The most frustrating thing is when people complain God doesn't deal with evil, then read the OT and when God does deal with evil there they have shocked Pikachu face and say a loving God would never do such a thing.
God way of dealing with evil is kill, kill, kill, kill. Making Satan a godly saint in comparison. I mean... have you ever read the bible? He's god, as such... He should be above using such lowly method a simple mortal man will use. But no, he cant' or couldn't.
@@BornAgain223 It's not like god can, he too has limitation. Nothing to do with "having both ways". God condones slavery, & had his followers massacre the native population to steal there land & colonize it in his name. While allowing his followers to enslave the survivors. How did that made god different from the other gods that ordained their followers to do the same?
Even if it is by chance, the universe had a beginning, which means nothing existed prior to the universe. It happened ONE TIME and suddenly we’re here. It’s so obvious that God knew exactly what He was doing, yet atheists/agnostics still deny it because they suppress the truth in their iniquities.
If someone was walking in the woods and found a row of pebbles perfectly in a row, they would be impressed by how the pebbles managed to end up there by themselves over time. If they continued walking and then found another row of rocks, only these are also in the line, of the same color and size, they would start to suspect something unnatural had occured. If they walked further still and found a row of rare and precious gemstones aligned in a perfect row, they would absolutely expect an intellegence was involved. Yet when it comes to life, the universe, consciousness they shrug and say "Must be a coincidence."
@@platinumt3425 what would you say to people telling this is a cycle...the universe will start, then end, and then start again and end, and so on? Hindus believe this.
@Ss V Your suggestion completely ignores entropy. Every interaction of matter and energy generates an amount of waste, unrecoverable and unusable loss of energy. It's basically the static universe hypothesis which defies any attempt to understand the universe through physics: Consider also the light of stars, or even the invisible light of infrared radiation emitted by every object. The particle-waves that do not encounter objects or gravity wells, but pass between them in the vastness of space, can never be caught or reused. They are gone, effectively taking with them the matter and energy used to generate them. As a result, the universe is constantly decreasing in total matter and energy, which means it will eventually run out. If it can eventually run out, then the universe must have started at some point.
Le mot Dieu n’est pour moi rien d’autre que l’expression et le produit des faiblesses humaines, et la Bible un recueil de légendes vénérables mais malgré tout assez primitives. Aucune interprétation, aussi subtile soit-elle, n’y changera rien (pour moi). » Albert Einstein.
As a Christian with (basic) science qualifications, the more I learn about science the more I see The Hand of God in our wonderful Creation. Thanks David and God Bless.
Cool story bro. Why do we get cataracts while octopi don't? Why aren't we immune to rabies? Why do we have a little worm-thing called an appendix that attaches to our intestines that kills us when it explodes? Science is able to explain all these things. Religion cannot explain why a perfect being would create humans with such glaring flaws.
God bless David Wood and his family. Respect from Serbia 🇷🇸 ☦️. Thankyou for all the great videos over the years about the true nature of Islam. We've endured 500 year Slavery under the Ottoman Califate ,but have never and will never loose our faith
To associate ottoman caliphate with Islam is to associate crusaders with Christianity. Be critical when it comes to things linked to afterlife. The ottomans were no gentler with us muslim arabs of the Middle East, so stop the victimisation. Question and I want honest reponse : as a Serb, how do you feel about the Bosnian genocide ? I personally know people who lost all their family because of it.
Its always amazing to me when anyone says, "God cant, God couldnt, God wouldnt". Im just like how can you say that? Why would any finite thing feel entitled to put limits on the infinite?
So couldn't God create a world without worthless sufferings of innocent people or animals? Of course being omnipotent it could have done a world like that but it didn't, so it is evil He did it to make human develop courage etc? Couldn't he have done it without such natural violence? He set up the rules, so...
@@marco15x15 why would you try to understand that which you physically cannot? God is infinite, the first and the last. We are here for a short time. We can never hope to understand that gulf between us. Because of this there are things in Gods nature that seem contradictory. Like how can God be the source of good and evil? Idk it doesnt makes sense to me either. But I am reminded of Alan Watts when he rightly pointed out that the chaos at one level of Gods creation is harmony on another level. We cant hope to fully understand what the plan is. Its like physically impossible, but we can choose to be either positive or negative towards that plan.
God being able to break the laws of the universe also means that any "necessary" suffering isn't necessary, and that anything we don't understand could have been written in a different way that would make us understand it. With this in mind, anything that God has done must be intentional. This, of course, conflicts with the problem of evil since it means God intentionally allowed all of this suffering even if he could have found a way to prevent it.
@@stirpiano For every person that complains about suffering, another learns from it, humbles themselves and realizes what reality they live in, they come to God. God doesn't need you, you need God, whether or not you find this out in your lifetime is not God's problem, it is yours.
There exists an infinite number of watches that don't work, which is how the Rolex keeps good time, but it was never actually designed; it just popped into existence, spontaneously.
@@nickkerinklio8239 I'm no longer under any human...other than Jesus (Who is fully God and fully Man. I have been struggling to find churches that actually teach what the Bible teaches...but we are not to forsake the gathering... I'm in a seeker sensitive church where I tend to ruffle feathers and the sharing of the Gospel seems to be viewed as "beating people over the head with the Bible"... I'm a born again believer in Christ Jesus! God's Only Son Permits Eternal Life! 😇🙏💪
The problem of evil has been seemingly discussed ad nauseam. I’d like to know about the “problem of good”. Why is there good in the midst of all the evil?
Same answers. There would not be good without evil and vice versa. How would you know what is good and what is not withour being able to compare ? The famous tree of the knowledge of good and evil is necessary for the good to exist.
