for not making the world that most appeals to such an arbitrary standard of good? Pleasure is simply an accidental property of being a rational animal. Why not base ethics off of the pursuit of humor, or intelligence? The point is that we are not in a position to judge the world that God set up because it doesn't fit our man-centered ethic.
I'm not speaking for Alex, but the whole reason to set pleasure, or the lack of suffering, as the basis of morality is that everything can be simplified to what is pleasurable and what is not. Or maybe more simply, pleasure is the opposite of suffering, which almost anyone can agree is bad and undesirable. So things like humor or the pursuit of knowledge is only good because what the individual gets from it: pleasure, a good job, security, happiness. Edit: And there are many theories about what is morally right action, but most of them are about optimizing pleasure or diminishing suffering.
@Will Stueve. interesting that you go back over and over again to the idea of pleasure, which you use as if it was a loaded weapon in the hands of the weak, sinful and self centered. Pleasure as you say, and I would much rather use the term well being, Is preferable to pain and suffering. Your Calvinist viewpoint is wearisome and obtuse.
So under the view that pleasure isn't the thing we should value does that mean that the malaria we have today is good? Any more or any less would be a worse world and the malaria we do have has good consequences which makes it desirable?
This is a good debate. Nice respectful conversation. I hope Muslim Abdul like Muhammad HIjab will learn something watching this respective discussion. Although, the topic is very sensitive and heavy. Both parties did a good job and made good points. But for me, Alex's arguments seem very attractive but self destructive. I enjoyed the debate. Thanks CC, IP and CS. God bless!!!
“Alex’s arguments seem very attractive but self destructive” I have to agree he’s a very charismatic speaker and is very convincing and does his homework but I also find his views self destructive, particularly his views on determinism and free will etc. Inspiring philosophy also does his homework and whilst they both did well i actually put Michael slightly ahead. All the best to you and your family and keep safe during this Corona virus crisis ❤️
IP’s argument on how a world without suffering would be unrealistic is so good in my opinion, the only way no suffering is possible if if nature itself would have to bend out of its physics and rules for a certain scenario, nothing as we know it would have an unchanging state. If a skydivers parachute failed, the ground below him would have to suddenly become anything but solid, a world with no natural evil would make no sense.Great debate
The laws of physics would not need to be altered in order for there to be no suffering in the world. All that would need to be changed is the structure of the things that do the suffering so they didn't do suffering any more. That is a horrible prospect but it wouldn't be that big of change. Unless plants, fungus and single cell organism can suffer, only animals would need to be altered. Only a small part of each animal would need to be changed. Of course animals would soon all die off, but that laws of physics would not change.
@@myothersoul1953 So nuking the whole rainforest would not require physics of the world to change? Or not being able to breathe inside of a gas chamber might not be painful but its not very conducive to life and thriving and happiness. So how does that not require the laws of physics to bend?
@@myothersoul1953 Of course it would. It would require you to breathe without oxygen and to magically have the rainforest survive the blast. Even if you specifically would not suffer in the gas (lets say its a special kind of gas) your relatives will suffer from the loss. So in that hypothetical world you MUST survive on the principles of the world which bend physical reality by necessity
@@NoOne-uh9vu Breathing isn't a law of physics. At constant temperature, the amount gas dissolved in a volume of a liquid is directly proportional to the partial pressure of that gas in equilibrium with that liquid. That's a law of physics called Henry's Law. Even if no one where around to know about Henry's law or to suffer, it would still describe how nature works. All there needs to be for there to be no suffering is no suffering things. The laws of nature do not depend on suffering nor do they care about it.
Hello. Anyone who denies that Jesus Christ is Lord is a liar(1 John 2:22). Sadly, Alex hates and rejects the Christ. The bible warns that there is no hope in sinful man. Our only hope is in the everlasting God. What wisdom can Alex, or anyone, give? There is none. Wisdom comes from Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Only Jesus died to save sinners and salvation is found in Him alone: "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life. But whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on them." John 3:36
@@michaelsinclair604 Well we know the bible is true because God never lies. 2 Timothy 3:16 says ALL scripture is God-breathed. Everyone on the side of truth listens to Jesus Christ(John 18:37).
1:41:47 What Alex said about suffering was so beautiful! I'd like to see how he develops his reasoning on that. He sounded like a true Christian in his concern, and yet, since he's an atheist, I can understand his despair. For me too, I don't see how anyone would be able to explain the existence of suffering without the context of religion. By grace, I am religious, so I have hope, but I cannot use my view of suffering to justify Christianity, it only works the other way around, logically. However, this created world allows to be known by science and logic, so I trust that honest philosophers like Alex will find a good answer.
As a Christian, I've been challenged by Cosmic Sceptic's points on animal suffering. Do any Christians think that they have an answer to it? Thanks for the discussion!
My answer is that it is consistent with both their views to be vegan; however, suffering covers/includes other points that veganism doesn't...as far as I know.I guess depends on how the question(s) were framed for a debate.
@@lindapb6529 I mean, you can ethically harvest meat right. These "battery chickens" that are kept in cages so small they can never stand upright is sickening. I mean it's demented. But to have free range chickens with proper food and shelter..and then quickly and painlessly lop it's head off for some BBQ..I don't see anything wrong with that. Then again, if we ate Rover I might feel different..
Both made such good points. Such an interesting discussion. I do have to lean more towards Mike's side though. This is because, if I had to make the choice between never suffering again or having strong relationships, I would choose relationships. I get a lot of pleasure out of lots of things. Anime, video games, good food, etc. But all of that pales in comparison to the good feelings I have when I am with the people I am closest to. And I do agree, I think the strongest relationships are the ones built around hardship, built around suffering, built around confiding in others about one's guilt and regrets and insecurities and fear. Being vulnerable around someone, freely giving them a chance to hurt you, knowing what it's like to be hurt but still risking it, and happily finding that the other person chooses to be good to you instead simply because they love you. Without suffering, I do think there would probably be only surface level relationships. Acquaintances, but never friends. Hookups, but never romance. To me, that sounds awful. I'd much rather accept the suffering than live in a world where I have never felt real love for someone. If I lived in a world of no suffering but I only had surface level connections with other people, I might not have known what I was missing, but the me here and now can know for a fact that it would be deeply inferior to the life I have now. And given the choice, I would absolutely choose suffering.
@@Cassim125 There have been periods of my life when I was completely friendless. I've also never had a romantic partner. You are very wrong to assume I don't know what it's like to lack relationships. Just because we may lack relationships at certain points in our lives doesn't mean that this will be the case forever. With enough time, effort, and willingness to let go of our selfishness, we can certainly build new relationships with others. But real love is only possible if there is the possibility of rejection. Without the ability to reject you, that means the "love" they have for you is forced. If someone only "loves" you because they are forced to, it's not love. Rejection causes suffering. So in a world without suffering, there is no rejection. And therefore, also no love.
@@Lady_de_Lis ahh yes I forgot in heaven evil must exist since good things can't exist without suffering. So either heaven is actually hellish or nobody in heaven has free will to always love everyone
@@Cassim125 You can talk to other people about Heaven or Hell, if you want. That's not the topic I am discussing or care about. The specifics of what happens after we die, to me, isn't very important. None of us know what it will be like, so it's pointless to argue about it as if any of us have any clue. I am talking purely about suffering on Earth. Specifically, I am talking about whether I would prefer to live on planet Earth with or without suffering. And I have made my position pretty clear. If you want to talk about any other topic, I encourage you to talk to someone else who is more interested.
@@Cassim125 Shows how presumptuous you are to think that people must be interested in the same topics that you are. A stranger leaves a comment on a TH-cam video about something very specific. And then, when they don't want to change the topic to something YOU want to discuss, you belittle their intelligence. Again, if you want to talk about those things, talk to someone else who is interested. Belittling my intelligence because you aren't getting your way won't make me change my mind.
I have found this debate to be one of the most respectful and quite organized debates I have ever seen. Both debaters gave very good points with respect to whether a good God would allow evil? Now, don't get me wrong, but I think IP provided a more logical solution to the why of suffering. Alex gave some good points that made me reflect on the necessity of evil, but I eventually found out that his views of suffering were all seen from his own point of view, rather from God's perspective. Think about it, Alex suggested that it would be better for a world with no suffering, and that he rather have no virtue, because in order to have virtue, suffering would be required. The problem arises when Alex starts to suggest a world better than this one, and this is why so many skeptics fail when trying to explain their ideas on suffering. God is an all-powerful being, his spectrum of reality is infinitely bigger than the one of humans. My question is then, How can a person suggest a world better than this one, when his scope of reality is so vastly limited in comparison to God? I mean, as humans, we haven't even come to fully understand the very planet we live on, let alone the Universe, and now we think we can define what is best for the world. Our minds can not even grasp the many dimensions or reality in comparison to God's. Heck, we are fragile beings that are limited by the Space-time continuum, and still, some think what is best in the realm of immaterial things such as evil? The realms of evil and suffering are beyond our comprehension, because they are founded in a non-material reality, so, how can a person assume that it would be better for suffering not to exist, when this person is inside a realm that is way below the reasons for God to allow suffering? Anyways, this was a great debate, both debaters where stunning. God bless!
It still doesnt justify animals having to suffer or the excessive evils in the world. We can see how excessive it is & its no different from a god that has abandoned this world.
Loved the debate! Respectful and constructive; the shared moment at 1:14:05 really demonstrates the massive potential to have debates that encourage civility and mutual appreciation. Whilst I appreciate IP's standpoints and his argumentation, and I'm very thankful for his work, I was frustrated that his approach was/is lacking in relationality. As I see it (as a Christian), we are created for the purpose of becoming virtuous souls only as a secondary corollary of our existence as beings-in-relation: humans are made in the image of God (Gen. 1:27), who, in the Trinity, is the archetype of being-in-relation (cf. John 17:21). Through Christ, human persons can experience restoration and reconciliation; such a restoration of the foundational human-divine relationship thereby produces strength of character (cf. Gal. 6:22-23), just as one's character changes with one's relationships; but a transformation of character occurs only as a result of the prior relation. CS himself says that suffering brings people together (@ 1:08:08); whilst he rightly focuses on the imperfection of human relationships, his critique does not apply to the human-divine relation, which is worth more and has more import than the sum of all possible alternatives (cf. Matt. 13:44-46; John 7:37-38; Phil. 3:7ff). Reinstating a relational perspective presents a new avenue in which suffering functions to reorientate each person towards reconciliation with God as the end-goal. Virtue ethics and consequentialist ethics are united in the individual's seeking after God-in-Christ, who is the source and summation of good (cf. Bonhoeffer's 'Ethics') (presenting a resolution to 1:24:15). Heaven is therefore not just a place of 'virtuous souls' but primarily a place of perfect unity of God with His people through Christ (cf. Rev. 21:22). Such unity of relation must be engaged in with intentional participation, though, and distinguishes it from our current existence (contra CS @ 27:17); likewise, the perfection of one's character is facilitated and completed by the indwelling Holy Spirit, which is not just a rational transformation but an ontological one (contra CS @ c. 26:00). This presents a counter-argument that is both logical and practical, though it is in conflict with IP's Hickian doctrine of heaven. IP heavily underplayed the centrality of Christ in the narrative of the God-human relation in the context of evil/suffering, in my opinion, to his detriment. I would advocate a more explicitly Christocentric perspective that allows all things to rotate around Christ (Col. 1:17), including all the above topics of ethics, suffering, heaven etc. Nevertheless, I really appreciated the debate! Thanks very much.
1:57:12 Alex' answer was incredibly powerful to me. Luckily, I personally am past the point of actually considering suicide but I heard that and the thought of someone approaching me with this kind of honest and open attitude at my worst times nearly brought me to tears. I think this could have actually resonated with me and possibly nudged me in a better direction much earlier.
Life's tough sometimes....at other times nearly inconceivably difficult, I know. From one person who has been there to another: I'm glad you decided to hang around.
I liked Alex approach to acknowledge the reality and level of pain and suffering the person is feeling. Very honest and true. I was surprised by the question and was not disappointed by the answer.
@Qwerty I don't think there is a general rule for it plus I doubt he will ever publicly speak on that because it's to sensitive a topic to actually name specific circumstances and run the risk of misspeaking somehow or actually pushing someone deeper into suicidal thoughts because they generalise what he says. I do think, though, that many such cases would concern people with irreversible physical illnesses rather than psychological ones.
Boundlessly impressed with CosmicSkeptic in every conceivable way. This debate was food for my brain and soul. Have this guest back asap please. Let's get into the question of animal suffering this is something near to my heart as well.
Personally I don't find CS that impressive: if he comes across that way, it's because most of his engagement is with random youtubers like IP and rarely at philosophers of religion like Feser, Davies, or Pruss. I don't even think he has read Davies' book that, imo, refuted the problem of evil 15 years ago.
Excuse me, but Qwerty is an intellectual powerhouse. It wouldn’t even be worth it to try to challenge his genius. Anyone that disagrees with him is unread and unintelligent.
I think the debate was missing the Cross Examination period, which I find crucial, but I enjoyed the formal debate. "Open discussions" allows people to manipulate, and derail the discussion. Case and point: Matt dilihunty The more formal debates are had, the better our discussions will be.
@@RussianBot4Christ Amen on that! I think no matter who, it gets muddled up no matter how amicable the debaters are in open discussions -- definitely have seen it chronically with Dillahunty. It makes a debate tough to listen to when one person is trying to railroad the opponent into stumbling while sending out cluster bombs of red herrings. It'd be hard to even read the transcript to that! x ( LOL
Nothaf but then you can run into the problem of gish galloping - where someone brings up so many points in such a short time that's impossible to refute them all in a given time. Asserting something is always faster than debunking it. Good example for this would be Kent Hovind.
To add an illustration to IP's position and the question about how relationships can be deepened through suffering, our relationship with God is ultimately deepened as well in a way that couldn't have been in a perfect world. Imagine if we always lived in heaven with God from the start, and He told us He loved us all the time. Even though it would still be true He loves us unconditionally, there would be no way to fully demonstrate that unconditional love. So I think it might be possible we could doubt (or at least not fully appreciate) His love, or think maybe God only loves us because we perfectly obey Him, not because He is love Himself. Because we live in a world full of evil and suffering, we live in a world where it was possible for God to show His love for us through His sacrifice on the cross. He was able to show us what great lengths He was willing to go through for us even when we were still turned against Him. This should get rid of any doubt about how much God loves us. It should make us that much more eternally grateful and make us love God that much more deeply seeing what He was willing to do for us. This is why Jesus' resurrected body still has the nail marks - so we can always be reminded of His beautiful sacrifice and see how much He loves us. "Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." - Romans 5:7-8. I personally believe God temporarily allows a world full of evil for the purpose of showing how deeply He loves us and He still loves us no matter what, even if we hate Him. We cannot fully appreciate God's grace and mercy without experiencing and being aware of our own sin and our need for Him as our Savior.
He would just get triggered and tell everyone to kill themselves.....then insult their wives...and randomly speak in Arabic every now and then for no reason.
One can't rationalize evil without a moral premise, and it seems to be that Michael takes this more seriously than Alex, even his position regarding the forests is more objective whilst Alex takes a moralistic point of view..
I'm glad that inspiring philosophy isn't troubled by his childhood. But I'd trade the personal growth I got from mine if I could also get rid of the PTSD, still with me decades later. And the notion that no one gets a bigger burden than they can handle is belied by suicide.
I really disliked that point of his. I have CPTSD from my childhood abuse and it's had a massive effect on my life and worldview. Like good for him but he shouldn't state his experiences like they're the norm (and I'm also skeptical of the fact that it really hasn't affected him)
IP regarding the fall: “If God knew that all of us would’ve acted similarly, he does no wrong in choosing one person to represent us.” This has always struck me as bizarre. If every conceivable human would’ve partaken of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, then how is this not a fault of the creator in making us so susceptible to temptation that none (and I repeat none) of us could’ve resisted?
As you see It wasn't God making them so suspectible to temptation, really just that the devils words confused their philosophy, making them question if God really said that they could not eat from the fruit.
Appreciated the structure of this debate and the respect on display from both sides. Especially refreshing after seeing some of David Wood's recent outings with... less respectful debaters. Great job, guys!
I like the style of the text, the arrangement of the video feeds, etc, but I keep wondering what Cameron does to his own camera feed to make it look the way it does. His face is lit unevenly and the colours seem muted, as if he applied some kind of filter or colour grading that intentionally makes the image less vibrant.
Not as neutral as I would like him to be though, I mean he was still in like 95% neutral, but a little more biased than I would like, nothing wrong it’s just that I like my moderators to be more neutral.
Very great discussion! While I mostly agree with IP I think that CosmicSkeptic brought up some good points. I appreciate the fact that he’s not like other atheists who just want to be right rather than be rational.