Because "good" is an evolutionary adaptation, same as belief in God. (In ooga booga terms) Species cooperates = higher chance of survival. So it isn't even "good", it is merely pragmatical. Cold and calculated, not warm.
@@tubsy. Nope, good is not any adaptation and Hitler and Stalin proved it. There was no survival issue back then, no that long ago. Evil is evil and has nothing to do with evolution or adaptation, you can always find a "good" reason to do evil things.
But wait, if we are talking of the Christian faith, then good before evil, thus it (good) did existed without evil existing. It was the rebellion of x angels that we have evil. So I get what garfinke is asking. I wonder if it hope, both the hope that those who don't want evil will keep away from it and hope that those who are doing evil change from it.
@@tubsy. “Adaptation” “Pragmatic” “So it isn’t even good” Was that actually a good claim? that is was that actually a “TRUE” claim or was it nothing more substantive than a pragmatic adaptation? By the way, you just totally and utterly refuted yourself. Equally, “PRAGMATISM” is a value claim and so comes with a whole load of metaphysical baggage!! You are now in the domain of metaphysics buddy!! And that’s our domain. So you clearly have an enormous explanatory gap especially if you are actually a strictly reductive materialist, atheist or philosophical naturalist. So you clearly have an enormous burden of proof. SORRY BUT EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS REQUIRE EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE. Your rules not ours!! What can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence!! So the atheistic, nihilistic mantra goes!!
I am the first to comment so what do I say when I'm the first to comment? What do I always say when I'm first to comment? It's time to come to Jesus Christ I mean seriously people look at this world.
@@apologeticsroadshow David, so thankful for you and your ministry brother... glory to God for how He's moved in your life 💛 blessings to you and your family
@@apologeticsroadshow Have you heard of Canadian atheist Reed Westward, aka TMM (TheMessianicManic), David? I think he's worth responding to directly.
The problem is the concept of their evil is so human centric rights and not actual order. Atheist will always think freedom and freewill accomplish without commands. But we are very dependent in nature but nature is living and not an idea nor belief it has limit and start. Evil is not a other force to counter good, but evil is failure. If they waiting proof of God and putting nonsense question where not actual deal to God but to human being. They want visible application while ignoring the fact that there is invisible factors. They also putting God should be nice to be good but God is person also have emotion and will. God will not bow down to be acknowledge of someone. All things we get is our own problem. God have reasonable beyond your feelings and anything. God show us how to live but Humanity's ancestor choose to live the way God thought to them so they suffer. There must someone to be consume in food chain but evil is destroying the food chain. If you think pacifist at all cost is the best way. You should consider why people want to die despite of happiness they experience on earth and everything. Don't think because you sympathies to something you are good. Where just making faction under system that God has created. Ok maybe it's become Atheist and God will not touch your life ever again if you continue. It's your choice to be skeptic and choose your belief but existence of one another doesn't need to be acknowledge by everyone to determine their relation to another since they never interact the way does people does. Probably if you say characteristic of God to Atheist, they will always ask and think human expression of media depiction of god in fiction without not really getting into it because they really wanna think there is no God because they are scared and upset to know the fact that may a higher being punish or counter their actions from simple things or all cost. A perfect order universe is nothing means nothing is living. Well if they gonna put their degree and put complex deep termination is nonsense since their proofs and evidence has no direction they making argument to misplace the point of evidence so they can buy time more. There is history and artifacts and nations that has account even ancient but they will throw it to trash since what they call science is there shield, that they just read to someone author while saying we must not acknowledge human authors about God what an irony, they make exception to us because the authors is human while they accepting human readable information from books and across the web. Science is just method we use to understand a thing and not actually to prove right or wrong. What a false idea of their beliefs is everything must accomplish to an order where no life must not come to end and cruelty while forgetting the fact that consuming anything is cruelty. God create a universe with limitation so emotion and experience exist. But most atheist think they are superior because most proclaimed atheist in internet is intelligent while I see across the world a lot of dumb not proclaimed atheist without all this iQ and degree to influence their beliefs and biased. It's just deep words, idea and grammar and better skill in conversation is what they are fruitful and why they are proud but very low in executing long term decision since they just twisting a certain idea to bend in their own benefits. Still theist is not superior since the duty they prevail have a lot problems need to fix and missing.
D. Wood kept staying almost completely silent after he gave his main channel away, so I thought he is done with making videos but recently new videos just keep coming and coming filled with apologetics.
@@bengreen171 But they weren't this is why he started this new channel and a couple of other channels fresh where he does not have problems with receiving strikes every second day. You see he had hundreds if not thousands of videos in his old channel and people were constantly complaining about some of those videos and that led to a constant flow of strikes so if this channel grows big enough to have all sorts of videos as well, especially about Islam being evil then this channel as well will begin to receive strikes on a regular basis.
@@ssv7195 Apologetics Roadshow, the channel you've just watched this video on, Philosophy Underground and Acts 17 Polemics. These are all David's new channels he himself has started to post videos on, after he quit the Acts17Apologetics channel.
@@bengreen171 He hasn't talked about Islam much and has it sequestered mostly in the one channel. It was his criticism of Islam that caused the problems with youtube censorship, and it has "gone away" because he's doing more mainstream apologetics on a new, dedicated channel.
There are problems with multiverse theory. 1) It is possible that every generated universe is the same. 2) If every universe is different, then a perfect universe must exist. 3) If a perfect universe exists, then a perfect being must exist. All of these premises are logically sound and valid. Perfection is the property that "improvement is impossible" - it must remain eternally the same in order to maintain eternal perfection. A good person, place, or thing can be improved. Given this, is it possible for there to be more than one perfect person, place, or thing? Our universe is not perfect, which means it may only be fine tuned for life as we know it. Evil and suffering exist in our universe, which speaks of its imperfection. If there is an infinitely diverse multiverse, the perfect one is elsewhere. The point of allowing evil and suffering in our universe is not a simple matter. It must be examined from a big picture perspective rather than one which uses a microscope.
I enjoyed that. Thank you for your humorous apologetics. May God bless everyone with a growing knowledge of his grace and mercy. The heart is the issue, belief is the avenue to reconciliation.
Hi Brother David! Nice to se you back in great form! Love your Videos! I was a subscriber of Acts17, loved it! Will subscribe to your new channel! Keep the great content coming!
I've been looking for this. Not because I'm an athiest. But because I can't find the answers as to why innocents and animals with no free will are made to suffer so terribly. I'd like to see more of this topic.
God hates tbe slaughter of the innocent. He hates it very, very much. However, He will not stop a man who intends to sin from doing so. God gives us all a rope long enough to hang ourselves with, and He gives us a Rock to stand on. People who lie and steal and murer, people who promote abortion and communism, people who deny the existence of the God who has called to their hearts, they will be punished appropriately to their actions and their intentions. He is not inactive though. He directs people, animals, and events in such a way that even heinous crimes end up hwlping people and glorifying Him. Remember God is utside of time, so a crime a century ago could lead to a type of psychological screening today that prevents thousands of instances of the same crime.
Because of man’s sin … that’s why the world is suffering… the whole creation is suffering the effects of our wickedness but there’s good news : God promised a savior and sent His only son to sacrifice Himself for our sins and overcome the Death that we owe for our sins! God loved creation and proved it and is proving it every day ☦️🕊
How the hack does this video help you with your question? The sin in Woods Multiverse is still intentional condoned. And he is proposing an even more powerful god, now not only able to create a whole universe, but (close to) infinitly many and all but one of them even more delicate. This is vastly different from the multiverses proposed by some atheists, since each of these 'secular' universes is not fine tuned, but this even more powerful god would need to be ridiculously complex in order to be able to understand what he is doing.
Often theists respond by pointing to free will, saying that god values it so much he allows the exercise of freewill even if it causes suffering. There are lots of theological problems with this argument though, like the fact that god already places lots of restrictions on freewill. You can't think someone out of existence. You can't exercise your freewill to fly or breathe underwater. It wouldn't be hard for God to place further restrictions on freewill by making it impossible to use it to bring about unnecessary suffering. Also, god, knowing the end from the beginning could have simply created only the sorts of people who he knew wouldn't exercise their freewill to cause unnecessary suffering. There's also the argument that freewill, under god, doesn't exist at all... if we are powerless to do anything god doesn't know we'll do then every "choice" we make is inevitable, thus freewill is just an illusion. But instead of refuting it, let me grant the freewill rebuttal for a second. That still doesn't resolve the issue of suffering resulting from natural causes/ acts of god. When a child gets brain cancer, or a village gets leveled by a tsunami and thousands painfully drown to death, that wasn't the result of people's freewill. God either caused that directly or stood by and let it happen. In either case it means he can't be simultaneously all loving and all powerful since an all loving God would never allow unnecessary suffering and an all powerful god wouldn't need to rely on suffering to bring about his will. Hope that helps. Keep questioning. And remember to apportion your belief in any claim based on the actual evidence for the claim. It's what you do for everything else, don't make your favorite religion the one exception.
I wonder if the creator truly had good intentions . If it did have good intentions what went wrong ? If it didn't have good intentions, why ? Maybe the creator isn't as perfect as some encourage others to think. Maybe it's perfection is beyond the understanding of humans . Maybe its good nature is beyond the understanding of human capacities to distinguish between good and evil,right and wrong. What if the full explanation where given to you but you couldn't comprehend it because its beyond your understanding . It would be like interpreting a foreign language or making sense of highly complex mathematical computations all the while only having a small grasp of very basic math. I hope the creator is truly good and trustworthy. If its not I wouldn't want to be on it's side. I watch ground as of now. I'm of the belief there is a creator, but am not sure if it's worthy of worship/devotion. I can't encourage people to worship/devote themselves to something which I'm not sure is good or bad. Even if I reach a decision, that doesn't mean I've made the right one. I'm interested in doing what is good. What is good based on the wisdom in the world is a difficult matter to grasp. Many times people have taken part in what they belived are good things until they realized the so called good things they took part in and encouraged others to take part in where actually bad. Instead of contributing to the solutions, they contributed to the problems. Misplacing good for evil and evil for good.
@@michaelelijah-cd7wn You're describing luciferianism or gnosticism, a religion that posits Yahweh is a lesser god who enslaved humanity and that satan is the good guy who gave them the enlightenment to get free. Buying into this story is doing exactly what Adam and Eve did. Given that Hollywood sells this story dressed up in superhero narratives amongst many others, it would be a god idea to reject it entirely and put your hope in Jesus.
With his PhD, he is more than qualified, but he’s trying to reach more people on TH-cam because in universities, they teach you that you were made from a rock and then evolved to chimpanzee, Most likely that’s something you believe in. you tell me when was the last time you saw chimpanzee make a comment on TH-cam like you!! 🤣🤣🤣
Except he's wrong. Hes addressing a debate where both sides have bad premises, so subsequently whatever analogy or line of reason he uses following that is going to be garbage. One problem with the teleological argument is that it assumes that intelligent life can only exist within these parameters. Its like saying that only a bowl can contain water because it's the only thing designed specifically to perform that function. So rhetorically why not a divet in a rock? Its not ideal but still performs the same function. Secondly is the many worlds interpretation being used to defend against great statistical odds. Statistical odds don't really work that way and we have no way of verifying if it exists.