A point that Alex made that I feel needs to be made more is the implication that the amount of suffering is necessary. The position is frequently straw-manned into advocating for a pain/suffering free world, but the argument is that we don't need AS MUCH suffering, not that we wish for a suffering free world. Michael even said himself during this discussion that he doesn't believe all evil and suffering produces good and I wish he was asked why that unnecessary suffering is allowed to exist. When you discipline a child and cause suffering you don't beat them within an inch of their life...you inflict the minimum possible suffering necessary for that good to be produced. When Michael talked about his childhood suffering and other suffering not being that bad I think is a failure of empathy to adequately recognize the enormous amount of misery that is experienced by millions of people on Earth at this very moment. Even if you don't care at all about animals (which I also think is a massive failure of empathy), the scale of human suffering alone is off the charts. Consider also that for the vast majority of hominid history, the standard of living was even worse than it is today when we did not enjoy the benefits of modernity.
The problem of evil is a completely emotional argument. I'm not saying I don't care about people suffering but their suffering doesn't negate God's existence. God commanded people to love one another not to be abusive. If people are abusive that's not what God wanted.
@@avivastudios2311 It's an emotional argument because the logic is compelling. The Christian conception of God is that he's all loving and perfectly moral, yet there is an ocean of suffering that is not a product of human action. The tsunamis, earthquakes, genetic mutations...that's on God. Earth has experienced several mass extinctions from climate change, ice ages, asteroid collisions...we're talking trillions of living organisms that were wiped out and couldn't do anything about it. Massive suffering is just hardcoded into the universe. I think it's beyond messed up that a God could create plants that get energy from the sun, yet decide that it would be better to create living organisms that can only survive by eating other living organisms. Watch a video of a zebra being eaten alive by a lion and remind yourself that God saw this and decided that it would be a good thing if this happened all the time. I can accept a lot of the arguments for the existence of some suffering, it's just the amount of suffering seems way excessive and requires explanation if the claim is that God is perfectly loving.
I know it is a clichee to say that but it's really nice to see debates where people speak calmly and let the other person speak out and not devolve into screaming matches.
The best part of Inspiring Philosophy's point of it better to live in a world with suffering vs one filled with pleasure is isn't that what the Garden of Eden was for? No pain or suffering?
The world we live in is not what God intended. It was caused by the first sin. Why should we defend it? It's bad and we can't wait to live in a heaven or eden. Adam was thrown into eden, he didn't need to go through suffering to prepare for it. Let's stop pretending that we need to go through all this suffering. We are just simply going through it as a consequence of sin.
As a teen I noticed that when I was a kid there are xthings I wanted or endured, that had my parents not forbade me or allowed, would have been far worse for me getting them, yet I suffered as a kid not receiving them. In my twenties, I noticed more xthings I wanted or endured, that looking back, had I received, would have been terrible for me or had not endured, yet I suffered them. In my 30s I see similar in my 20s. The point is that as we become wiser, we are made more aware of the things in which suffering at the time is worth it. A perfectly wise being is going to understand perfectly what particular amount and type of suffering is necessary in every particular situation. Michael is not perfectly wise, thus the analogy between him and his son is only helpful for demonstrating the necessity of suffering in principle, but dis-analogous as soon as it begins "drawing moral lines" regarding particulars and even principles implying particulars.
@@TheWTFcakes If you want to "roll" my comment into an argument for naturalism over theism on the basis of an isolated variable like suffering I'd likely be inclined to agree with you. However with respect to the original intent of the comment, which was directed at supporting the analogy used in the video that was offering a way to think about God having plausibly sufficient reasons for allowing/permitting various evils/sufferings, it is simply a red herring.
I think it's difficult to even have this debate, because the premise of the existence of God and an afterlife creates a dynamic of 'good and evil' that is completely different from what we would conceive of without those things, so the two sides would be arguing (or should be) from completely incompatible perspectives. What I mean by this is that a belief in God and heaven would have to liken our lives to something like a dream, because the infinite would be more 'real' (a higher tier of reality) than the physical world we live in day to day. That's not to say it's meaningless, just like most people don't realistically think our dreams are meaningless. That only means that anything that happens TO US in our physical lives would be considered incredibly temporary without lasting consequences. The only thing that matters would be the choices we make. God being incredibly concerned about human 'evil' and 'suffering' in our physical lives would be akin to a parent being incredibly concerned about their child having a nightmare. It would be somewhat ridiculous beyond a certain point. So, because of this I think this argument is kind of a non-starter. I know they touch on this in the beginning, but from my perspective, there's simply no way to move past this point from a logical perspective.
Saying our pain won't matter that much in our afterlife is so weird to me. If I get beaten that'll also be nothing more than a memory in two weeks, doesn't mean it's not wrong/evil.
I don't know if I'm describing IP's viewpoint accurately, but I personally don't believe that any pain, suffering, good or evil in this life loses its meaning because of the afterlife. It is all still meaningful, real, and significant. It's just that it will no longer be felt in heaven. Heaven is far greater, more glorious, and eternal, so comparing it to any consolation received in this finite life is not an apt analogy.
"Some philosophers have contended that the existence of evil is logically inconsistent with existence of theistic God. No one, I think has succeed in establishing such an extravagant claim." - William Lowell [Atheist]
There seems to be a false assumption being made by atheists who think that God has ‘moral obligations’ to someone or something. If that’s the case then we’re not actually talking about God. God is the ground of all existence and is Goodness itself. It doesn’t make sense to anthropomorphise and treat God as if he were one more moral agent alongside human beings. There is no moral standard over and above him.
Philo Theos....I suppose all we can go with is what’s written in the bible since none of us was there....but the said bible is self defeating in most of its sayings....somebody once said “ don’t write more than 3 pages when you starting a religion...same with Christianity....the book is full of contradiction...take Mack Twain who questioned why we never seem to blame god for anything...when he points out “the bible teaches us to intervene where we see human suffering and sorry lest we sin heavily” observes that “there has not been human suffering and sorrow that god could not alleviate....”does god sin then?” and argues that if he is the moral giver, he sins .....the judge on the bench can not condemn crime....to revel in it as soon as he’s off the bench, without condemnation?....
@@robertjohns6701 First things first before we can go forward, what is an example of a contradiction in the bible? i always here this yet one person has shown me.
Douglas Verner : all you need to do sir, is research for yourself on TH-cam and search engines available....as for me, it’s the image we were given to worship as our saviour, was the image of the coloniser.... my saviour and my oppressor, my god and my enslaver became one...so you see my defence, if this thing ever turned to be true, which I strongly doubt....
@@robertjohns6701 God is not an enslaver. he wants us to come to him by our own will. he never does it by force. and all ppl that end up in hell will want to be there.
@@douglasverner1159 Really? Cause it seems to me that a lot of morally positive and/or neutral things that people do can land them them a place in hell. Btw, if this cruel omnipotent creature actually exists and I will be thrown in hell for not bowing down to him, I shall except so gladly. For a heaven under such a creature will not be a place I would want to go to anyway. Thankfully, the possibility of that is close to 0.
IP’s point about earthly existence being a dreamlike state where suffering and death doesn’t really matter seems to me highly problematic: if the fact that earthly existence pales in comparison to an eternal afterlife implies that earthly suffering is inconsequential, doesn’t this also imply that other earthly occurrences - like virtuous acts, immoral acts, devotion to God, etc. - are also ultimately inconsequential? If so, how can God’s judgments - or on IP’s view, the “choice” to go to heaven or to hell - be valid, since these arise from finite (and therefore inconsequential) facts of earthly existence? That is, if worldly existence is a dream-state where suffering ultimately doesn’t matter, why does anything else matter here?
Not to mention, even if the first problem did not exist, an omnipotent, all good, all knowing god, would not allow any level of suffering, reducing it to "barely matters" isn't really improving his position, only making it seem less disastrous.
Also if someone next to you is having a nightmare and are screaming in there sleep most people would try to gently wake that person to free them from there suffering where god is simply watching and doing nothing just to teach us a lesson
The point IP was missing in the faulty dream or inception-like scenario he provided was that when we watch a fictional movie we could reason that the suffering in the movie doesn't matter to the extent that the people in the movie aren't really real. The "suffering" in the movie makes it not boring and it becomes very interesting to see them overcome the suffering. Just like Alex alluded to, in the case of us and God, God would then be the one watching the "movie" using our suffering as entertainment. That's already very sick especially as in this case, it's not non-existent fictional people suffering but real people. I can't believe IP cannot see this if he thinks about this for 5 mins as he seems to be smart.
I personally don't believe that earthly suffering will be forgotten or inconsequential in heaven, and neither does IP from what he explained. The book of Revelation describes the saints and angels praising God for His Son's conquering of death by His blood and resurrection. So pain, suffering, and death won't be forgotten or inconsequential in that sense, but we will not feel it anymore or view it with the same perspective as we do now. It will only seem like a dream in the sense that heaven is far greater, eternal, glorious, and outshines the evil and suffering experienced on this earth. It will not lose its meaning, significance, and reality.
I also find it a very weak analogy when IP keeps bringing up how his childhood doesn't affect his life anymore. There are people out there who develop serious mental disorders which cause serious obstacles from living a normal life because of such traumas and others and it's not so "paleing in comparison to the good" for them.
It’s weak as long as you ignore the part where he clarifies that he knows this isn’t true for everyone. That’s why he uses his daughter crying after wanting to play on a building as an example. These are examples of suffering that have no lasting impact on a child.
@@djohnmark3625 I didn't say the rest couldn't be used as examples or analogies. I was purely speaking about how the childhood trauma where his mother mentally and physically abused him didn't leave an effect was a weak one 🤷🏻♂️. And as Alex pointed out, the daughter analogy also does not work because when you tell your daughter not to play on the roof, it's to avoid a greater evil. You can appeal to the Lord's mysterious ways and whatsoever for all I care but that doesn't stand as an analogy for the suffering of the world on the wild presumption of afterlife.
Sarath Yelisetty He’s speaking purely about his own life and how his childhood didn’t impact him in the long run. He never even implies that this is the case for every person. So pointing out that some people develop mental disorders from childhood experiences is irrelevant because nobody was arguing against it nor implying that it wasn’t true. And yes, he tells his daughter not to play on the roof to avoid greater suffering, that’s precisely the point and hardly a refutation. And if we are talking about the problem of evil then yes both sides have to presume the afterlife and the finitude of our minds compared to Gods for the sake of discussion since the problem of evil is an internal critique of Christianity.
@@djohnmark3625 Well, he could point at his own life and his own experiences for all I care but as long as they don't help the argument, I can call them weak analogies even if he himself agrees that it's not the case everywhere :)
@@djohnmark3625 my only problem arises when this afterlife takes the wild form of a privation of some higher evil that could only be achieved by a lesser evil of suffering in the real world (lesser evil: telling his daughter she shouldn't play on the roof, higher evil: that which is avoided by going to heaven, getting seriously hurt in his daughter's case)
I’m mostly in agreement with Alex here, although Michael’s point regarding the natural suffering in the wild is important and interesting. If we could eradicate nature without consequences, would that be the right thing to do? We would eliminate animal suffering, but is ending all those organisms’ lives our choice to make? What if some of them do want to live despite the suffering they endure? How do we determine which do and which don’t? With humans, it’s clear enough that some of us believe that life is worth the suffering, while others don’t. But with nonhuman organisms, this is difficult to parse.
Interesting questions. Though they seem to be separate from the problem of evil argument. Because God doesn't need to eradicate life, he can preserve life, just take the suffering from it.
If I had the infinity stones then carnivorous animals, meat-eating in general, and capitalism would be outta here. No more unjust exploitative hierarchies, No more perpetually evil circle of life, and No more enslaving and cannibalizing our conscious cousin species.
" If we could eradicate nature without consequences, would that be the right thing to do? " That's the wrong question. You don't need to eradicate the whole nature to eradicate the suffering. You could just make it operate in a different way e.g sentient beings don't need to kill each other for food. "What if some of them do want to live despite the suffering they endure?" This feeds into TJumps view of morality. OK God could have made it optional then. So that if you wanted to experience suffering as you suggest, you could choose to of your own volition. This would be a more moral world than the one we live in.
It seemed to me almost as those Cosmic Skeptic was leading himself down a path that would advocate zoos over the rainforests which I doubt that he would agree with. The point about a tree falling on a deer and the deer starving to death. This scenario could be made to be impossible by a zookeeper. The animals in zoos are generally well treated - zookeepers that I have met have a huge amount of love for the animals in the zoo and they tend and care for the animals but instinctively we know that the animal has a richer and fuller existence in the natural world but they are likely to endure more suffering.
@@saturnray1260 but wouldn't you be killing carnivorous creatures? So you become the thing you fight.... Also funny sidenote I've seen goats eat birds... Sooo...
@@reeseexplains8935I mean he wasn't, the Athiests entire argument based on emotion which is understandable and as a Christian man myself I wish God would completely eliminate evil on the earth. Things are the way that they are because they are what they are.
@@reeseexplains8935 Alex is a self described ethical emotivist (even though he hadn't yet figured this out at this time), why wouldn't he be led by emotion?
What I truly find gracious in Alex, is that he doesn't run about making strawman arguments ; he addresses each of the opponent claim and then proceeds to question them critically . He also doesn't make postive claims about the non existence of God , he rather uses evidence and follow them where they lead . Is a Honest guy , I can tell that if He had enough reasons He would embrace God . He is not prejudiced on this
I've been listening to apologist's arguments for close to twenty years now, back when I was a 40 year believer, through my transition, to my current state of convinced unbeliever, and, though I understand why apologists make their arguments, because they actually believe their convictions (most of them at least), but what I can not understand is how they seem fully unaware of how contrived and forced their arguments are. Even as a believer I could see the poverty of the arguments.
Ironically, it's our evolved brains full of shortcuts and imperfections created during a few hundred million years of evolution that cause theists to make such bad arguments. If our brains were actually designed, we'd reason far better and less emotionally.
Yeah the problem of evil tends to bring this out. When it comes to the resurrection, theists are all too quick to tell you how important it is to have a single explanation that is the simplest, least ad hoc, with the most explanatory scope, power, that explains all of the data at once. But when it comes to the problem of evil; well you see natural evil is just how nature works it's not God's fault, unless Adam and Eve was literal and they caused Earth to be cursed so. And you see when infants suffer and die that's because God will reward them in heaven so it's fine, oh but some evil is just because of free will, but you see it's also to build our character, because bravery and patience is good of course, and well actually God uses evil to bring about a greater good like he might use the holocaust to bring about more salvation, butterfly effect you know? Oh and remember Christians get an eternity in heaven so we'll forget about all that suffering that went on. It all just makes so much sense you see - clearly there's a loving god behind it all.
@@Raul-vs6ff - Human reasoning is full of flaws. There are more connections from the emotional centers of the brain out than from the logical parts of the brain to the emotional parts. Humans are more emotional than logical. It's very clear that most people decide emotionally what they want to believe and then use flawed logic to reason backwards from that conclusion. People are more irrational than rational. With evolution, this all makes perfect sense. With special creation, it doesn't. Or, or maybe God isn't very evolved either, if, via special creation, we were created in God's image. (I mean, I assume that's metaphorical. God doesn't have literal feet, right?) Christian apologist arguments are almost universally awful, especially those of young Earth creationists. If our brains were, in fact, designed by an all knowing, all good God, we'd be less irrational. But again, in the light of evolution, our imperfect brains make perfect sense. It's what one would predict.
@@NotGoodAtNamingThings well, yeah your argument would be a perfect argument to refute this Christian guy, but am a Muslim and our understanding in islam is so much different from this. Want me to explain why it woudnt work on all theists?
1:01:09 In response to what he just said: Isn't that what god created in the first place, in Eden? And isn't Eden supposed to have been the ideal perfect world? Yes, there was one difference, in that Adam had the capacity to reject that world, but wan't he supposed to _not_ do that? Wasn't that rejection supposed to be a bad thing? Meaning that going along with that world, in which he was ignorant, unchallenged, completey safe, cared for, and therefore virtueless, was the good thing to do? Furthermore, if Adam rejected that world, and, as IP says, _all_ humans _would_ reject that world, doesn't that just mean that god created humans to be incompatible with this "perfect" world? Isn't that a weird thing for a perfectly loving god to do? Why not create the kind of perfect world that _is_ compatible with man, _and/or_ create man to be compatible with a perfect world? The problem with the arguments that Christians make on this topic is that every reason they try to appeal to for why god had to make things the way they are, is _itself_ something that god made the way it is. They always _always_ fail to actually take seriously their own belief that god is responsible for *_EVERY THING_*
Agreed, and it's also very strange to mix mythology into a discussion on philosophy, though I guess when it comes to Christianity, it's somewhat inevitable.
*Realguy McCoolname* It's painfully obvious that believers bit off more than they could chew when they decided to attribute natural phenomena to the supernatural. Having done so though they seem unwilling to admit their mistake and they try to make it everyone else's.
@R.J.J- El ganador Appeal to consequences, ad hoc rationalisations as if to validate my previous comment. And it makes no sense; do you think that an architect wants their building to stand without the possibility of falling down and killing its occupants - no, they design it with flaws so that they can appreciate every day that it stays standing - and any number of similar debunks to your fallacious square peg. "same with god he wants people that can disappoint him..." How do you know what god wants? Isn't he supposed to be beyond understanding? Admit it your just guessing, or don't because it's obvious.
@R.J.J- El ganador I didn't miss your point at all, you missed mine. You're in a relationship with god alright and it ressembles an abusive relationship where the abused always finds excuses for the abuser - whatever he does there's always a reason and when there are no more reasons, well, we can't understand him but he must have his reasons, he's such a good person when he's not drinking. You didn't learn that excuse from the Bible, you heard it somewhere or you thought of it yourself and it made sense to you. You'd realise this if you could be honest with yourself for a minute. It makes sense if you want it to, if you're looking for an excuse to explain away an inconsistency. 100 people lost their lives in a plane crash but Miracle !! 1 survived, "thank god". Thousands of babies die of hunger and disease - they're better off in heaven, "praise the lord!" A whole community was devastated by the Hurricane - Miracle !! one house survived, "thank you god!" It's not that you can't see it, you don't want to see it.
@R.J.J- El ganador Aaaaand you're still appealing to consequences : "if you don't accept that there's an afterlife then all these bad people will go unpunished..." Whether there's an afterlife or not bad people do bad things right under the nose of your god. Could _you_ watch a priest grossly abuse his power and rape a child? again and again? and again? No, neither could I, but your god seems to get off on it. What's your excuse for that one *RJ ?*
Yes, and also that the goal of suffering is to maximise virtue. What he doesn't say is that virtues ultimately lead to ones wellbeing in the long run, but it's implied.
@@thetannernation I do - thanks for asking! And I'd be even more grateful if you could explain how arguing that something is good because overall it produces more happiness than suffering isn't a utilitarian argument.
The fact is, no one can actually either prove or disprove either the existence or the non-existence of an ultimately evil omnipotent being. There's no comfort to be found in that fact. Just because we wouldn't be worried doesn't mean that we shouldn't be worried.
Just because it would create all of us in a world that is not maximally bad, would not necessarily mean that it was not a maximally evil being. For all we know, it's an (everlastingly) maximally bad world (call it "hell" if you want to) that _does_ follow this one, and each of us _does_ go there when he or she dies. Thus that evil being would not be cheated out of anything would it. As far as finding ourselves in a world that's just only so bad, maybe it wants to watch all of us squirm in it before it sends us to the maximally bad one. Maybe that's it preference. But the point is, it could have that preference and still be maximally evil.
Although the theme isn't fully explored in it, Alex should read Brave New World. The morality of it is exclusively framed through suffering minimisation. All social problems are engineered to a T. And yet, we still have unease at the chimney stacks which burn corpses after the person rationally decides to end their life, their age beginning to alert others to mortality. We feel concern at the sexual promiscuity of youth, and the deliberate monotonous aimlessness of life in this world. I always found that this text pointed out to me the emptiness of pleasure as an ultimate end, and why a life on the Native reservation, disease, ugliness and all, or in Iceland, pursuing knowledge free from censorship, would be preferable. Feel free to disagree tho!
"Brave New World" is exactly the book I thought about during the discussion as well. It depicts the outcome of a society that is soley focused on elminating pain and maximizing pleasure. Character, virtue, and family are considered outdated or repugnant.
I really really wish this type of old style debates would stop such as 10 minutes of rebuttal and so on. A free flowing conversation is far more enjoyable.
I would love to see a debate/discussion between Cosmic Skeptic and Braxton Hunter from Trinity Radio. I think people sleep on him as an apologist but he seems to have the whit and intelligence to go toe to toe with Alex.
@Usman M Well he backed Dillahinty into a corner, and Dillahunty admitted he had no counterargument to Braxton. Dillahunty only leveraged his personal incredulity.
@@piage84 Look at the language you are using. "Does he know for a fact", what do you mean? Does he have 100% Cartesian certainty? No, he even admits he doesn't, nobody does. Do you mean does he have facts and information/data that he provides when making arguments? Sure he does, and he presents them regularly. Its really odd to me that atheists MUST argue the theist must have 100% certainty or "they are just making things up". This is your opinion, and it is objectively wrong. It is not my opinion that you are posting your opinion, so the "I know you are but what am I" should be left on your atheist channels.
Michael is a Christian who believes in evolution, yet claims natural evil wouldn’t have occurred had it not been for the fall in the garden. Talk about trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.
Nothaf I’ve watched more of IPs videos than the majority of the dolts that follow him. I know this is difficult for you to grasp, but according to science there were billions of years of death, decay, and destruction before humans evolved. How someone can then say that a human eating an apple in a magic garden somehow reverse caused the evolutionary path of our earth is either extremely ignorant or disingenuous. I tend to think it is the former for Michael, he often espouses views that conflict with each other. Hope that helps.
Kevin McElroy Around 17:30. IP states that chaos and destruction wouldn’t have been present in the Garden, but is the result of mankind’s rejection of God as ultimate authority. Contrast that with the scientific evidence of BILLIONS of years of chaos and destruction before humans were even a twinkle in the evolutionary eye, and you can see the ridiculousness in the position.
J.W. H. If he believes in a historical Eden, I think it’s reasonable to presume he believes in a historical Adam. And if he doesn’t believe in a historical Adam, that opens up a whole other theological can of worms.
This debate is an example of why I abandoned classical apologetics (although I still have a ton of admiration and respect for William Lane Craig). Alex did really well here.
The “dream/veil” analogy of IP concerning this life and the next doesn’t sit well with me. Has he never been “shook” by a dream that leaves lasting effects? And then says there is suffering in heaven? Is there a 2nd heaven where we recover from those? His beliefs on the afterlife and god’s character are unique and I wonder if even Cameron agrees with his view
Yeah, I think his attempts to rationalize away the most iniquitous aspects of the doctrines of Salvation and Hell put him outside what would be considered to be Christian orthodoxy.
It amazes me how much creative license theists give themselves to interpret scripture in such a way that fits their purpose, in this case, trying to rebut the evidential problem of evil. It's like once you get the core beliefs down, almost anything is up for grabs.
But most importantly : Doesn’t he understand the difference between how much we, finitely loving beings, that *had to* accustom themselves to pain, consider how much pain is too much pain, and how an infinitely loving being that could build a world in which nobody has to accustom themselves to pain, and that himself never had to accustom himself to pain, considers how much pain is too much pain ? The infinitely loving being is *infinitely* loving. Even normally loving being would prevent all suffering they can reasonably prevent. An infinitely loving being should, by definition, try to prevent all suffering, if he can. And god can, supposedly, since he is omnipotent.
Having listened to the whole debate and especially Michael's tortuous reasoning while trying to explain suffering and evil as part of "God's plan" for humanity, I'm only left with an increased appreciation for the atheistic position that there is no plan, and what suffering and evil there is is a combination of natural processes, random chance and the actions of flawed human beings. It might not be as satisfying, but it has power in its simplicity.
If there is no meaning, suffering isnt even an evil thing lol, its just a natural, indifferent and tasteless phenomenon that some of us (ocidental) think its bad because of emotional reasoning. Btw atheism is true Nietzsche is right: bad and evil doesnt exist, It is Just an invention of christians
@@spectre8533 Even if there is no over-arching meaning of life, there are still qualitative differences between things. When we talk about good and bad we are inevitably talking about some entity being good or bad at accomplishing some goal. A sponge is a bad tool if your goal is to drive a nail into a plank of wood. Likewise, kicking a dog is a bad action if your goal is to forge a strong bond between you and the dog. Ethics is the field of study that tries to answer questions about which choices are good or bad with regards to the goal of increasing the overall flourishing of conscious creatures. It is just as objective and meaningful as the field of medicine which tries to answer questions about what behaviors and substances are good or bad with regards to the goal of maintaining the proper functioning of our bodies. Also, ethical philosophy predates Christianity.
@@jacerockman1031 ok, we are just giving arbitrary meaning to such rhings and calling them "bad". There are poeple who like kicking a dog. A sponge is a bad tool in a different sense, in the sense it wasnt projected for it. We (humans and animals) arent projected by someone, therefore, we have no specific goal. Good or bad is what we decide to be good or bad.
@@spectre8533 I'm not making the claim that anything has meaning, I'm just describing facts about reality. Yes, there are people who like kicking dogs, but kicking a dog just because you like kicking dogs is still unethical (at least in a vast majority of circumstances). Again, ethics is the attempt to understand which choices are good or bad with regards to the goal of increasing the overall flourishing of conscious creatures. I'm not saying that everybody has that goal, but that doesn't change what is or isn't ethical. Even if someone doesn't have the goal of being healthy, we can still make objective claims about whether or not their body is functioning properly. We get to decide what is good or bad ethically just as much as we get to decide what is good or bad with regards to health and medicine. I'm not sure I understand the relevance of humans and animals being projected by someone. Rocks weren't created to drive a nail into a piece of wood, but it is still objectively a better tool for accomplishing this goal than a blade of grass. Likewise, conscious creatures weren't created for any specific purpose, but we can still make objective investigations of which choices are good or bad for the flourishing of those conscious creatures as a whole.
@@jacerockman1031 i would say health is a biological propery and good or evil are personal opinion's properties because you cant justify them without looking at the opinions of human beings like you ad me, and we all disagree. ya but those are not categorical imperatives, like "do charity because its good", they are hypothetical imperatives "do charity because it will help the poor" but why help the poor is good? My personal opinion is that it is good, but some people are indifferent.
Christians, think about this. God allowed evil for Job and we are all like Job and his friends questioning why God allowed evil for such a righteous man where in fact God is not seeking after the perfect world or heaven to begin with. He has the higher plan and that is to change the constitution of men into God's life and nature so we can be one with Him. This takes sufferings and trials for us to be transformed and conformed into the image of God. Therefore, God clearly used evil to fulfill this primary goal in Scriptures and He completed His goal at the end of the book of Revelation. Job was a good person. But God is not looking for the happy place with good people and no sufferings. God wants men with full of His Life.
@ManyProphets OneMessage It's hilarious that you think that it was anything other than a productive, sincere and respectful conversation. "Schooled"?! - Grow up.
Suppose there's coin which upon tossing 1) there is 50% probability to get a head which is associated with the creation of a soul and this soul will be condemned to suffer in hell or infinite suffering which one can never get used to 2)there is 50% probability to get a tail and so a soul will be created which after coming into existence will experience infinite bliss, pleasure or happiness (no boredom or any undesirable experience) Will you toss the coin ? if probability of getting a tail is 75%, does it make it morally permissible to toss it? Say if the odds of a getting a tail is 90% ? 99% ? What do you think? Now think of creating a entity with free will, given there exists a good chance that the entity might condemn itself to eternal suffering. I dont think free will and eternal bliss is worth the cost of eternal suffering. Even a single hour in brazen bull is never worth an afterlife in heaven, given hell doesn't exist.
Man... there's so much circumventing the Scripture here... assuming free will, assuming God doesn't do things solely for His glory, flat out denying all sin inherited from Adam, rejecting that the inherited sin sends us to hell, open theism... just wow....
Also, their assertion that a world without suffering would necessarily result in a mindless life of pleasure is just a reflection of the limitations of our primitive human cognition. We have no idea of what a world free of suffering *could* consist.
Yes we can, we're not thick, we see how reality is and we can make hypotheticals and we can see that it wouldn't be a very nice life if suffering just vanished. I think we need to take the bad with the good, and use the bad to appreciate the good more.
I don't think I agree with Alex's conclusion. I don't see how one can use people's emotions in an argument without it being an appeal to emotion fallacy. Are there any examples?
To Alex's question to Michael as to, if he would not allow suffering in his own child even if he knew it would result in future good, then how can he justify God allow suffering - GOD DID ALLOW HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON TO UNDERGO THE ALTIMATE SUFFERING FOR THE ALTIMATE GOOD.
1:10:22 Consider this: if your mother and father had not gone to a certain location and never met, you might not have existed. It's possible that certain events were allowed to happen to enable your existence or the union of your mother and father.
Q1: does the Christian God KNOW the future? Q2: if NO then can it be said the Christian God is not all powerful and/or omniscient? Q3: if YES and the Christian God is all knowing/omniscient & knows the future then why have suffering/evil at all if God knows his loved children will suffer? Q4: If YES then I ask is life is a test for worthiness and/or soul development? Q5: if NO and LIFE is not a test and/or Soul development then, again, why have suffering at all? If there is no test to "pass" the why hand out the ‘questions’. That is like a teacher testing students but already having their grades. Q6: And why didn't God already make us with complete souls already? Why? Q7: If YES that life is a test/Soul building exercise AND God can see the future (being omniscient/all knowing) then, again, IF God alresdy knows the answers AND how we are going to answer them why put us through pain and suffering? Let me ask DOESN'T God already know if we pass the test if life? How much our souls get developed? An omniscient/future seeing God already knows correct? Again WHY put us through a test loaded with pain, suffering & evil if God already knows how we end up? There was no need for the test. Btw amazing debate/discussion and I hope they have more talks.
freewill & freedom is a gift & power that's bestowed upon each one of us yes, it's a gift, at the same time it's a power remember: when Adam & Eve sinned against God when they took the "Forbidden Fruit" 🍎 (the Fruit of the Knowledge of Good & Evil), God was searching for them God didn't spot them instantaneously, nor heard a noisy alarm that someone had taken the "Forbidden Fruit" 🍎 He scoured & searched all over the Garden for them perhaps, it's because human freewill & freedom is very powerful it can cut & block off the communication line between the human beings & God, especially when one has committed a grievous sin it's like a wifi signal that's spotty or choppy when there's a strong weather disturbance around the area that's why freewill & freedom is a powerful form of exercise of one's expression but if done irresponsibly or without regard to its limitations, there'll be consequences one of the consequences: communication line between God & human beings becomes crooked, not straight prayers become unanswered prayers become futile life becomes hard & unbearable, unless one would resort to risky & dangerous evil / wicked ways & means to enrich oneself
The Bible indirectly tells us that God doesn't know the future, or at least not all of it. God experiences regret in the Bible. In the beginning, God thought it's creation was good. Later, God experienced regret. This seems to totally disprove some of the omnis, at least omniscience. God having to look for Adam and Eve in the garden disproves omnipresence. Animal suffering would seem to disprove omnibenevolence. Are there any omnis left? Also, creating humans without the knowledge of good vs evil and then punishing them for disobeying is evil in itself.
_if YES and the Christian God is all knowing/omniscient & knows the future then why have suffering/evil at all_ Thinking about this question one needs to take into consideration that this world doesn't really exist (from the viewpoint of eternity), in the same way as ancient civilizations don't presently exist from our viewpoint; it is disposable and temporary, and it is predicted that "soon" it will be burned up (which, One cannot solve the question of evil without taking into account this temporal dimension and its limited nature.
@@sapientum8 - If what you said is true, then why are people punished for all eternity for something that isn't real in a way that matters? It's like punishing am actor who portrayed a criminal on TV.
I really enjoyed this debate and how polite the the conversation went. I have a question for Michael, if he reads the comments. You said that it is possible to get out of hell and go to heaven in the afterlife. How would you interpret Luke 16:26? Thank you.
1. IP brings out an interesting point: If the suffering of animals in the rainforest is an evil, and said evil can be done away with by removing said rainforest, why not do away with said rainforest? If I understand IP, his reason for not doing away with said rainforest, and as such all creatures in it, to resolve a problem of suffering is due to it not making sense to take some suffering as sufficient a reason to prevent all future sufferings. Suppose you think that preventing all future suffering is something that an omnipotent and omnibenevolent being would do. If so, would you be okay with said being doing away with your life, the life of those you love, etc.? If you think that said being would be malevolent in doing away with you, your loved ones, etc. in order to prevent all future suffering, then maybe one can see how allowing suffering does not entail said being being malevolent. There is much suffering in the world, but I doubt that one would say that it would be a benevolent act to do away with all who are suffering because said cancellation of suffering would embody a better world. But maybe the given is contextual? Would it be a benevolent act to end all suffering, if said suffering was due to a world where creatures were malevolent, had no desire for good, found hatred a virtue, etc.? 2. Suppose there is an afterlife, why could the dispositions of such beings in said world not be like those that Cosmic Skeptic references: Beings in said world, due to no longer being in correspondence with an evil such as racism, would no longer need to embody the virtue of courage to fight against it. Said beings would not need to embody such virtue because it is no longer necessary to do so. If so, then maybe said life is embodied in more holistic virtues such as love, faithfulness, benevolence, goodness, etc. 3. Thinking about the suffering of non-human animals is definitely worth considering. 4. What does it mean to speak of good and evil on naturalism? It appears to me that 'good' on such framework would just be a state of pleasure and 'evil' a state of pain. Suppose, however, that evil entailed pleasure and good entailed pain, what then on such a view for Cosmic Skeptic? On naturalism 'good' and 'evil' are ultimately arbitrary. One may 'bite the bullet' and so say that that is why society creates laws, groups create expectation, etc. But if one acts 'good' because of social laws and group expectation, then authenticity becomes questionable.