I've been working in Adobe Premiere Pro for a few months, and I can recognize smoothed-out transitions all the time now when I see them in a video (like when that fish picture smoothly slid in). I appreciate the work needed for that. :)
These atheists are simply benighted. Christians are bright and blessed. William Blake said, 'Ever night and every morn Some to endless night are born, Every day and every night Some are born to sweet delight.. Some are born to sweet delight Some are born to endless night.'
my physics teacher used a similar example for explaining one topic in quantum physics. She said basically if you play lotto and it has combinations up to 22000 if you buy 22000 tickets you will win at least 1 lol
@@geoffschnoogs6888 you can say what you wish, but it won't make your nonsense logically or rationally valid. You don't know my metaphysics or conception of God so anything you say is a fallacious argument from ignorance... Anyway good luck with your coderless code paradox and just remember idgaf about the opinion of atheists. Such walking contradictions bore me.
@@adr3ns Wow! You write like a super edgey teenager! I guess you must be smarter than us dumb athiests, who don't believe in talking bushes and snakes.
A multiverse where an infinite number of possibilities exist? There only needs to be one where a classically-described God exists for him to exist in all of them. And if there's a possibility (and there is never a possibility of zero) that one universe coincidentally collapses every other universe to one via intellectual intention or by natural phenomena, then it has already happened. Multiverse is just a paradox machine that allows people to generate random, contextless arguments.
@@LaomerKedor I don't claim that. Proponents of the multiverse claim that as part of the assumption and definition of a multiverse. Infinity and the negation of zero possibility go hand in hand according to multiverse theory.
@@Eraktab I think you misunderstood these proponents and/or pose their claims in a manner that they didn't state them. Physicists usually don't talk about supernatural things when they make notions about their models.
"If they're consistent" Yeah that's the problem. Even the complaint of suffering they reject heaven and eternity in comparison to temporary suffering that makes present suffering insignificant.
Suffering is part of life but evil is either a decision or outcome which is done by man (or men). In nature the idea of evil does not really exist and it is what makes us different from animals because we can reflect on our actions and decides upon good or evil. I am not good, I am evil, I was born evil and everyone is born evil too but I have with great effort and grace with God been able not to be act upon my darkness.
@@Greyz174 Hell is a choice; You want a world without God you are given it. You, right now, can ask to know more about Christ and we could teach you and you could accept him. Will you?
@@kriegjaeger ive asked. Why would anyone with a sound mind who knows what he is getting into choose Hell? The "you do this to yourself" view is obviously a post hoc rarionalization so it doesnt sound as crazy to know that people are getting forced into it Can you deacribe a situation in real life where a single person was of sound mind, looked at something that would cause a speck of the suffering Hell does, was under no misunderstandings that he would end up there, knew how to enact a plan to avoid it, and said "actually you know what I am just going to reject goodness and jump into this state of suffering that sounds like a great idea, i just really dont like good things"
When you have infinity on your side, so much is possible! 😂😂😂 One time Hawking rolled past me at Cambridge. His nurse or wife or whatever was with him. Well now I feel old. Thanks, Wood.
Mad respect for that Saitama merch in the background. Always happy when I find a fellow brother in Christ with a superb sense of humor and cultural appreciation. 😂
Well, he plays chess against himself. Easy for him to steer the topic in the direction he wants it to go (while keeping important things falling under the table/not having the inconvenience of being presented with questions about "how do you know what you say is true")
@@melgonz2087 You were either high or are still high. So whatever you are atheist or believer don't really mean much to me. Anyone who takes drugs is beneath me. Do something with your life instead of writing comments on the internet.
@@LaomerKedor Actually: He does present the typical logic from low-tier atheists and replies back with humor and his opinions about it. You want to prove your own bs mate? challenge him and have a debate with him. I don't think you will win though.
@@VindensSaga "You want to prove your own bs mate? challenge him and have a debate with him." That wouldn't be the only logical possible consequence. There are enough high-tier atheists within the English speaking world, that I as someone who doesn't speak English in real life wouldn't bother to think about dealing with the inconvenience to have to speak English fluently on the spot while engaging in an argument. I have apologists within my own realm of language and already debated booth, Christians and Moslems (as a hobby, not as a full time job that i have besides this).
I don't understand how this answers the question of why god allows evil. Even if there's an infinite amount of universes that have no evil in them, why does he allow it in this one?
Simple answer, free will, and after the Garden of Eden with Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit, they got a corrupted mind and body, and which could do good or evil, God wants us to be redeemed by our choice, not forcing us to be saved but offering us the way to be saved
We are back to square one. The multiverse response to probelm of evil goes to shit if you have to go back to freewill or sin. For me it's fairly simple, I never asked or consented to be part of gods creation or its plans. If the god is a personal god who cares and also thinks freewill is important, it should care about my freewill to be part of its existence or not to begin with, which it didn't.
@@averdadeeumaso4003 How is our free will responsible for bone cancer or earthquakes? If your omnipotent god would exist, why would he torture humans with things like this?
@@klausroxin4437 God is cruel merely by creating this world. Consider that one billion people suffer from dehydration, and millions die as a result. It's ironic, given that 80% of the world is composed of water, yet it's too salty. Drinking seawater can even be fatal . That nothing but cruel , it's like saying : 'Hey, your whole body is paralyzed? Don't worry, I'll cure you if you run a marathon. Good luck ! 👍'
@@klausroxin4437 It is, because free will was used for sin instead of doing good, and thus punishment is warranted automatically. There is no "tôrture", you probably think also that prisons, judges and courts shouldn't exist going by that logic
I'm a Christian and inlove your channel but i don't consider this as a good argument. The reason is that atheist could easily reply that creating just a "bad" universe deems to contradict the idea of an all-loving and caring heavenly Father Whom we Christians serve.