A Debunk to cosmic skeptics claim of relationships are only good because of the pleasure is not correct. You don't have pleasure in sacrificing your savings for a new gaming pc or new car in order to help your partner because you find out that her car broke down and needs money for repairing. You don't have pleasure when your partner is having mood swings when she is pregnant. However is it good to sacrifice your savings to help your wife? YES! is it good to support your wife during her mood swings? YES none of these are pleasure but yet are good. Therefore people don't go into relationships because it only brings them pleasure. If you argue by saying "but it can bring you pleasure" than i agree. Michael Jones was making this point all along. But Cosmic is saying its only pleasure as he has said multiple times that suffering is bad.
Alex’s argument seemed superfluous to me, although I am a big fan of him. Here is my argument against IP: If an omnipotent loving god desires an end goal for humans such as better relationships, more virtue, and more interesting lives etc. He would be able to complete these without making suffering necessary for the goals. Since there are an infinite amount of possibilities available to god, there has to be one in which his aims are able to be met, without us having to endure suffering. Therefore since god did not choose that possibility, and allowed excessive suffering to exist, he would not be loving(in the way that we define it). Maybe I misunderstood Alex’s argument, but I felt as tho arguing abt whether or not a world of virtue and suffering was better than a world of pleasure and no virtue, seems unnecessary since one can say that god could have created a world of virtue without the suffering. Can someone tell me the flaw in my argument? Genuinely racking my brain over this.
I'd actually contest that virtue could be fully realized in a world without suffering. Most virtues described in the traditional philosophical understanding of the good life require experience of suffering in some way either directly or indirectly.
我喜欢耶稣JP If u think god is omnipotent he could have surely allowed that possibility to exist, since all possibilities are open to god. He could have chosen a way in which virtue could be achieved without suffering. To doubt that god couldn’t have done this, is to doubt and diminish gods power and omnipotence.
@@ino-fg4qv it also can be logically impossible, so omnipotent God actually wouldnt be able to do that (as far as I know omnipotence isnt defined as an ability to do logically impossible things).
Sławo PL By definition it has to. God isn’t bound by the laws of logic, otherwise the law of cause and effect would apply to him, and therefore he has to have had a beginning. There r several instances in which he is not bound by the laws of logic. Furthermore I’m not necessarily saying that the laws of logic have to be broken in order to achieve the goal of virtue without suffering. For eg god could have changed the psychology of a human being, to a degree in which we acquire virtue without needing suffering. Just because u don’t know what this personally looks like, doesn’t mean that it’s not possible.
Inspiring Philosophy is absolutely brilliant. His arguments are precise, articulate, consistent and convincing. Alex is clever is his own right, but Michael can't be stumped. C.S. Lewis had a lot of wisdom concerning the topic of objective morality: “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?”
I can't go through all this, but to any Christians out there, I found that pseudo Dionysus the Aeropagite christianized Proclus' notion of evil beautifully in The Names of God. It's just wonderful IMO.
I don’t understand the logic that if god is not super good then there is no god. If we define god as the intelligent being that create the whole universe then atitude has nothing to do with whether god exist or not. Whether you think a god is good or not is another issue.
@@BigHeretic Very humbling does not equal to Absolutely humbling. Not sure what would be the relevance of a "win" or a "defeat" regarding my comment, which was supposed to be impartial...
@@douglasdms777 Saying 'god bless you' is not impartial, it's the equivalent of emerging from a football game in which your team just got rinsed and shouting 'we are the greatest' - that fan doesn't look humbled by their defeat.
@@BigHeretic I guess we are working with a different set of assumptions. I did not mean to offend anyone. Just edited the comment, I hope it is less pretentious now.
@@douglasdms777 Offence isn't the problem, it's appealing to a god who has just been shown to be a callous and incompetent creator. Correct me if I'm wrong but the best defense given here for all the pain and suffering in the World is 'the ends justify the means' (which it doesn't). *Inspiring Philosophy* hand waves away other peoples' and animals' suffering by saying 'god works in mysterious ways' and it makes more people want to read the Bible because otherwise it would be a boring book.
Can't we conclude then that, before creation, reality was drastically less "good"? There was no soul building, and none of the traits that IP consider relevant to achieve a greater good: no bravery, no solidarity, no struggle for knowledge... Only God. Who is supposed to be "good" itself. But how can the personification of "good" lack all the mentioned experiences?
@Qwerty I don't. If God is immutable (and I assume it to make my objection) and the maximal expression of all virtues, how could such virtues only be expressed in a world with extra parts (many of them evil and bad)? Was God less perfect then? Because if he wasn't (he had already their perfect expression) then there is no need for our existence and experience for such virtues to manifest. How can a world where all that exists is God be less perfect (in expressed virtues) that this world.
@Qwerty or my english is quite insufficient to make myself lear or you are simply incapable of understanding what I'm saying. Every single critique you presented missed my point and argued for assumptions I was already making.
Forget about free will, character development and necessary suffering and all that philosophical back and forth about ethics and metaethics. The main question is this: each day thousands of babies and animals die painfully either from starving to death or because of some natural catastrophoies.Why does christian god allow that?
I will say that people repeatedly choosing the good in the context of growing relationship with God, makes choosing to do evil less and less likely,. While I certainly can be charmed by kiddos, the people I would consider “saintly” are almost almost always older people who have suffered much. Also want to add, life in this world is not about making this world a perfect place, it’s about developing deep relationship between God and his god-like creation.
After reflecting on the format more, I really like this formal flow. I’ve noticed that in some discussions, a single, sometimes unrelated, issue will hog most of the time. This allowed each person to get out their thoughts without being sidetracked with questions. No form of communication is perfect. All formats have advantages and disadvantages.
Also, I agree with many of the commenters that both CS and IP did really well! They each made strong points. I thoroughly enjoyed hosting this!
A solution might be to have a discussion period, but with the period partitioned into short segments each dedicated to one specific issue.
I liked this, but debates with measurements and cross examination are always better.
Cross Examination is a must. Most important part of a debate by my estimation!
As a visiting athiest I want to say I'm inclined to agree. What I would like to see is a continuation of the series. Start with a topic as you have then have the same speakers agreeing on the next video being a point raised in the debate to get into more detail and maybe have more cross examination/discussion in the next video.
Really enjoyed this video. I'm always blown away by Alex. Makes me excited for the state of the world that we have such articulate young people like him.
Agreed, this was a good thought provoking discussion!
IP went up against a real wall here, and he climbed up and overcame it. I love Alex, I think he's a good bloke to go out and have a beer with, but Michael was able counter every objection of Alexs' with ease, and beauty, and logic.
Michael knows his stuff, and was prepared. Both did very well
W.
Micheal did horrible cope cuck lmao
As a Christian Alex is one of my favorite skeptics to watch, and incredibly respectful as well!
@@akuma1552Yeah I agree it's realiveing to see that some people are capable of having respectful and loving conversations and debates instead of somone screaming in your face with hate and pride.
The problem of evil is not an easy position for theists to defend but Michael does it flawlessly without appealing to emotion. God bless Michael.
Totally agree with you! Well done Michael you are an inspiration.
Where does he do a good job defending it?
@@lampad4549 It's my opinion and opinions are highly subjective so if you don't see how he does a good job then its a free world you can think what you like.
@@lampad4549 "WhErE DoEs-" stfu
I wouldn’t say completely flawlessly I did have my own issues but he did a great job.
My favorite atheist, christian, and italian get together. Awesome.
Italian?
Sorry im not from your country, i dont speak english
@@spectre8533 Cameron is an Italian American.
Un italiano che però non parla italiano! Lol
Right, because Italians are neither Christian not atheist! 😂
having debates that arent just people shouting or interrupting each other, but rather people making good arguments and discussing them is so much more enjoyable
Lol and you have two of the most calm and respectful people for this, so it just works so well 😂
Lemme guess... You're talking about the dawah guys aren't you?
- @Capturing Christianity - TH-cam Streaming Debates and Conversations.: Would God Allow Evil.?. - Debate. - @CosmicSckeptic Vs. @InspiringPhilosophy - Discussion and Conversations -
- BEGINNING - @CapturingChristianity's Introductions -> 0:00:01 -
- @CapturingChristianity's 15:00 Min. Introductions - @InspiringPhilosophy's Introductions -> 5:09 - @CosmicSckeptic's Introductions -> 19:51 -
- @CapturingChristianity's First Rebuttals, Explanations, and Introductions -> 15:30 - Sub-Categorizations - @InspiringPhilosophy's First Rebuttals and Explanations. -> 35:12 - @CosmicSckeptic's First Rebuttals and Explanations. -> 45:29 -
- @CapturingChristianity's Second Rebuttals, Explanations, and Introductions - Sub-Categorizations - @InspiringPhilosophy's Second Rebuttals and Explanations -> 56:22 - @CosmicSckeptic's Second Rebuttals and Explanations -> 1:01:43 -
- @CapturingChristianity's Q/A's Messages, Discussions, Responses, and Conversations -> 1:07:17 - Sub-Categorizations - Sara Rainey's Messages and Questions -> 1:07:43 - David LA Rosa's Messages and Questions -> 1:13:41 - Gorgoly Nogy's Messages and Questions -> 1:18:12 - AM101171's Messages and Questions -> 1:21:10 - Shad Sparks's Messages and Questions -> 1:24:12 - Gina M.'s Messages and Questions -> 1:30:11 - Anthony Burk's Messages and Questions -> 1:37:04 Paul Rimmers Messages and Questions -> 1:38:35 - Roger Marshalls' Messages and Questions -> 1:40:05 - Maverick Christian's Messages and Questions -> 1:42:42 - Alice Lawrence's Messages and Questions -> 1:47:16 - Roni's Messages and Questions -> 1:48:16 -> Joshua Helle's Messages and Questions -> 1:51:27 -> Gil Cancel Comas's Messages and Questions -> 1:52:49 -> Harry's Messages and Questions -> 1:54:05 -> PHIL's Messages and Questions -> 1:54:59 -> Josh Anderson's Messages and Questions -> 1:55:46 -> Mohsin Khan's Messages and Questions -> 1:59:26 - @CosmicSckeptic's Responses and Answers -> 1:07:56 -> 1:11:13 -> 1:14:01 -> 1:14:16 -> 1:19:09 -> 1:26:08 -> 1:27:45 -> 1:29:39 -> 1:30:26 -> 1:33:27 -> 1:34:49 -> 1:36:18 -> 1:37:19 -> 1:40:21 -> 1:43:01 -> 1:43:37 -> 1:45:06 -> 1:46:19 -> 1:48:32 -> 1:50:36 -> 1:52:07 -> 1:53:08 -> 1:55:54 -> 2:00:45 - 0:00:00 - @InspiringPhilosophy's Responses and Answers -> 1:10:23 -> 1:13:03 -> 1:15:50 -> 1:16:56 -> 1:18:32 -> 1:21:04 -> 1:21:25 -> 1:24:27 -> 1:27:24 -> 1:28:54 -> 1:30:03 -> 1:32:20 -> 1:34:18 -> 1:36:01 -> 1:36:49 -> 1:38:41 -> 1:39:56 -> 1:44:49 -> 1:47:31 -> 1:51:40 -> 1:54:19 -> 1:55:10 -> 1:57:56 -> 1:59:41 - 0:00:00 -
- @CapturingChristianity's Responses and Answers On Suicide and Depression -> 1:49:51 -
- @CapturingChristianity's Closing Statements -> 2:01:12 -> 2:01:59 - @InspiringPhilosophy's Closing Statements and Thoughts -> 2:02:24 -> 2:07:00 - @CosmicSckeptic's Closing Statements and Thoughts -> 2:04:31 -> 2:07:12 -
- END -> 2:09:50 -
You didn't get enough attention for writing this lol.
Thanks for putting in the effort
Nice
Wow you have a lot of time on your hands
Thank you man
I have so much more respect for Alex then someone like Matt Dillahunty. He actually tries to answer questions. And he’s brilliant.
And he’s not a condescending jerk when he answers them. We need more skeptics like Alex.
I know this may sound like a cop-out, but after thinking about this as objectively as I can (full disclosure: at the end of the day I am still an atheist), I truly think Matt’s sanity-to say nothing of patience-has gotten frayed to microscopic dimensions from decades of dealing with arrogant, insufferable, _and simultaneously logically bankrupt_ theist callers. That’s a perfect concoction for anyone becoming grouchy. (Obviously, are there “saints” out there with superhuman patience who would have handled those decades of purgatory better than Matt has done? Sure, but we don’t judge human behavior based on the highest level of tolerance possible, otherwise murder would be legal since some extreme pacifists do tolerate being murdered.) And when you deal with not-so-well-informed theist callers, combine it with impatience, and you’re bound to come off as arrogant or rude to outsiders who never stepped into your shoes.
Now, that’s all about grouchiness. I’ve yet to see how Matt has consistently dodged questions-quite the opposite compared to the theist callers he hosts, in my opinion. Can you give some examples?
@@ZhangK71ell said. As a theist I do have mad respect for Matt from his experience alone, but there is an undeniable air of 'kookiness' to him compared to someone like Alex.
@@areallycoolhat5427 I think I see what you mean by “kookiness”, and if I’m catching your drift, I agree. He certainly isn’t the most patient or friendliest guy out there; I’d wager that even if Alex were in Matt’s shoes for two decades, he’d at least manage to conduct himself with more class and less crass by account of his posh British demeanor / mastery of couching derision in sarcasm and subtle mockery 😆.
The people matt dillahunty debates are worse than mat himself @@Nameless-pt6oj
I don’t think I’ll ever get tired of hearing IP and CS discuss these topics! Excellent video!
Well said! It’s good to build bridges and appreciate the positive aspects of both world views instead of sharing comments that create division and misunderstanding. They both did really well but I thought Michael was ahead and better structured on most points to be honest. All the best to you and keep safe during this Corona virus crisis ❤️
The timers are a great touch for the audience. Thank You.
Agreed (my watch didn't appreciated it though)
1:06:09 The answer to this is found in the final conversation between Jonah and God (in the book of Jonah) God feels for all of his creatures, ALL OF THEM.
ElficChanel that passage has nothing to do with debate timers.
@@Iamwrongbut ,ahh yea, sorry, thought I was on the general coment area, my bad.
@@Iamwrongbut i don't get it
The point Michael made about the types of books we read blew my mind. If we are desperate for Utopia, free from struggle, why do those types of stories sound awful?
Because those utopias are static
Revelation 21:4
“And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes, and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain; for the former things are passed away.”
I guess we better stop reading the Bible, then. Sounds awful
@SheepOfChrist818I think Docspelling was being sarcastic.
A world without suffering can and WILL actually be fun and engaging, HOWEVER it just won't be realistic to do in this physical universe and physical world.
This is why God -- when He comes back -- is going to completely wipe out and blow up everything to literally remake an entire new heaven ( the universe or cosmos) and new Earth where there will literally be no suffering.
This is going to be incredible.
Here's an example and reality of why a world without suffering and a true Christ Utopia will actually be incredibly fun--contrary to what we read in these Utopian books: for instance, in this current universe, I'm a serious writer and also an aspiring serious artist (drawer). But the fear and reality is, I personally wont live long enough to tell the stories I want to tell because my life is going to die and this really sucks. And, there is so much things to explore in drawing that I want to draw everything and more, but this wont be possible because I'm going to die. Again, this sucks.
Also, the current environment is not ideal to fully explore stuff because massive sudden changes from evil may occur that will throw out my entire system of artistic work and way life. There is ra eality that my city could get destroyed by nuclear warfare. There is a possibility of an economic societal collapse. If this happens, gathering the tools to continue to draw and write will be incredibly difficult than it is now and would be full of immense suffering.
Therefore, my point is, I want to be an immortal. But i dont want to be an immortal on this Earth because this current Earth is completely damned.
I want to be an immortal human in a new universe and a new Earth so I can continue to do the things that I love to do without fear or suffering. And Jesus Christ is going to do this. I just have to be patient and continue to make every effort to live my life right so that I am worthy to attain this new and ultimate form of existence.
@@charlienachname1978
Affirmative!
@@danielsmithiv1279
And also "triumph" does not require "suffering".
Playing a game like chess, football, e-t-c
has "triumph" or "victory" in the end
with no requirement of suffering.
There is accomplishment in your drawings
when they are completed,
with no requirement of suffering,.
I think the "FALL" replaced this,
let me call it "work through" with suffering.
Although Cosmic is certainly the most enjoyable online atheist to listen to, and held his own in this discussion... I ultimately think IP hits the nail on the head. The Christian and Atheist will always define "the good" differently. If the ultimate good is the pursuit of pleasure and avoidance of pain, then God might very well seem incompatible with the world we find ourselves in. If our highest good is the development of virtuous souls meant for deep, meaningful relationships for eternity, I see no inconsistency with God and the world we find ourselves in.
A question to Alex would be, why pick an arbitrary aspect of human experience like pleasure to base a moral system off of, and then blame the creator for not making the world that most appeals to such an arbitrary standard of good? Pleasure is simply an accidental property of being a rational animal. Why not base ethics off of the pursuit of humor, or intelligence? The point is that we are not in a position to judge the world that God set up because it doesn't fit our man-centered ethic.
Well said!
I'm not speaking for Alex, but the whole reason to set pleasure, or the lack of suffering, as the basis of morality is that everything can be simplified to what is pleasurable and what is not. Or maybe more simply, pleasure is the opposite of suffering, which almost anyone can agree is bad and undesirable.
So things like humor or the pursuit of knowledge is only good because what the individual gets from it: pleasure, a good job, security, happiness.
Edit: And there are many theories about what is morally right action, but most of them are about optimizing pleasure or diminishing suffering.
@Will Stueve. interesting that you go back over and over again to the idea of pleasure, which you use as if it was a loaded weapon in the hands of the weak, sinful and self centered. Pleasure as you say, and I would much rather use the term well being, Is preferable to pain and suffering. Your Calvinist viewpoint is wearisome and obtuse.
So under the view that pleasure isn't the thing we should value does that mean that the malaria we have today is good? Any more or any less would be a worse world and the malaria we do have has good consequences which makes it desirable?
@@cubedude76 Malaria has good consequences? We are talking about the disease caused by a parasite in mosquitoes right?
This is a good debate. Nice respectful conversation. I hope Muslim Abdul like Muhammad HIjab will learn something watching this respective discussion.
Although, the topic is very sensitive and heavy. Both parties did a good job and made good points. But for me, Alex's arguments seem very attractive but self destructive.
I enjoyed the debate. Thanks CC, IP and CS.
God bless!!!
Lol Ranfer
“Alex’s arguments seem very attractive but self destructive”
I have to agree he’s a very charismatic speaker and is very convincing and does his homework but I also find his views self destructive, particularly his views on determinism and free will etc.
Inspiring philosophy also does his homework and whilst they both did well i actually put Michael slightly ahead. All the best to you and your family and keep safe during this Corona virus crisis ❤️
@@georgedoyle7971 Yeah, I'm a fan of all of them. God bless you too. Stay safe my friend!!!
@@ranferchristian8050
Thanks a lot. Keep safe and God bless you and your family too ❤️
"I hope Muslim Abdul like Muhammad HIjab will learn something watching this respective discussion." fr
IP’s argument on how a world without suffering would be unrealistic is so good in my opinion, the only way no suffering is possible if if nature itself would have to bend out of its physics and rules for a certain scenario, nothing as we know it would have an unchanging state. If a skydivers parachute failed, the ground below him would have to suddenly become anything but solid, a world with no natural evil would make no sense.Great debate
The laws of physics would not need to be altered in order for there to be no suffering in the world. All that would need to be changed is the structure of the things that do the suffering so they didn't do suffering any more. That is a horrible prospect but it wouldn't be that big of change. Unless plants, fungus and single cell organism can suffer, only animals would need to be altered. Only a small part of each animal would need to be changed. Of course animals would soon all die off, but that laws of physics would not change.
@@myothersoul1953 So nuking the whole rainforest would not require physics of the world to change? Or not being able to breathe inside of a gas chamber might not be painful but its not very conducive to life and thriving and happiness. So how does that not require the laws of physics to bend?
@@NoOne-uh9vu Yes, nuking the whole rainforest would not change the laws of physics and neither do gas chambers.
@@myothersoul1953 Of course it would. It would require you to breathe without oxygen and to magically have the rainforest survive the blast. Even if you specifically would not suffer in the gas (lets say its a special kind of gas) your relatives will suffer from the loss. So in that hypothetical world you MUST survive on the principles of the world which bend physical reality by necessity
@@NoOne-uh9vu Breathing isn't a law of physics.
At constant temperature, the amount gas dissolved in a volume of a liquid is directly proportional to the partial pressure of that gas in equilibrium with that liquid.
That's a law of physics called Henry's Law. Even if no one where around to know about Henry's law or to suffer, it would still describe how nature works. All there needs to be for there to be no suffering is no suffering things. The laws of nature do not depend on suffering nor do they care about it.
Well-spoken, humble, honest, and clearly very intelligent; as a Christian, I love listening to Alex.
Hello. Anyone who denies that Jesus Christ is Lord is a liar(1 John 2:22). Sadly, Alex hates and rejects the Christ. The bible warns that there is no hope in sinful man. Our only hope is in the everlasting God. What wisdom can Alex, or anyone, give? There is none. Wisdom comes from Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
Only Jesus died to save sinners and salvation is found in Him alone:
"Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life. But whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on them." John 3:36
@@micahhenley589 How do you know that what the Bible says is actually true?
@@michaelsinclair604 Wait, didn't you say you are a Christian?
@@micahhenley589 Correct. Are you going to answer the question?
@@michaelsinclair604 Well we know the bible is true because God never lies. 2 Timothy 3:16 says ALL scripture is God-breathed. Everyone on the side of truth listens to Jesus Christ(John 18:37).
1:41:47 What Alex said about suffering was so beautiful! I'd like to see how he develops his reasoning on that. He sounded like a true Christian in his concern, and yet, since he's an atheist, I can understand his despair.
For me too, I don't see how anyone would be able to explain the existence of suffering without the context of religion. By grace, I am religious, so I have hope, but I cannot use my view of suffering to justify Christianity, it only works the other way around, logically. However, this created world allows to be known by science and logic, so I trust that honest philosophers like Alex will find a good answer.
When Alex becomes a Christian again using IP’s perspective, he is going to be an intellectual powerhouse.
Agreed; if that really is all that is holding him back then he'll turn to the darkside before it's said an done.
As a Christian, I've been challenged by Cosmic Sceptic's points on animal suffering. Do any Christians think that they have an answer to it? Thanks for the discussion!
There is none
I too think this is a serious challenge for Christianity. I'd love to see a whole discussion dedicated to it
Read Trent Dougherty’s The Problem of Animal Pain
My answer is that it is consistent with both their views to be vegan; however, suffering covers/includes other points that veganism doesn't...as far as I know.I guess depends on how the question(s) were framed for a debate.
@@lindapb6529 I mean, you can ethically harvest meat right. These "battery chickens" that are kept in cages so small they can never stand upright is sickening. I mean it's demented. But to have free range chickens with proper food and shelter..and then quickly and painlessly lop it's head off for some BBQ..I don't see anything wrong with that. Then again, if we ate Rover I might feel different..
Both made such good points. Such an interesting discussion.
I do have to lean more towards Mike's side though. This is because, if I had to make the choice between never suffering again or having strong relationships, I would choose relationships. I get a lot of pleasure out of lots of things. Anime, video games, good food, etc. But all of that pales in comparison to the good feelings I have when I am with the people I am closest to. And I do agree, I think the strongest relationships are the ones built around hardship, built around suffering, built around confiding in others about one's guilt and regrets and insecurities and fear. Being vulnerable around someone, freely giving them a chance to hurt you, knowing what it's like to be hurt but still risking it, and happily finding that the other person chooses to be good to you instead simply because they love you.
Without suffering, I do think there would probably be only surface level relationships. Acquaintances, but never friends. Hookups, but never romance. To me, that sounds awful. I'd much rather accept the suffering than live in a world where I have never felt real love for someone. If I lived in a world of no suffering but I only had surface level connections with other people, I might not have known what I was missing, but the me here and now can know for a fact that it would be deeply inferior to the life I have now. And given the choice, I would absolutely choose suffering.
What about people who don't have the luxury of relationships? Its always easy to talk about something when you don't suffer from it
@@Cassim125
There have been periods of my life when I was completely friendless. I've also never had a romantic partner. You are very wrong to assume I don't know what it's like to lack relationships.
Just because we may lack relationships at certain points in our lives doesn't mean that this will be the case forever.
With enough time, effort, and willingness to let go of our selfishness, we can certainly build new relationships with others.
But real love is only possible if there is the possibility of rejection. Without the ability to reject you, that means the "love" they have for you is forced. If someone only "loves" you because they are forced to, it's not love.
Rejection causes suffering. So in a world without suffering, there is no rejection. And therefore, also no love.
@@Lady_de_Lis ahh yes I forgot in heaven evil must exist since good things can't exist without suffering. So either heaven is actually hellish or nobody in heaven has free will to always love everyone
@@Cassim125
You can talk to other people about Heaven or Hell, if you want. That's not the topic I am discussing or care about. The specifics of what happens after we die, to me, isn't very important. None of us know what it will be like, so it's pointless to argue about it as if any of us have any clue.
I am talking purely about suffering on Earth. Specifically, I am talking about whether I would prefer to live on planet Earth with or without suffering. And I have made my position pretty clear.
If you want to talk about any other topic, I encourage you to talk to someone else who is more interested.
@@Cassim125
Shows how presumptuous you are to think that people must be interested in the same topics that you are.
A stranger leaves a comment on a TH-cam video about something very specific. And then, when they don't want to change the topic to something YOU want to discuss, you belittle their intelligence.
Again, if you want to talk about those things, talk to someone else who is interested. Belittling my intelligence because you aren't getting your way won't make me change my mind.
Let's be real... the winner of this debate is CC's hair.
As a christian I can deny that ._.
🤣🤣🤣
As an atheist I can deny that, it's obvious who won the debate
@@Navii-05 Do you have any good reason the believe any of that is true?
@@Navii-05 none of those reasons are good evidence. They are all logically fallacious
I have found this debate to be one of the most respectful and quite organized debates I have ever seen. Both debaters gave very good points with respect to whether a good God would allow evil? Now, don't get me wrong, but I think IP provided a more logical solution to the why of suffering. Alex gave some good points that made me reflect on the necessity of evil, but I eventually found out that his views of suffering were all seen from his own point of view, rather from God's perspective. Think about it, Alex suggested that it would be better for a world with no suffering, and that he rather have no virtue, because in order to have virtue, suffering would be required. The problem arises when Alex starts to suggest a world better than this one, and this is why so many skeptics fail when trying to explain their ideas on suffering. God is an all-powerful being, his spectrum of reality is infinitely bigger than the one of humans. My question is then, How can a person suggest a world better than this one, when his scope of reality is so vastly limited in comparison to God? I mean, as humans, we haven't even come to fully understand the very planet we live on, let alone the Universe, and now we think we can define what is best for the world. Our minds can not even grasp the many dimensions or reality in comparison to God's. Heck, we are fragile beings that are limited by the Space-time continuum, and still, some think what is best in the realm of immaterial things such as evil? The realms of evil and suffering are beyond our comprehension, because they are founded in a non-material reality, so, how can a person assume that it would be better for suffering not to exist, when this person is inside a realm that is way below the reasons for God to allow suffering?
Anyways, this was a great debate, both debaters where stunning. God bless!
It still doesnt justify animals having to suffer or the excessive evils in the world. We can see how excessive it is & its no different from a god that has abandoned this world.
@@Yameen200 How do animals suffer?
"How can a person suggest a world better than this one, when his scope of reality is so vastly limited in comparison to God?"
@@Yameen200if you're atheist then evil doesn't exist so you shouldn't bother
Loved the debate! Respectful and constructive; the shared moment at 1:14:05 really demonstrates the massive potential to have debates that encourage civility and mutual appreciation.
Whilst I appreciate IP's standpoints and his argumentation, and I'm very thankful for his work, I was frustrated that his approach was/is lacking in relationality. As I see it (as a Christian), we are created for the purpose of becoming virtuous souls only as a secondary corollary of our existence as beings-in-relation: humans are made in the image of God (Gen. 1:27), who, in the Trinity, is the archetype of being-in-relation (cf. John 17:21). Through Christ, human persons can experience restoration and reconciliation; such a restoration of the foundational human-divine relationship thereby produces strength of character (cf. Gal. 6:22-23), just as one's character changes with one's relationships; but a transformation of character occurs only as a result of the prior relation. CS himself says that suffering brings people together (@ 1:08:08); whilst he rightly focuses on the imperfection of human relationships, his critique does not apply to the human-divine relation, which is worth more and has more import than the sum of all possible alternatives (cf. Matt. 13:44-46; John 7:37-38; Phil. 3:7ff).
Reinstating a relational perspective presents a new avenue in which suffering functions to reorientate each person towards reconciliation with God as the end-goal. Virtue ethics and consequentialist ethics are united in the individual's seeking after God-in-Christ, who is the source and summation of good (cf. Bonhoeffer's 'Ethics') (presenting a resolution to 1:24:15). Heaven is therefore not just a place of 'virtuous souls' but primarily a place of perfect unity of God with His people through Christ (cf. Rev. 21:22). Such unity of relation must be engaged in with intentional participation, though, and distinguishes it from our current existence (contra CS @ 27:17); likewise, the perfection of one's character is facilitated and completed by the indwelling Holy Spirit, which is not just a rational transformation but an ontological one (contra CS @ c. 26:00). This presents a counter-argument that is both logical and practical, though it is in conflict with IP's Hickian doctrine of heaven.
IP heavily underplayed the centrality of Christ in the narrative of the God-human relation in the context of evil/suffering, in my opinion, to his detriment. I would advocate a more explicitly Christocentric perspective that allows all things to rotate around Christ (Col. 1:17), including all the above topics of ethics, suffering, heaven etc. Nevertheless, I really appreciated the debate! Thanks very much.
1:57:12 Alex' answer was incredibly powerful to me. Luckily, I personally am past the point of actually considering suicide but I heard that and the thought of someone approaching me with this kind of honest and open attitude at my worst times nearly brought me to tears. I think this could have actually resonated with me and possibly nudged me in a better direction much earlier.
Life's tough sometimes....at other times nearly inconceivably difficult, I know. From one person who has been there to another: I'm glad you decided to hang around.
I liked Alex approach to acknowledge the reality and level of pain and suffering the person is feeling. Very honest and true. I was surprised by the question and was not disappointed by the answer.
Couldn't agree more. Was sad to hear IP respond how he did
@@funkypunkypine Glad you did, too. Thank you.
@Qwerty I don't think there is a general rule for it plus I doubt he will ever publicly speak on that because it's to sensitive a topic to actually name specific circumstances and run the risk of misspeaking somehow or actually pushing someone deeper into suicidal thoughts because they generalise what he says. I do think, though, that many such cases would concern people with irreversible physical illnesses rather than psychological ones.
Glorious and thought provoking dialogue. Listening to this is like desert after a good day of study.
Boundlessly impressed with CosmicSkeptic in every conceivable way. This debate was food for my brain and soul. Have this guest back asap please. Let's get into the question of animal suffering this is something near to my heart as well.
I totally agree!
Agreed!
Personally I don't find CS that impressive: if he comes across that way, it's because most of his engagement is with random youtubers like IP and rarely at philosophers of religion like Feser, Davies, or Pruss. I don't even think he has read Davies' book that, imo, refuted the problem of evil 15 years ago.
Excuse me, but Qwerty is an intellectual powerhouse. It wouldn’t even be worth it to try to challenge his genius. Anyone that disagrees with him is unread and unintelligent.
Excuse me, but true
I think I would have liked it more if there was an open discussion period
I think the debate was missing the Cross Examination period, which I find crucial, but I enjoyed the formal debate. "Open discussions" allows people to manipulate, and derail the discussion.
Case and point: Matt dilihunty
The more formal debates are had, the better our discussions will be.