No but you see there is an infinite number of universes! If God is limited to making only universes that are "good" Then there isn't truly an infinite number of universes, therefore destroying the multiverse theory. Lol. It's all just a way to dodge the reality we live in.
Also, I don't think this was a serious response from DW. It's a sarcastic mockery of this utterly non-scientific "scientific" proposal made by those who see themselves as true champions of logic and reason as opposed to the dumb, God-of-the-gaps-proposing theists
@Apologetics Roadshow [Jonathan] Ross said he defeated your argument a few comments down. He obviously didn't and is quite shortsighted but maybe do a video similar to the ones you did on Muslims when they made such dumb comments? Edit in brackets
Thanks for these and what you do, David! Also: the Channels tab for Apologetics Roadshow doesn't have Acts 17 Polemics listed. Perhaps these channels should reference each other there?
After studying apologetics relentlessly and debating atheists both online and face to face for more than 10 years I've come to the conclusion that you can never ever ever get through to 99% of these people. Even when you've shot down literally hundreds of their accusations against God over & over again they just keep repeating their same old garbage.
It still blows my mind that humans can self deceive with no limit I mean you actually think you have one any of the arguments with atheist you've had over the past 10 when you in reality have gotten your azz kicked for over 10yr and don't even realize this
They don’t want God to be real so they can be their own God of their own lives and not accountable for their thoughts and actions. I don’t bother on line anymore they are only there for hate and just trying to get a reaction from you
@@rickytavilla4259 no see you might be a wild hooligan that needs a master to control you and keep you from being a hoe and killing other people but some of us can not only self regulate but do one even better and that is some of us dont crave to do bad things and we are naturally good and live a good life doing goid to others as we would have them do unto us and are responsible for are own actions and have a moral compass that tells us that the god of the bible is a terrible being just like this followers.
@@rickytavilla4259 Isn't it you who want God to be real so that you can live forever and have all your wrongdoings forgiven so you won't be accountable for your thoughts and actions?
@@reformCopyright I’m not just a believer I’m a knower. I have been outside my physical body and know He is much more real then the tablet I’m writing on.
Best of a very bad bunch. Still utterly flawed, with no value at all. There's not a jot of evidence for it; it's just an argument. Not a single established scientific theory in the field of cosmology or astrophysics includes: "a god did it", even less so your, specific god.
Especially since the multiverse is based entirely on faith, a rhetorical device to explain the evidence away. At least theism is a conclusion drawn from the evidence.
@@donatist59 except it isn't because atheism isn't contingent on the multiverse being true. All I've ever seen or heard is very weak evidence for theism and whatever evidence the theist claims can be used as evidence for any god that has been can be concieved.
Dr. Wood is back with several Fine Tuned TH-cam channels now. Muslims can't stop him now with false strikes because he has a Multiverse of YT channels now.
@@jameslay1489 The point us that our case just that bit stronger. U have in the past given some time and attention to these ideas and theories and they leave you dry every time. In fact, they leave you very dry and extremely empty and even confused. Unless you haven't really taken the time to look into them. Or if you're opinionated and an ideologue type and only see what your eyes are itching to see. But if you go in with an open mind you will see things you are not going to like. But the truth is the truth
@@jameslay1489 weak claim to theism is just broad way to say it's not important because it's lack of something they can bring, but incase of the arguments that involves the claims that theism are weak is just true because of many problem arise since the world's humanity always tend block to history of one another. declaring evidence or you declaring it's weak because you debunk it while a big course of history have a large account to proof to be dig in. it cancelation of work and studies so you can push your agenda. Not all god can be conceived if you think its mythical that is false and god's that human made can be describe is op in story but Supremes in reality is not describable as op they are just really capable on it. How does a civilization built without any influence on it's origins. Monkeys can't put new actions without influence of other factors. And building empire cannot be made by just a being start from nothing without minimal force or extreme force. The idea of knowledge and construction can be only be only adapt or teach and not created by dumb just because of fire. The concept must be explained by a being with understanding and not just a mass that suddenly appear. No God means no start and no start means no creation. Well theism is just a whole category of there is God while Theologist there is God. Not a all accounts comes from a civilization is true because there is false prophets . I will not defend all sorts of god you talking about but my point is there is God because there is objects and objects is not powerful to enough to withstand and describe what is God since they are not . All those point that you think is not must come to an account because it is nonsense since you don't have power on it to bring order like other universe. If the case is more specific then the claims is not weak. If the question is more wider or broad then it's weak because it has so far accuracy. If you are Atheist start to comprehend thing one by one first before making it as whole theory or concept. Because most of you atheist and also theist is just twisting thing or argument that already exist. There is no new idea you bring. We just have globalization and innovation cause of wide trade and good condition that we looks more advance to make things easy to achieve but before truths is we are trap in non- stop academic vices. Sometimes facts is just observable and countable but not defines everything so introducing claims is just method to prove something but never gained anything because it is just information that may collect then appear close to describe and understand a thing but never the perfect answer to prove anything.
I grew up in the Foster system, It wasn't God beating me, it was check-cashers trying to avoid their own issues. It had nothing to do with me. The next crop of Foster kids went through the same, but with the knowledge an individual could outlast the beatings. That was a weird conversation at my sister's wedding.
It's one of the ABG (anything but God) theories which I call the Star Trek theory. Star Trek had a number of episodes where they travelled to multiple dimensions or multi verses, hence my name for it.
After eating of the Tree of knowledge og Good and Evil we had to come to a place where there was both good and evil (in Paradise there was only good), on order that we could experience the conequences of both good and evil and work on our ability in differentating between them.