@M then he probably can't stand you 😂
I agree, Cross examination and open discussion are crucial and most entertaining
@@RussianBot4Christ Amen on that! I think no matter who, it gets muddled up no matter how amicable the debaters are in open discussions -- definitely have seen it chronically with Dillahunty. It makes a debate tough to listen to when one person is trying to railroad the opponent into stumbling while sending out cluster bombs of red herrings. It'd be hard to even read the transcript to that! x ( LOL
Nothaf but then you can run into the problem of gish galloping - where someone brings up so many points in such a short time that's impossible to refute them all in a given time. Asserting something is always faster than debunking it. Good example for this would be Kent Hovind.
great discussion, thank you so so so much for hosting it
To add an illustration to IP's position and the question about how relationships can be deepened through suffering, our relationship with God is ultimately deepened as well in a way that couldn't have been in a perfect world. Imagine if we always lived in heaven with God from the start, and He told us He loved us all the time. Even though it would still be true He loves us unconditionally, there would be no way to fully demonstrate that unconditional love. So I think it might be possible we could doubt (or at least not fully appreciate) His love, or think maybe God only loves us because we perfectly obey Him, not because He is love Himself. Because we live in a world full of evil and suffering, we live in a world where it was possible for God to show His love for us through His sacrifice on the cross. He was able to show us what great lengths He was willing to go through for us even when we were still turned against Him. This should get rid of any doubt about how much God loves us. It should make us that much more eternally grateful and make us love God that much more deeply seeing what He was willing to do for us. This is why Jesus' resurrected body still has the nail marks - so we can always be reminded of His beautiful sacrifice and see how much He loves us. "Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." - Romans 5:7-8. I personally believe God temporarily allows a world full of evil for the purpose of showing how deeply He loves us and He still loves us no matter what, even if we hate Him. We cannot fully appreciate God's grace and mercy without experiencing and being aware of our own sin and our need for Him as our Savior.
Mohammed Hijab should watch this and take notes on how to debate honestly and respectfully.
He’s beyond saving. From his train wreck with David Wood to his deleting 30 minutes of footage, he’s too intellectually dishonest.
The Freedom Hoplites yup he’s beyond saving is the right phrase
Really! No I don’t think so . What he did was completely justified
He would just get triggered and tell everyone to kill themselves.....then insult their wives...and randomly speak in Arabic every now and then for no reason.
Mohammed Akod Mohammed Hijab is the most dishonest muslim debater ever
C.S. Lewis discusses why pain is metaphysically necessary if we want a world where we can interact with each other. See The Problem of Pain
One can't rationalize evil without a moral premise, and it seems to be that Michael takes this more seriously than Alex, even his position regarding the forests is more objective whilst Alex takes a moralistic point of view..
I'm glad that inspiring philosophy isn't troubled by his childhood. But I'd trade the personal growth I got from mine if I could also get rid of the PTSD, still with me decades later. And the notion that no one gets a bigger burden than they can handle is belied by suicide.
I really disliked that point of his. I have CPTSD from my childhood abuse and it's had a massive effect on my life and worldview. Like good for him but he shouldn't state his experiences like they're the norm (and I'm also skeptical of the fact that it really hasn't affected him)
Yep. IP extrapolating from his own experience to everybody else a little bit of a mistake here.
Yeah I agree.
@@elawchess Far worse than that it made him sound arrogant..how dare he arrogate the experiences of others?He went way down in my estimation here.
And that, ladies and gents, is what the young folk call a mic drop.
Well said!
IP regarding the fall: “If God knew that all of us would’ve acted similarly, he does no wrong in choosing one person to represent us.”
This has always struck me as bizarre. If every conceivable human would’ve partaken of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, then how is this not a fault of the creator in making us so susceptible to temptation that none (and I repeat none) of us could’ve resisted?
Well said.
God gave all of us free will in making decisions.
Jonah Kane that doesn’t answer anything he said. did you read his comment?
James 1:13-15
As you see It wasn't God making them so suspectible to temptation, really just that the devils words confused their philosophy, making them question if God really said that they could not eat from the fruit.
Appreciated the structure of this debate and the respect on display from both sides.
Especially refreshing after seeing some of David Wood's recent outings with... less respectful debaters.
Great job, guys!
Cameron I love the aesthetics of your channel, everything is very sleek. Also great discussion, Michael and Alex are great!
I like the style of the text, the arrangement of the video feeds, etc, but I keep wondering what Cameron does to his own camera feed to make it look the way it does.
His face is lit unevenly and the colours seem muted, as if he applied some kind of filter or colour grading that intentionally makes the image less vibrant.
Interesting when celebrities open about faith, especially from Backstreet Boy!
Not as neutral as I would like him to be though, I mean he was still in like 95% neutral, but a little more biased than I would like, nothing wrong it’s just that I like my moderators to be more neutral.
This was a great debate. I hope they have more in the future.
Alex I love you, you made so many great points. Many of which I have been thinking of recently. From a Christian
Alex is my new favorite atheist💟
Same, love you alex! Keep diving into the truths of the universe!
Oppy is still better
@@anglozombie2485 To be fair, give Alex a few more decades ;)
As a Christian I've been listening to Alex and he's been growing on me. I'd rather listen to what he has to say than any other atheist.
Very great discussion! While I mostly agree with IP I think that CosmicSkeptic brought up some good points. I appreciate the fact that he’s not like other atheists who just want to be right rather than be rational.
So you are asserting that atheism is not a rational position?
@@theoskeptomai2535 He never saod that. Do you have reading comprenhension problems?
@@derechoplano "....other atheists who just want to be right _rather than be rational."_
Do YOU have reading comprehension problems?
@Usman M Yet oddly, the former is defined by the latter. I don't see a huge difference. I see a huge accordance.
@Galaxy Guy Are you capable of intelligent comment or do you just drool?
A point that Alex made that I feel needs to be made more is the implication that the amount of suffering is necessary. The position is frequently straw-manned into advocating for a pain/suffering free world, but the argument is that we don't need AS MUCH suffering, not that we wish for a suffering free world. Michael even said himself during this discussion that he doesn't believe all evil and suffering produces good and I wish he was asked why that unnecessary suffering is allowed to exist. When you discipline a child and cause suffering you don't beat them within an inch of their life...you inflict the minimum possible suffering necessary for that good to be produced. When Michael talked about his childhood suffering and other suffering not being that bad I think is a failure of empathy to adequately recognize the enormous amount of misery that is experienced by millions of people on Earth at this very moment. Even if you don't care at all about animals (which I also think is a massive failure of empathy), the scale of human suffering alone is off the charts. Consider also that for the vast majority of hominid history, the standard of living was even worse than it is today when we did not enjoy the benefits of modernity.
The problem of evil is a completely emotional argument. I'm not saying I don't care about people suffering but their suffering doesn't negate God's existence. God commanded people to love one another not to be abusive. If people are abusive that's not what God wanted.
@@avivastudios2311 It's an emotional argument because the logic is compelling. The Christian conception of God is that he's all loving and perfectly moral, yet there is an ocean of suffering that is not a product of human action. The tsunamis, earthquakes, genetic mutations...that's on God. Earth has experienced several mass extinctions from climate change, ice ages, asteroid collisions...we're talking trillions of living organisms that were wiped out and couldn't do anything about it.
Massive suffering is just hardcoded into the universe. I think it's beyond messed up that a God could create plants that get energy from the sun, yet decide that it would be better to create living organisms that can only survive by eating other living organisms. Watch a video of a zebra being eaten alive by a lion and remind yourself that God saw this and decided that it would be a good thing if this happened all the time.
I can accept a lot of the arguments for the existence of some suffering, it's just the amount of suffering seems way excessive and requires explanation if the claim is that God is perfectly loving.
@@avivastudios2311 most bad things in the world are not caused by human actions.
I know it is a clichee to say that but it's really nice to see debates where people speak calmly and let the other person speak out and not devolve into screaming matches.
Respect is the name of the game son, we should all play
The best part of Inspiring Philosophy's point of it better to live in a world with suffering vs one filled with pleasure is isn't that what the Garden of Eden was for? No pain or suffering?
No not really, just a place where there was no pain and suffering for direct communion with God
Then it was tarnished
@@tman_theboss4171 You seemingly agree with me.
@@lavontescallion2375 kind of, it was more so the intention that I did not agree with, I think of it more of a state of being instead of a purpose.
The world we live in is not what God intended. It was caused by the first sin. Why should we defend it? It's bad and we can't wait to live in a heaven or eden. Adam was thrown into eden, he didn't need to go through suffering to prepare for it. Let's stop pretending that we need to go through all this suffering. We are just simply going through it as a consequence of sin.
The Christian dude looks like he’s ready to punch someone
Lol, na he is an honest person
no,this was his natural Face
Thats just hes face when he thinks thats mostly acording to IP since someone said why does he have such a grumpy face and IP answered
It’s his military background
@@whatsinaname691 Wait Michael Jones(IP) is a military vet? Lol would like to see some sources that would actually be pretty cool if it wqs true
As a teen I noticed that when I was a kid there are xthings I wanted or endured, that had my parents not forbade me or allowed, would have been far worse for me getting them, yet I suffered as a kid not receiving them.
In my twenties, I noticed more xthings I wanted or endured, that looking back, had I received, would have been terrible for me or had not endured, yet I suffered them.
In my 30s I see similar in my 20s.
The point is that as we become wiser, we are made more aware of the things in which suffering at the time is worth it.
A perfectly wise being is going to understand perfectly what particular amount and type of suffering is necessary in every particular situation. Michael is not perfectly wise, thus the analogy between him and his son is only helpful for demonstrating the necessity of suffering in principle, but dis-analogous as soon as it begins "drawing moral lines" regarding particulars and even principles implying particulars.
@@TheWTFcakes
If you want to "roll" my comment into an argument for naturalism over theism on the basis of an isolated variable like suffering I'd likely be inclined to agree with you.
However with respect to the original intent of the comment, which was directed at supporting the analogy used in the video that was offering a way to think about God having plausibly sufficient reasons for allowing/permitting various evils/sufferings, it is simply a red herring.
@@TheWTFcakes
I appreciate the candor.
It's extremely refreshing to witness on TH-cam.
Im looking forward to possible future discussions.
I really enjoyed it
As a Christian, I can’t say I agree with everything IP says, but he defends what he believes in the faith very well
I think it's difficult to even have this debate, because the premise of the existence of God and an afterlife creates a dynamic of 'good and evil' that is completely different from what we would conceive of without those things, so the two sides would be arguing (or should be) from completely incompatible perspectives.
What I mean by this is that a belief in God and heaven would have to liken our lives to something like a dream, because the infinite would be more 'real' (a higher tier of reality) than the physical world we live in day to day. That's not to say it's meaningless, just like most people don't realistically think our dreams are meaningless. That only means that anything that happens TO US in our physical lives would be considered incredibly temporary without lasting consequences. The only thing that matters would be the choices we make.
God being incredibly concerned about human 'evil' and 'suffering' in our physical lives would be akin to a parent being incredibly concerned about their child having a nightmare. It would be somewhat ridiculous beyond a certain point.
So, because of this I think this argument is kind of a non-starter.
I know they touch on this in the beginning, but from my perspective, there's simply no way to move past this point from a logical perspective.
Why can't all debates be like this, done in good faith, well mannered. Very intellectual!
Saying our pain won't matter that much in our afterlife is so weird to me. If I get beaten that'll also be nothing more than a memory in two weeks, doesn't mean it's not wrong/evil.
its like you get paid after getting beaten by a mob and that somehow justifies the assault
Especially when that afterlife is unwanted.
@@51elephantchang you don't want it?
@@Raul-vs6ff yes
I don't know if I'm describing IP's viewpoint accurately, but I personally don't believe that any pain, suffering, good or evil in this life loses its meaning because of the afterlife. It is all still meaningful, real, and significant. It's just that it will no longer be felt in heaven. Heaven is far greater, more glorious, and eternal, so comparing it to any consolation received in this finite life is not an apt analogy.
"Some philosophers have contended that the existence of evil is logically inconsistent with existence of theistic God. No one, I think has succeed in establishing such an extravagant claim."
- William Lowell [Atheist]
absurb quote...
InspiringPhilosophy wins. He was way more logical and collective. CosmicSkeptic was just boring and stereotypical.
I agree IP wins but I also think that CS have a good points.
Did anybody really win here?
I don’t think this debate was held on the matter of winning or losing. In my mind Alex ‘won’ because the Christian never convinced me of his argument
What hit me hard, was Alex talking about the Covid lockdowns, after realizing that this video is three years old!
There seems to be a false assumption being made by atheists who think that God has ‘moral obligations’ to someone or something. If that’s the case then we’re not actually talking about God. God is the ground of all existence and is Goodness itself. It doesn’t make sense to anthropomorphise and treat God as if he were one more moral agent alongside human beings. There is no moral standard over and above him.
Philo Theos....I suppose all we can go with is what’s written in the bible since none of us was there....but the said bible is self defeating in most of its sayings....somebody once said “ don’t write more than 3 pages when you starting a religion...same with Christianity....the book is full of contradiction...take Mack Twain who questioned why we never seem to blame god for anything...when he points out “the bible teaches us to intervene where we see human suffering and sorry lest we sin heavily” observes that “there has not been human suffering and sorrow that god could not alleviate....”does god sin then?” and argues that if he is the moral giver, he sins .....the judge on the bench can not condemn crime....to revel in it as soon as he’s off the bench, without condemnation?....
@@robertjohns6701 First things first before we can go forward, what is an example of a contradiction in the bible? i always here this yet one person has shown me.
Douglas Verner : all you need to do sir, is research for yourself on TH-cam and search engines available....as for me, it’s the image we were given to worship as our saviour, was the image of the coloniser.... my saviour and my oppressor, my god and my enslaver became one...so you see my defence, if this thing ever turned to be true, which I strongly doubt....
@@robertjohns6701 God is not an enslaver. he wants us to come to him by our own will. he never does it by force. and all ppl that end up in hell will want to be there.
@@douglasverner1159 Really? Cause it seems to me that a lot of morally positive and/or neutral things that people do can land them them a place in hell. Btw, if this cruel omnipotent creature actually exists and I will be thrown in hell for not bowing down to him, I shall except so gladly. For a heaven under such a creature will not be a place I would want to go to anyway.
Thankfully, the possibility of that is close to 0.
IP’s point about earthly existence being a dreamlike state where suffering and death doesn’t really matter seems to me highly problematic:
if the fact that earthly existence pales in comparison to an eternal afterlife implies that earthly suffering is inconsequential, doesn’t this also imply that other earthly occurrences - like virtuous acts, immoral acts, devotion to God, etc. - are also ultimately inconsequential?
If so, how can God’s judgments - or on IP’s view, the “choice” to go to heaven or to hell - be valid, since these arise from finite (and therefore inconsequential) facts of earthly existence?
That is, if worldly existence is a dream-state where suffering ultimately doesn’t matter, why does anything else matter here?
Not to mention, even if the first problem did not exist, an omnipotent, all good, all knowing god, would not allow any level of suffering, reducing it to "barely matters" isn't really improving his position, only making it seem less disastrous.
Also if someone next to you is having a nightmare and are screaming in there sleep most people would try to gently wake that person to free them from there suffering where god is simply watching and doing nothing just to teach us a lesson
Wow! You just absolutely destroyed his argument!
The point IP was missing in the faulty dream or inception-like scenario he provided was that when we watch a fictional movie we could reason that the suffering in the movie doesn't matter to the extent that the people in the movie aren't really real. The "suffering" in the movie makes it not boring and it becomes very interesting to see them overcome the suffering.
Just like Alex alluded to, in the case of us and God, God would then be the one watching the "movie" using our suffering as entertainment. That's already very sick especially as in this case, it's not non-existent fictional people suffering but real people.
I can't believe IP cannot see this if he thinks about this for 5 mins as he seems to be smart.
I personally don't believe that earthly suffering will be forgotten or inconsequential in heaven, and neither does IP from what he explained. The book of Revelation describes the saints and angels praising God for His Son's conquering of death by His blood and resurrection. So pain, suffering, and death won't be forgotten or inconsequential in that sense, but we will not feel it anymore or view it with the same perspective as we do now. It will only seem like a dream in the sense that heaven is far greater, eternal, glorious, and outshines the evil and suffering experienced on this earth. It will not lose its meaning, significance, and reality.
I also find it a very weak analogy when IP keeps bringing up how his childhood doesn't affect his life anymore. There are people out there who develop serious mental disorders which cause serious obstacles from living a normal life because of such traumas and others and it's not so "paleing in comparison to the good" for them.
It’s weak as long as you ignore the part where he clarifies that he knows this isn’t true for everyone. That’s why he uses his daughter crying after wanting to play on a building as an example. These are examples of suffering that have no lasting impact on a child.
@@djohnmark3625 I didn't say the rest couldn't be used as examples or analogies. I was purely speaking about how the childhood trauma where his mother mentally and physically abused him didn't leave an effect was a weak one 🤷🏻♂️. And as Alex pointed out, the daughter analogy also does not work because when you tell your daughter not to play on the roof, it's to avoid a greater evil. You can appeal to the Lord's mysterious ways and whatsoever for all I care but that doesn't stand as an analogy for the suffering of the world on the wild presumption of afterlife.
Sarath Yelisetty He’s speaking purely about his own life and how his childhood didn’t impact him in the long run. He never even implies that this is the case for every person. So pointing out that some people develop mental disorders from childhood experiences is irrelevant because nobody was arguing against it nor implying that it wasn’t true. And yes, he tells his daughter not to play on the roof to avoid greater suffering, that’s precisely the point and hardly a refutation. And if we are talking about the problem of evil then yes both sides have to presume the afterlife and the finitude of our minds compared to Gods for the sake of discussion since the problem of evil is an internal critique of Christianity.
@@djohnmark3625 Well, he could point at his own life and his own experiences for all I care but as long as they don't help the argument, I can call them weak analogies even if he himself agrees that it's not the case everywhere :)
@@djohnmark3625 my only problem arises when this afterlife takes the wild form of a privation of some higher evil that could only be achieved by a lesser evil of suffering in the real world (lesser evil: telling his daughter she shouldn't play on the roof, higher evil: that which is avoided by going to heaven, getting seriously hurt in his daughter's case)
I’m mostly in agreement with Alex here, although Michael’s point regarding the natural suffering in the wild is important and interesting. If we could eradicate nature without consequences, would that be the right thing to do? We would eliminate animal suffering, but is ending all those organisms’ lives our choice to make? What if some of them do want to live despite the suffering they endure? How do we determine which do and which don’t? With humans, it’s clear enough that some of us believe that life is worth the suffering, while others don’t. But with nonhuman organisms, this is difficult to parse.
Interesting questions. Though they seem to be separate from the problem of evil argument. Because God doesn't need to eradicate life, he can preserve life, just take the suffering from it.
If I had the infinity stones then carnivorous animals, meat-eating in general, and capitalism would be outta here.
No more unjust exploitative hierarchies, No more perpetually evil circle of life, and No more enslaving and cannibalizing our conscious cousin species.
" If we could eradicate nature without consequences, would that be the right thing to do? " That's the wrong question. You don't need to eradicate the whole nature to eradicate the suffering. You could just make it operate in a different way e.g sentient beings don't need to kill each other for food.
"What if some of them do want to live despite the suffering they endure?"
This feeds into TJumps view of morality. OK God could have made it optional then. So that if you wanted to experience suffering as you suggest, you could choose to of your own volition. This would be a more moral world than the one we live in.
It seemed to me almost as those Cosmic Skeptic was leading himself down a path that would advocate zoos over the rainforests which I doubt that he would agree with. The point about a tree falling on a deer and the deer starving to death. This scenario could be made to be impossible by a zookeeper. The animals in zoos are generally well treated - zookeepers that I have met have a huge amount of love for the animals in the zoo and they tend and care for the animals but instinctively we know that the animal has a richer and fuller existence in the natural world but they are likely to endure more suffering.
@@saturnray1260 but wouldn't you be killing carnivorous creatures? So you become the thing you fight.... Also funny sidenote I've seen goats eat birds... Sooo...
Just commenting for the algorithm more of these two plsss
InspiringPhilosophy opened with logic and CosmicSkeptic open with emotion. Interesting.
Stop imagining things.
@@reeseexplains8935I mean he wasn't, the Athiests entire argument based on emotion which is understandable and as a Christian man myself I wish God would completely eliminate evil on the earth. Things are the way that they are because they are what they are.
@@reeseexplains8935 Alex is a self described ethical emotivist (even though he hadn't yet figured this out at this time), why wouldn't he be led by emotion?
What I truly find gracious in Alex, is that he doesn't run about making strawman arguments ; he addresses each of the opponent claim and then proceeds to question them critically . He also doesn't make postive claims about the non existence of God , he rather uses evidence and follow them where they lead . Is a Honest guy , I can tell that if He had enough reasons He would embrace God . He is not prejudiced on this
I've been listening to apologist's arguments for close to twenty years now, back when I was a 40 year believer, through my transition, to my current state of convinced unbeliever, and, though I understand why apologists make their arguments, because they actually believe their convictions (most of them at least), but what I can not understand is how they seem fully unaware of how contrived and forced their arguments are. Even as a believer I could see the poverty of the arguments.
Ironically, it's our evolved brains full of shortcuts and imperfections created during a few hundred million years of evolution that cause theists to make such bad arguments. If our brains were actually designed, we'd reason far better and less emotionally.
Yeah the problem of evil tends to bring this out.
When it comes to the resurrection, theists are all too quick to tell you how important it is to have a single explanation that is the simplest, least ad hoc, with the most explanatory scope, power, that explains all of the data at once. But when it comes to the problem of evil; well you see natural evil is just how nature works it's not God's fault, unless Adam and Eve was literal and they caused Earth to be cursed so. And you see when infants suffer and die that's because God will reward them in heaven so it's fine, oh but some evil is just because of free will, but you see it's also to build our character, because bravery and patience is good of course, and well actually God uses evil to bring about a greater good like he might use the holocaust to bring about more salvation, butterfly effect you know? Oh and remember Christians get an eternity in heaven so we'll forget about all that suffering that went on. It all just makes so much sense you see - clearly there's a loving god behind it all.
@@NotGoodAtNamingThings I don't get what you said,
We are humans, how come if God created us then we wouldn't make such mistakes?
@@Raul-vs6ff - Human reasoning is full of flaws. There are more connections from the emotional centers of the brain out than from the logical parts of the brain to the emotional parts. Humans are more emotional than logical.
It's very clear that most people decide emotionally what they want to believe and then use flawed logic to reason backwards from that conclusion. People are more irrational than rational.
With evolution, this all makes perfect sense. With special creation, it doesn't. Or, or maybe God isn't very evolved either, if, via special creation, we were created in God's image. (I mean, I assume that's metaphorical. God doesn't have literal feet, right?)
Christian apologist arguments are almost universally awful, especially those of young Earth creationists. If our brains were, in fact, designed by an all knowing, all good God, we'd be less irrational. But again, in the light of evolution, our imperfect brains make perfect sense. It's what one would predict.
@@NotGoodAtNamingThings well, yeah your argument would be a perfect argument to refute this Christian guy, but am a Muslim and our understanding in islam is so much different from this.
Want me to explain why it woudnt work on all theists?
Great debate, though I believe Cosmic Skeptic won this one. His rebuttals and arguments were so much more specific, articulate, and well said.
I don't think it's really possible to win against a sound debater when you really have nothing but "faith" to stand on.
@R.J.J- El ganador I mean there's no good evidence for god so people believe on faith.
@R.J.J- El ganador and this is why I don't argue with religious people.
goodbye
@R.J.J- El ganador it's ironic that a person wants to argue but can't put together a legible sentence
1:01:09 In response to what he just said: Isn't that what god created in the first place, in Eden? And isn't Eden supposed to have been the ideal perfect world? Yes, there was one difference, in that Adam had the capacity to reject that world, but wan't he supposed to _not_ do that? Wasn't that rejection supposed to be a bad thing? Meaning that going along with that world, in which he was ignorant, unchallenged, completey safe, cared for, and therefore virtueless, was the good thing to do? Furthermore, if Adam rejected that world, and, as IP says, _all_ humans _would_ reject that world, doesn't that just mean that god created humans to be incompatible with this "perfect" world? Isn't that a weird thing for a perfectly loving god to do? Why not create the kind of perfect world that _is_ compatible with man, _and/or_ create man to be compatible with a perfect world?
The problem with the arguments that Christians make on this topic is that every reason they try to appeal to for why god had to make things the way they are, is _itself_ something that god made the way it is. They always _always_ fail to actually take seriously their own belief that god is responsible for *_EVERY THING_*
Agreed, and it's also very strange to mix mythology into a discussion on philosophy, though I guess when it comes to Christianity, it's somewhat inevitable.
*Realguy McCoolname* It's painfully obvious that believers bit off more than they could chew when they decided to attribute natural phenomena to the supernatural. Having done so though they seem unwilling to admit their mistake and they try to make it everyone else's.
@R.J.J- El ganador Appeal to consequences, ad hoc rationalisations as if to validate my previous comment.
And it makes no sense; do you think that an architect wants their building to stand without the possibility of falling down and killing its occupants - no, they design it with flaws so that they can appreciate every day that it stays standing - and any number of similar debunks to your fallacious square peg.
"same with god he wants people that can disappoint
him..."
How do you know what god wants? Isn't he supposed to be beyond understanding? Admit it your just guessing, or don't because it's obvious.
@R.J.J- El ganador I didn't miss your point at all, you missed mine. You're in a relationship with god alright and it ressembles an abusive relationship where the abused always finds excuses for the abuser - whatever he does there's always a reason and when there are no more reasons, well, we can't understand him but he must have his reasons, he's such a good person when he's not drinking.
You didn't learn that excuse from the Bible, you heard it somewhere or you thought of it yourself and it made sense to you. You'd realise this if you could be honest with yourself for a minute.
It makes sense if you want it to, if you're looking for an excuse to explain away an inconsistency.
100 people lost their lives in a plane crash but Miracle !! 1 survived, "thank god".
Thousands of babies die of hunger and disease - they're better off in heaven, "praise the lord!"
A whole community was devastated by the Hurricane - Miracle !! one house survived, "thank you god!"
It's not that you can't see it, you don't want to see it.
@R.J.J- El ganador Aaaaand you're still appealing to consequences : "if you don't accept that there's an afterlife then all these bad people will go unpunished..."
Whether there's an afterlife or not bad people do bad things right under the nose of your god. Could _you_ watch a priest grossly abuse his power and rape a child? again and again? and again? No, neither could I, but your god seems to get off on it. What's your excuse for that one *RJ ?*
As the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ said, In this world u will have tribulation but fear not I have OVERCOME the world .
@InspiringPhilosophy says:
(1) I'm not a utilitarian;
(2) The suffering people undergo is far outweighed by the joys of Heaven.
OK.
Yes, and also that the goal of suffering is to maximise virtue. What he doesn't say is that virtues ultimately lead to ones wellbeing in the long run, but it's implied.
You’re missing the point
@@youthresist8956 Do enlighten me please (no pun intended)
Premise number 2 is not utilitarianism. Do you know what utilitarianism is?
@@thetannernation I do - thanks for asking! And I'd be even more grateful if you could explain how arguing that something is good because overall it produces more happiness than suffering isn't a utilitarian argument.
The fact is, no one can actually either prove or disprove either the existence or the non-existence of an ultimately evil omnipotent being. There's no comfort to be found in that fact. Just because we wouldn't be worried doesn't mean that we shouldn't be worried.
If there is an evil omnipotent thing in the universe, why would this be the worse it could come up with?
Just because it would create all of us in a world that is not maximally bad, would not necessarily mean that it was not a maximally evil being.
For all we know, it's an (everlastingly) maximally bad world (call it "hell" if you want to) that _does_ follow this one, and each of us _does_ go there when he or she dies. Thus that evil being would not be cheated out of anything would it.
As far as finding ourselves in a world that's just only so bad, maybe it wants to watch all of us squirm in it before it sends us to the maximally bad one. Maybe that's it preference.
But the point is, it could have that preference and still be maximally evil.
Although the theme isn't fully explored in it, Alex should read Brave New World. The morality of it is exclusively framed through suffering minimisation. All social problems are engineered to a T. And yet, we still have unease at the chimney stacks which burn corpses after the person rationally decides to end their life, their age beginning to alert others to mortality. We feel concern at the sexual promiscuity of youth, and the deliberate monotonous aimlessness of life in this world. I always found that this text pointed out to me the emptiness of pleasure as an ultimate end, and why a life on the Native reservation, disease, ugliness and all, or in Iceland, pursuing knowledge free from censorship, would be preferable.
Feel free to disagree tho!
"Brave New World" is exactly the book I thought about during the discussion as well. It depicts the outcome of a society that is soley focused on elminating pain and maximizing pleasure. Character, virtue, and family are considered outdated or repugnant.
I really really wish this type of old style debates would stop such as 10 minutes of rebuttal and so on. A free flowing conversation is far more enjoyable.
Debate starts at 5:30
Ty
I love the fact Michael(IP) used Lord of the Rings in his rebuttal 🤣. That is amazing.
I would love to see a debate/discussion between Cosmic Skeptic and Braxton Hunter from Trinity Radio. I think people sleep on him as an apologist but he seems to have the whit and intelligence to go toe to toe with Alex.
Well, he cleaned Dillahuntys clock when they debated. And in his reviews, he really zeroes in on what he thinks is Dillahuntys errors.
@@piage84 That's your opinion, and it is objectively wrong.
@Usman M Well he backed Dillahinty into a corner, and Dillahunty admitted he had no counterargument to Braxton. Dillahunty only leveraged his personal incredulity.
@@piage84 Look at the language you are using. "Does he know for a fact", what do you mean? Does he have 100% Cartesian certainty? No, he even admits he doesn't, nobody does. Do you mean does he have facts and information/data that he provides when making arguments? Sure he does, and he presents them regularly. Its really odd to me that atheists MUST argue the theist must have 100% certainty or "they are just making things up".
This is your opinion, and it is objectively wrong. It is not my opinion that you are posting your opinion, so the "I know you are but what am I" should be left on your atheist channels.
@@piage84 wtf
Michael is a Christian who believes in evolution, yet claims natural evil wouldn’t have occurred had it not been for the fall in the garden. Talk about trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.
Did you watch Michael's videos on Genesis that were brought up in the beginning of the video, or are you intentionally ignorant?
Nothaf I’ve watched more of IPs videos than the majority of the dolts that follow him. I know this is difficult for you to grasp, but according to science there were billions of years of death, decay, and destruction before humans evolved. How someone can then say that a human eating an apple in a magic garden somehow reverse caused the evolutionary path of our earth is either extremely ignorant or disingenuous. I tend to think it is the former for Michael, he often espouses views that conflict with each other. Hope that helps.
Evolution before adam.and eve maybe? Evolution and then adam and eve-
Kevin McElroy Around 17:30. IP states that chaos and destruction wouldn’t have been present in the Garden, but is the result of mankind’s rejection of God as ultimate authority.
Contrast that with the scientific evidence of BILLIONS of years of chaos and destruction before humans were even a twinkle in the evolutionary eye, and you can see the ridiculousness in the position.
J.W. H. If he believes in a historical Eden, I think it’s reasonable to presume he believes in a historical Adam. And if he doesn’t believe in a historical Adam, that opens up a whole other theological can of worms.
Here from Cosmic Skeptic, just wanted to say that this was a lovely discussion, thank you for holding it!
This debate is an example of why I abandoned classical apologetics (although I still have a ton of admiration and respect for William Lane Craig). Alex did really well here.
Good debate
Alex is intimidating because of his wit and posh.... however, after really analyzing his arguments, you can really see how bad his points are.
Just realized that
The “dream/veil” analogy of IP concerning this life and the next doesn’t sit well with me. Has he never been “shook” by a dream that leaves lasting effects?
And then says there is suffering in heaven? Is there a 2nd heaven where we recover from those?
His beliefs on the afterlife and god’s character are unique and I wonder if even Cameron agrees with his view
Yeah, I think his attempts to rationalize away the most iniquitous aspects of the doctrines of Salvation and Hell put him outside what would be considered to be Christian orthodoxy.
It amazes me how much creative license theists give themselves to interpret scripture in such a way that fits their purpose, in this case, trying to rebut the evidential problem of evil. It's like once you get the core beliefs down, almost anything is up for grabs.
Yeah, his concept of the afterlife sounds like fanciful sci fi
But most importantly :
Doesn’t he understand the difference between how much we, finitely loving beings, that *had to* accustom themselves to pain, consider how much pain is too much pain, and how an infinitely loving being that could build a world in which nobody has to accustom themselves to pain, and that himself never had to accustom himself to pain, considers how much pain is too much pain ?
The infinitely loving being is *infinitely* loving.
Even normally loving being would prevent all suffering they can reasonably prevent.
An infinitely loving being should, by definition, try to prevent all suffering, if he can. And god can, supposedly, since he is omnipotent.
@@Mayordomo32 reality is more fantastic than sci fic . You don't realize it yet .
Having listened to the whole debate and especially Michael's tortuous reasoning while trying to explain suffering and evil as part of "God's plan" for humanity, I'm only left with an increased appreciation for the atheistic position that there is no plan, and what suffering and evil there is is a combination of natural processes, random chance and the actions of flawed human beings. It might not be as satisfying, but it has power in its simplicity.