@@klausroxin4437 These things cannot be talked about concretely. If you don't get any logic out of the idea of a snake in Paradise, then instead imagine that Paradise had an exit, door or gate leading out of it, because Paradise was also not a prison that you had to remain in against your will always, therefore there had to be an exit out there because otherwise there would be no Paradise but a prison.
Of course evil can exist! if you give a mechanic instructions to fix a part on your car and your mechanic says sure I’ll fix it in two days time. Goes into the shop finds a minor issue that resulted in the parts failure fixes that. Then takes your part which is fine, steals it to sell it and replaces the part with a faulty one. Tells you your vehicle works fine now! He not only disobeyed your instructions but lied and stole to do it with his own free will. This is an example of the rebellion that was displayed to our good and holy God. It’s like that law that says anytime something bad can happen it will happen.
I disagree. To enact or do evil basically means to do something that is contrary to what God is or what He commands, while good would be the opposite. Humans were created with their own free will, meaning that we can freely choose to do acts contrary to what God is or what He commands of us. Evil isn’t a force or energy in the universe that God created just to oppose Him, it’s an act shown through the rebellion of humans against their creator. And you’re right, God doesn’t change, but humans do, and we’re constantly in a struggle between good and evil.
@@truthboom we are natural beings, not on the same supernatural plane as God Himself. We are free to do whatever is possible for us on a natural playing field.
God, in His infinite goodness, offered humanity to go away from Him (do evil) or to go toward Him (do good). He also only makes us live in the sin for a short period of time, until He sends us to go into the beds we have made. If we choose to go to Him, we live with Him and in perfect goodness forever, and if not, then we live in evil and perfect punishment
My issue here is that if - hypothetically - the right kind of multiverse were proven to exist, then that would clearly rescue naturalism from having negligible probability according to the Fine Tuning argument, but it's difficult for me to see how it would be effective against the argument from suffering.
Because their claimed issue with suffering is the fact this is supposed to be the one perfect creation of an all knowing all powerful God why would He choose to create it with suffering? That falls apart when you appeal to the fact this is just one of infinite universes He created. There are countless utopian universes free of suffering, ours just happens to be one where conditions combined to result in the existence of suffering. In an infinite multiverse it’s simply a statistical certainty.
@@LiveFreeOrDie2A thanks for your thoughts. It’s worth saying that not everything has to be statistically certain in an infinite multiverse. (E.g. there are infinitely many real numbers between 0 and 1, but we couldn’t then conclude that 2 is one of them.) We also wouldn’t expect any universes full of nothing but unjust torture and meaningless agony, even in an infinite multiverse if God is good. The other issue is that if a hypothesis predicts the vast majority of people live in utopias, our existence in this world is evidence against that hypothesis. I think there are good responses to the problem of evil, but I don’t think this one works. But I’m not sure it was intended to be either. I think it was trying to get atheistic multiverse proponents to see that speculating about multiverses can be a cop out. But I think you can accept the multiverse response to Fine Tuning and still reject it as a response to suffering, without being inconsistent. There’s a fairly good video if slightly unusual response to this by Apologetics Squared. I can dig out the link if you want.
@@LiveFreeOrDie2A or he just had a different concept of what is "perfect" to him. Just from a human perspective: When you write a book, direct a movie or program a computer game, would you not "need" some suffering in an otherwise perfect world to make it worth while consuming? Or if he would be dynamic, then suffering would just make his creation better by itself because it can then adapt.
@@MatthewFearnley I had the same thought (being a theist myself). This response to the problem of suffering is to point out how appealing to an infinite number of undetectable universes is a cop out. However, it really only works if you assume the premise that some universes allow pain suffering for an overall valuable purpose (such as virtue building, free will, etc.), else God would not have included these universes within the infinite array of universes. For instance, a good God wouldn't create a universe with *only* suffering and evil caused towards innocent people. Of course a theist could just claim that this God is one that does not care about suffering or evil.. but that would be hard for Christian theists (or others) to accept who claim that God is perfectly moral and just. That being said, the response still works in some regard. It works because most atheists argue not from the standpoint that it's logically impossible for God to allow our suffering, but rather improbable considering alternative ways he could have created it (to be more good, more valuable, etc.). Then it follows that one could use this response by saying "though our universe with suffering isn't (supposedly) the most valuable compared to alternatives (such as a hedonistic paradise), those universes actually do exist, we just so happen to be on this universe that is less valuable (but still valuable and good in other ways)." Additionally you could say that for God to be maximally good, he had to create an infinite number of universes, each with a combination of features that bring about different perspectives on "goodness." For instance, a universe with max pleasure is good, but it's not the same kind of good as a universe that has higher order virtues such as ours. For God to be good, he had to make all these "good" universes. The point is, it gets weird and cop out-ish when you start just appealing to infinite possibilities.
That analogy only works if you think the parameters of the universe could've been different. You can calculate the odds of rolling a "6" on a 6-sided dice because there are 6 possible outcomes and only 1 "6". How do you calculate the possible outcomes of the universe? Are there infinite? Maybe. Is there just one? Maybe.
@haydenblack5648 Nobody actually knows that. That's the part he doesn't want you to know in the video, so don't be surprised if this argument doesn't "silence an atheist." Also, the multiverse could explain the fine tuning argument even if there was an infinite of possibilities. His use of it to contradict atheists on the issue of the problem of evil is just wrong. The problem of evil is not simply, could God allow evil? Of course he could. The problem is, could he be all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful, and allow the existence of evil?
Scientists used to think rotting meat would create maggots, only later discovering they had to be put there by flies, but still say crystals or ooze create life.
@@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana then the multiverse is an illogical theory, is it not? it's cannot be observed. What this gentleman means is that sometimes the science guys get it wrong, so why not now, since the multiverse theory cannot be observed.