If there is no meaning, suffering isnt even an evil thing lol, its just a natural, indifferent and tasteless phenomenon that some of us (ocidental) think its bad because of emotional reasoning. Btw atheism is true
Nietzsche is right: bad and evil doesnt exist, It is Just an invention of christians
@@spectre8533 Even if there is no over-arching meaning of life, there are still qualitative differences between things. When we talk about good and bad we are inevitably talking about some entity being good or bad at accomplishing some goal. A sponge is a bad tool if your goal is to drive a nail into a plank of wood. Likewise, kicking a dog is a bad action if your goal is to forge a strong bond between you and the dog. Ethics is the field of study that tries to answer questions about which choices are good or bad with regards to the goal of increasing the overall flourishing of conscious creatures. It is just as objective and meaningful as the field of medicine which tries to answer questions about what behaviors and substances are good or bad with regards to the goal of maintaining the proper functioning of our bodies. Also, ethical philosophy predates Christianity.
@@jacerockman1031 ok, we are just giving arbitrary meaning to such rhings and calling them "bad". There are poeple who like kicking a dog. A sponge is a bad tool in a different sense, in the sense it wasnt projected for it. We (humans and animals) arent projected by someone, therefore, we have no specific goal. Good or bad is what we decide to be good or bad.
@@spectre8533 I'm not making the claim that anything has meaning, I'm just describing facts about reality. Yes, there are people who like kicking dogs, but kicking a dog just because you like kicking dogs is still unethical (at least in a vast majority of circumstances). Again, ethics is the attempt to understand which choices are good or bad with regards to the goal of increasing the overall flourishing of conscious creatures. I'm not saying that everybody has that goal, but that doesn't change what is or isn't ethical. Even if someone doesn't have the goal of being healthy, we can still make objective claims about whether or not their body is functioning properly. We get to decide what is good or bad ethically just as much as we get to decide what is good or bad with regards to health and medicine.
I'm not sure I understand the relevance of humans and animals being projected by someone. Rocks weren't created to drive a nail into a piece of wood, but it is still objectively a better tool for accomplishing this goal than a blade of grass. Likewise, conscious creatures weren't created for any specific purpose, but we can still make objective investigations of which choices are good or bad for the flourishing of those conscious creatures as a whole.
@@jacerockman1031 i would say health is a biological propery and good or evil are personal opinion's properties because you cant justify them without looking at the opinions of human beings like you ad me, and we all disagree.
ya but those are not categorical imperatives, like "do charity because its good", they are hypothetical imperatives "do charity because it will help the poor" but why help the poor is good? My personal opinion is that it is good, but some people are indifferent.
1:39:54 - I had the same reaction as Michael. lol
Christians, think about this. God allowed evil for Job and we are all like Job and his friends questioning why God allowed evil for such a righteous man where in fact God is not seeking after the perfect world or heaven to begin with. He has the higher plan and that is to change the constitution of men into God's life and nature so we can be one with Him. This takes sufferings and trials for us to be transformed and conformed into the image of God. Therefore, God clearly used evil to fulfill this primary goal in Scriptures and He completed His goal at the end of the book of Revelation.
Job was a good person. But God is not looking for the happy place with good people and no sufferings. God wants men with full of His Life.
Alex's opening statement is excellent
He's almost always nothing short of excellent. Have you checked his most recent conversation with William Lane Craig? It's outstanding.
@ManyProphets OneMessage It's hilarious that you think that it was anything other than a productive, sincere and respectful conversation.
"Schooled"?! - Grow up.
ManyProphets OneMessage
How was he schooled? What points?
Qwerty
Why is not being convinced low?
Qwerty
You imply that discourse in atheism is low
Colonizing the universe after being resurrected as an immortal sounds like a really interesting sci fi novel.
this was... surprisingly civil. Nice
Suppose there's coin which upon tossing
1) there is 50% probability to get a head which is associated with the creation of a soul and this soul will be condemned to suffer in hell or infinite suffering which one can never get used to
2)there is 50% probability to get a tail and so a soul will be created which after coming into existence will experience infinite bliss, pleasure or happiness (no boredom or any undesirable experience)
Will you toss the coin ?
if probability of getting a tail is 75%, does it make it morally permissible to toss it?
Say if the odds of a getting a tail is 90% ? 99% ? What do you think?
Now think of creating a entity with free will, given there exists a good chance that the entity might condemn itself to eternal suffering. I dont think free will and eternal bliss is worth the cost of eternal suffering. Even a single hour in brazen bull is never worth an afterlife in heaven, given hell doesn't exist.
Man... there's so much circumventing the Scripture here... assuming free will, assuming God doesn't do things solely for His glory, flat out denying all sin inherited from Adam, rejecting that the inherited sin sends us to hell, open theism... just wow....
Also, their assertion that a world without suffering would necessarily result in a mindless life of pleasure is just a reflection of the limitations of our primitive human cognition. We have no idea of what a world free of suffering *could* consist.
Heard of Nirvana?
@@mithunbalaji8199 LOVE their music!
Yes we can, we're not thick, we see how reality is and we can make hypotheticals and we can see that it wouldn't be a very nice life if suffering just vanished.
I think we need to take the bad with the good, and use the bad to appreciate the good more.
I don't think I agree with Alex's conclusion. I don't see how one can use people's emotions in an argument without it being an appeal to emotion fallacy. Are there any examples?
I mean praying for suffering to go away is an appeal to emotion, in of itself.
To my understanding it comes to this: What is the greatest good? A world of pleasure with no evil, or a world of virtue with evil?
To Alex's question to Michael as to, if he would not allow suffering in his own child even if he knew it would result in future good, then how can he justify God allow suffering - GOD DID ALLOW HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON TO UNDERGO THE ALTIMATE SUFFERING FOR THE ALTIMATE GOOD.
1:10:22 Consider this: if your mother and father had not gone to a certain location and never met, you might not have existed. It's possible that certain events were allowed to happen to enable your existence or the union of your mother and father.
Q1: does the Christian God KNOW the future?
Q2: if NO then can it be said the Christian God is not all powerful and/or omniscient?
Q3: if YES and the Christian God is all knowing/omniscient & knows the future then why have suffering/evil at all if God knows his loved children will suffer?
Q4: If YES then I ask is life is a test for worthiness and/or soul development?
Q5: if NO and LIFE is not a test and/or Soul development then, again, why have suffering at all? If there is no test to "pass" the why hand out the ‘questions’. That is like a teacher testing students but already having their grades.
Q6: And why didn't God already make us with complete souls already? Why?
Q7: If YES that life is a test/Soul building exercise AND God can see the future (being omniscient/all knowing) then, again, IF God alresdy knows the answers AND how we are going to answer them why put us through pain and suffering? Let me ask DOESN'T God already know if we pass the test if life? How much our souls get developed? An omniscient/future seeing God already knows correct? Again WHY put us through a test loaded with pain, suffering & evil if God already knows how we end up? There was no need for the test.
Btw amazing debate/discussion and I hope they have more talks.
freewill & freedom is a gift & power that's bestowed upon each one of us
yes, it's a gift, at the same time it's a power
remember: when Adam & Eve sinned against God when they took the "Forbidden Fruit" 🍎 (the Fruit of the Knowledge of Good & Evil), God was searching for them
God didn't spot them instantaneously, nor heard a noisy alarm that someone had taken the "Forbidden Fruit" 🍎
He scoured & searched all over the Garden for them
perhaps, it's because human freewill & freedom is very powerful
it can cut & block off the communication line between the human beings & God, especially when one has committed a grievous sin
it's like a wifi signal that's spotty or choppy when there's a strong weather disturbance around the area
that's why freewill & freedom is a powerful form of exercise of one's expression
but if done irresponsibly or without regard to its limitations, there'll be consequences
one of the consequences: communication line between God & human beings becomes crooked, not straight
prayers become unanswered
prayers become futile
life becomes hard & unbearable, unless one would resort to risky & dangerous evil / wicked ways & means to enrich oneself
The Bible indirectly tells us that God doesn't know the future, or at least not all of it. God experiences regret in the Bible. In the beginning, God thought it's creation was good. Later, God experienced regret. This seems to totally disprove some of the omnis, at least omniscience.
God having to look for Adam and Eve in the garden disproves omnipresence.
Animal suffering would seem to disprove omnibenevolence. Are there any omnis left?
Also, creating humans without the knowledge of good vs evil and then punishing them for disobeying is evil in itself.
@@NotGoodAtNamingThings that does not disprove the omni's lol
_if YES and the Christian God is all knowing/omniscient & knows the future then why have suffering/evil at all_
Thinking about this question one needs to take into consideration that this world doesn't really exist (from the viewpoint of eternity), in the same way as ancient civilizations don't presently exist from our viewpoint; it is disposable and temporary, and it is predicted that "soon" it will be burned up (which,
One cannot solve the question of evil without taking into account this temporal dimension and its limited nature.
@@sapientum8 - If what you said is true, then why are people punished for all eternity for something that isn't real in a way that matters? It's like punishing am actor who portrayed a criminal on TV.
IP did great here. Good convo
I really enjoyed this debate and how polite the the conversation went. I have a question for Michael, if he reads the comments. You said that it is possible to get out of hell and go to heaven in the afterlife. How would you interpret Luke 16:26? Thank you.
1. IP brings out an interesting point: If the suffering of animals in the rainforest is an evil, and said evil can be done away with by removing said rainforest, why not do away with said rainforest?
If I understand IP, his reason for not doing away with said rainforest, and as such all creatures in it, to resolve a problem of suffering is due to it not making sense to take some suffering as sufficient a reason to prevent all future sufferings.
Suppose you think that preventing all future suffering is something that an omnipotent and omnibenevolent being would do. If so, would you be okay with said being doing away with your life, the life of those you love, etc.?
If you think that said being would be malevolent in doing away with you, your loved ones, etc. in order to prevent all future suffering, then maybe one can see how allowing suffering does not entail said being being malevolent.
There is much suffering in the world, but I doubt that one would say that it would be a benevolent act to do away with all who are suffering because said cancellation of suffering would embody a better world.
But maybe the given is contextual? Would it be a benevolent act to end all suffering, if said suffering was due to a world where creatures were malevolent, had no desire for good, found hatred a virtue, etc.?
2. Suppose there is an afterlife, why could the dispositions of such beings in said world not be like those that Cosmic Skeptic references: Beings in said world, due to no longer being in correspondence with an evil such as racism, would no longer need to embody the virtue of courage to fight against it. Said beings would not need to embody such virtue because it is no longer necessary to do so. If so, then maybe said life is embodied in more holistic virtues such as love, faithfulness, benevolence, goodness, etc.
3. Thinking about the suffering of non-human animals is definitely worth considering.
4. What does it mean to speak of good and evil on naturalism? It appears to me that 'good' on such framework would just be a state of pleasure and 'evil' a state of pain.
Suppose, however, that evil entailed pleasure and good entailed pain, what then on such a view for Cosmic Skeptic? On naturalism 'good' and 'evil' are ultimately arbitrary. One may 'bite the bullet' and so say that that is why society creates laws, groups create expectation, etc. But if one acts 'good' because of social laws and group expectation, then authenticity becomes questionable.
A Debunk to cosmic skeptics claim of relationships are only good because of the pleasure is not correct. You don't have pleasure in sacrificing your savings for a new gaming pc or new car in order to help your partner because you find out that her car broke down and needs money for repairing. You don't have pleasure when your partner is having mood swings when she is pregnant. However is it good to sacrifice your savings to help your wife? YES! is it good to support your wife during her mood swings? YES none of these are pleasure but yet are good. Therefore people don't go into relationships because it only brings them pleasure.
If you argue by saying "but it can bring you pleasure" than i agree. Michael Jones was making this point all along. But Cosmic is saying its only pleasure as he has said multiple times that suffering is bad.
These GUYS are BOTH GREAT! They're like "Brain Food". 🍿🧠
Alex’s argument seemed superfluous to me, although I am a big fan of him. Here is my argument against IP: If an omnipotent loving god desires an end goal for humans such as better relationships, more virtue, and more interesting lives etc. He would be able to complete these without making suffering necessary for the goals. Since there are an infinite amount of possibilities available to god, there has to be one in which his aims are able to be met, without us having to endure suffering. Therefore since god did not choose that possibility, and allowed excessive suffering to exist, he would not be loving(in the way that we define it). Maybe I misunderstood Alex’s argument, but I felt as tho arguing abt whether or not a world of virtue and suffering was better than a world of pleasure and no virtue, seems unnecessary since one can say that god could have created a world of virtue without the suffering. Can someone tell me the flaw in my argument? Genuinely racking my brain over this.
I'd actually contest that virtue could be fully realized in a world without suffering.
Most virtues described in the traditional philosophical understanding of the good life require experience of suffering in some way either directly or indirectly.
我喜欢耶稣JP If u think god is omnipotent he could have surely allowed that possibility to exist, since all possibilities are open to god. He could have chosen a way in which virtue could be achieved without suffering. To doubt that god couldn’t have done this, is to doubt and diminish gods power and omnipotence.
@@ino-fg4qv
No to doubt this is to doubt that virtue being fully attained without suffering is a possibility. Like being a married bachelor.
@@ino-fg4qv it also can be logically impossible, so omnipotent God actually wouldnt be able to do that (as far as I know omnipotence isnt defined as an ability to do logically impossible things).
Sławo PL By definition it has to. God isn’t bound by the laws of logic, otherwise the law of cause and effect would apply to him, and therefore he has to have had a beginning. There r several instances in which he is not bound by the laws of logic. Furthermore I’m not necessarily saying that the laws of logic have to be broken in order to achieve the goal of virtue without suffering. For eg god could have changed the psychology of a human being, to a degree in which we acquire virtue without needing suffering. Just because u don’t know what this personally looks like, doesn’t mean that it’s not possible.
Inspiring Philosophy is absolutely brilliant. His arguments are precise, articulate, consistent and convincing. Alex is clever is his own right, but Michael can't be stumped.
C.S. Lewis had a lot of wisdom concerning the topic of objective morality:
“My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?”
maybe god created people to believe in justice but he himself doesnt give two damns about the injustice. The evil god view
first time in such a debate i wish there was a cross examination section, coz both debaters are super respectful.
I can't go through all this, but to any Christians out there, I found that pseudo Dionysus the Aeropagite christianized Proclus' notion of evil beautifully in The Names of God. It's just wonderful IMO.
I don’t understand the logic that if god is not super good then there is no god. If we define god as the intelligent being that create the whole universe then atitude has nothing to do with whether god exist or not. Whether you think a god is good or not is another issue.
This is excellent! And very humbling! God bless those who would accept, or wish, to be blessed by God!
*Douglas Souza* Obviously it wasn't very humbling to you who thinks that after that defeat you can say "god bless".
@@BigHeretic Very humbling does not equal to Absolutely humbling.
Not sure what would be the relevance of a "win" or a "defeat" regarding my comment, which was supposed to be impartial...
@@douglasdms777 Saying 'god bless you' is not impartial, it's the equivalent of emerging from a football game in which your team just got rinsed and shouting 'we are the greatest' - that fan doesn't look humbled by their defeat.
@@BigHeretic I guess we are working with a different set of assumptions. I did not mean to offend anyone. Just edited the comment, I hope it is less pretentious now.
@@douglasdms777 Offence isn't the problem, it's appealing to a god who has just been shown to be a callous and incompetent creator. Correct me if I'm wrong but the best defense given here for all the pain and suffering in the World is 'the ends justify the means' (which it doesn't). *Inspiring Philosophy* hand waves away other peoples' and animals' suffering by saying 'god works in mysterious ways' and it makes more people want to read the Bible because otherwise it would be a boring book.
Can't we conclude then that, before creation, reality was drastically less "good"? There was no soul building, and none of the traits that IP consider relevant to achieve a greater good: no bravery, no solidarity, no struggle for knowledge...
Only God. Who is supposed to be "good" itself. But how can the personification of "good" lack all the mentioned experiences?
Good objection
@Qwerty where does it state that god evolves?
@Qwerty I don't.
If God is immutable (and I assume it to make my objection) and the maximal expression of all virtues, how could such virtues only be expressed in a world with extra parts (many of them evil and bad)?
Was God less perfect then? Because if he wasn't (he had already their perfect expression) then there is no need for our existence and experience for such virtues to manifest.
How can a world where all that exists is God be less perfect (in expressed virtues) that this world.
@Qwerty again, I am not talking about the creation being perfect.
Maybe a question explains my point better: was there perfect good before creation?
@Qwerty or my english is quite insufficient to make myself lear or you are simply incapable of understanding what I'm saying.
Every single critique you presented missed my point and argued for assumptions I was already making.
Forget about free will, character development and necessary suffering and all that philosophical back and forth about ethics and metaethics. The main question is this: each day thousands of babies and animals die painfully either from starving to death or because of some natural catastrophoies.Why does christian god allow that?
I will say that people repeatedly choosing the good in the context of growing relationship with God, makes choosing to do evil less and less likely,. While I certainly can be charmed by kiddos, the people I would consider “saintly” are almost almost always older people who have suffered much. Also want to add, life in this world is not about making this world a perfect place, it’s about developing deep relationship between God and his god-like creation.