IF God's message is so perfect and good why did they invent a whole Philosophy about Apologising all the damn time about it . ( It's a Joke , I always feel like I have to explain that )
Rationally and logically, I know multiverse reasoning gets shaved off by Occam's Razor, but it's still something that it's fun to speculate about, and in speculating, this is the most emotionally-satisfying way of dealing with this problem that I've ever seen. While experiencing suffering is horrible, it's still only a sample of one in a universe of billions (at least,) so this really isn't a problem of personal suffering. It's also possible to conceive of a species of intelligent creature that grows more virtuous through exposure to the virtue of others, rather than through suffering. At the very least, it's easy to imagine a universe in which all of the most pleasant experiences were gotten through exercising virtue, which is also clearly not the case. The problem, then, is to do with how temporal reality reflects on its creator; is our reality inhabited mostly by those who suffer, or mostly by those who don't? What does the answer to that question say about the one responsible? The free will defense is mostly about explaining motives for God that would be realistic. In a logical sense, it's a perfectly adequate defense, but it ends with a value judgment. Is the significance of being able to choose to reject God, and not doing so, greater than the significance of all of that suffering; not just on Earth, but also in Hell? Remember, it's not free will as a whole that you'd have to sacrifice, in order to have a universe without evil; just the freedom to choose to do truly evil things. So, which has greater value; the merit of having had the chance to make a right choice wrong, and not done so, or real suffering being experienced by real people? We know what God's answer is, and it makes sense logically, but human beings also have feelings, and on an emotional level, the free will defense is unsatisfying to anyone who disagrees with God's value judgment on this. What makes this multiverse counter-argument so much more emotionally-satisfying than the free will defense or any other, is that it completely changes the balance of creation; from being mostly a sinkhole of suffering and despair, to being mostly a good and happy place, where people don't suffer or face persecution, sickness or futility, and there's a nobility of sorts to the thought that the suffering that we experience is only one part of a much larger whole, and that by being part of that rare universe that experiences suffering, we've involuntarily taken that burden off the inhabitants of some other universe; or a hundred, or a million universes, that won't have to face what we went through. Of course, one could use the angels in Heaven for the same purpose, provided there's enough of them to completely overwhelm the number of demons + the number of people in human history, and re-balance the scale that way. Either way, the important part of the problem is resolved, and God ceases to be someone who believes the ends justify the means, in the mind of the person who needs that kind of comforting thought.
An example of fine-tuning and design that I find fascinating is that of light. The velocity of light is precisely as required, as is the mass, size, and position of the sun in relation to the solar system and the earth. Light is pure energy that is fundamental to our existence in so many ways. But beyond that, light also reveals a stunning spectrum of colors! With light we see the beauty of the cosmos beyond our galaxy, as well as the beauty of a feather, or the iridescence of a bubble, or the colors reflected in a snowflake. How could chance or necessity account for the biological ability of the countless irreducibly complex mechanisms in the 'factories' contained in the cells of our eyes, nervous system and brains to perceive the reflection of this energy, and why, on pure naturalism would we have any emotional response to it, along with the desire to create beauty? This is far beyond being necessary for mere survival. And how could chance or necessity explain the intricacies of the engineering of our ears to convert acoustic waves into sound that we can hear, and why would we have an emotional response to it as well, and a desire to create beautiful music? This cannot be explained by chance or necessity, but only by the design of a loving creator, our God. The argument from objective beauty states that if God does not exist, objective beauty does not exist. Objective beauty exists; therefore, God exists. The Argument from Beauty is a beautiful argument!
@@velkyn1Naturally we all have differing opinions on what we find beautiful. The existence of objective beauty is not contingent upon the subjective tastes and preferences of everyone being the same.
@@amosamwig8394 we have 6 billion people living right now who could be saved. Why don’t he hurry up and do it right now? Waiting for another 6 billion people to grow after Mars colonization I guess. Maybe god does have a better plan for my tiny human brain. Maybe he’s waiting for colonization of the entire universe before he shows us the science
@@amosamwig8394 I was responding to Sydney, who insisted it would not happen, but who then got scared and deleted his comment...hopefully so he could commit his life to follow Jesus.
One of the problems that David's response to the atheist raises is that no matter how you construe it, even if our world is the only one of an "infinite" array of worlds that has evil in it, it would still make God the ultimate author of evil because he has produced this world knowing it would be evil.
So do you have children? If you do, you know that they have free will and might choose to do evil, to come to a bad end. So, do you take the risk? Is the love of family worth so much? According to God, yes. And of course He has paid a huge price so that we have a way out.
@@JJFrance I don't think you have children! Good parents would try and stop their children from doing evil, if they could. There's a limit to how much a parent can prevent evil because we are not infallible or available 24-7. In lieu of a perfect parental world, we try and give children as much of a moral compass as we can. But here's the problem trying to analogise God through human parenthood. On your theological standpoint, would God have known that Adam and Eve would disobey Him? This response of yours has been doing the rounds forever. All it is, is an unreflective, kneejerk reaction to a serious theological problem.
Wrong. Evil is performed not authored. What He authored is free will, so that we can become individuals, and commands that we need to obey so that we do not live in misery. To debunk your claim even further you may continue reading. If God is omnipotent, then He would have the power of infinite time compression and decompression which means that if He creates everything in an infinitely time decompressed setting, everything that will ever happen will happen in an instant and there will be no past or future for us to say He never knew before it happened. Therefore, He becomes omniscient and knows everything. Then He can compress time to the rate that it is going right now for us to experience life as it is. This is how He knows our future, yet we make the decisions. You read it here first.
@@warmachine40k " yet we make the decisions." An omnipotent creator would have already premade all the decisions that would have ever be made at the inception of creation.
@@help4343 Incorrect. Omnipotence is the power to do anything that the concept of power allows and NOT doing everything that can ever be done such as our decisions. Being omnipotent doesn't mean doing everything that can be done.
God addressed this in the Old Testament, repeated in the New Testament. 'For it is,written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.' 1 Corinthians 1 v 19; v 20 '... hasn't God made foolish the wisdom of this world?' Why should this be surprising in the light of God's plan and invitation that we should join Him in 'the world to come' mentioned by Jesus several times? As He said in John 18 v 36, 'My kingdom is not of this world...'
@ben green You have put the cart before the horse. Logic is a language man has created to describw and understand and communicate about the way the universe behaves. Even this mistake aside, can you demonstrate the universe behaving illogically? I hope you don't mean miracles, which are divine interventions with specific purposes. Those are not the universe behaving, but the Creator doing what He wants to do, like an adult staying up past his childrens' bedtimes.
No facts, I’ve never head the multiverse used as a response to fine tuning, he set himself up a straw man to fight rather than respond to someone. I’m not well informed on multiverse theory, or fine tuning, but when I asked a physics teacher about what if the force of gravity were different etc. His response was “it would be different, but that’s assuming those things even could be different, we don’t know”
When I was in the thick of my transition from hostility towards Christianity to embracing it, I read a book by theoretical physicist Lee Smolin called “The Trouble with Physics.” It was quasi-academic in that it didn’t presume the ineptitude of its audience and went to lengths to translate the real substance (or lack there-of) of things like M-theory and quantum loop gravity to the willing reader. In doing so, the author adroitly undercut the many years of pseudoscientific propaganda I had absorbed through “pop-science”. Man, I wish I could get more atheists to read that.
Metallic mercury is practically insoluble in water. Fish living in contaminated reservoirs that flooded forested land became contaminated by mercury slowly released from decaying wood. So they do live in contaminated waters, enough to concentrate it in their tissues.
To me the "so much evil" argument in itself isn't even sensible. If the existence of evil means God, or a loving God, cannot exist, the question should be whether God allows any evil to exist at all. A thorn of a hidden rose bush pricking your finger, a cold wind blowing in your face through scarf giving you chills, getting a pebble in your shoe. Anything negative happening out of your own control would mean there is no God.
I don't agree. If getting a cold chill or a pebble in your shoe were the worst things that ever happened, I'd believe in a benevolent God easily. But a world with unending wars where people and children are tortured and maimed every single day for millennia...yeah, you've got a problem there.
@@shankz8854 You don't have to agree. The point is there is no magical line to be drawn anywhere. What we subjectively consider worse or less bad or whatever, is not important as long as it remains negative or "evil". If you want to question or deny God's existence based on the evil that's happening in the world, you have to take into account all kinds of evil and not just the kind that personally makes it hard for you to believe.
@@northstar2621 "negative" and "evil" are not identical terms. I agree that an entirely good universe where nothing even remotely bad happens is evidence for a benevolent God, but I also think that a maximally good universe without evil is evidence for a benevolent God too. But we don't live in either of those universes.
@@shankz8854 I didn't say they were the same thing, though. But see, the lines we draw are all subjective... who gets to decide where it is drawn? Which kind of evil is acceptable and which isn't?
@@apologeticsroadshow I'll be honest, I don't see how this remotely answers the problem of evil. Their problem is that evil exists at all, not that God made *this* universe with evil in it.
@@Draezeth and their reason why any amount of evil should never exist in any universe? their feelings. Wouldn’t be much of a multiverse if there weren’t any variation.
So why did he create all those universes where evil exists? Sure, he CAN create those universes, but that’s not the issue the problem of evil deals with. The problem of evil is specifically a way of disproving a tri-omni God. One who is omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent. So God creating a multiverse that contains evil is certainly a problem, not because an omnipotent God can't do that, he can, but because an omniBENEVOLENT God can't do that. Since it would involve creating evil.
I do not understand this response to the problem of evil. The problem of evil is the claim that an all good all powerful god would not create a world with this much suffering. How does postulating a bunch of other universes solve that problem. Even if we stipulate all the other universes are perfect, the question remains why an all good all powerful god would include this universe in that multiverse. I am a theist, but I don’t see how this argument deals with that problem at all. Am I missing something?
Right. Either god doesn't exist, or lacks one (or more) of the attributes they're said to have (all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good). A nuance not often pointed out is that a god could lack _any_ of those attributes and still result in an evil universe (they might not know they caused/allowed evil or that evil exists; they might know it exists but be powerless to stop it; or they might not be purely good). To me it seems most likely gods are simply an invention of humans, given our lack of evidence, but the Problem of Evil definitely proves certain definitions of god don't share reality with us.
I’m not sure the multi-verse explanation works. I think the atheist counterpoint to that is how can a good God create even one universe that is “unjust”?
The very concept of justice would collapse that argument because they must inherently assume justice and fail to define it accurately in order to draw such a conclusion. Especially since they clearly ignore the coming judgement day among other things.
I love your ability to reason and use their arguments against them to make atheism sound foolish is always music to my ears but the important thing I take away from this video is when shown the foolishness of their thought process one may inadvertently or in some cases purposely give them something to ponder sparking not only a dialogue which may lead them to Christ but to plant the seed of doubt in man's rationale forcing them to rethink their stance and leading them to Christ so either way intentional or not which in your case I'm sure is intentional the seed has been sown praise Jesus and God bless
The reason I like debates - because you have an opportunity to hear an answer from the other side. In comparison of propaganda when people use only what fits their position, and where people are boiling in their own juice not even imagining why other people believe differently
@Josias Everett these are all subjective terms none of which you have defined in this thread. I asked you to define the word good. Then you decided to change the word to "maximally good God". Start with the basics. What is "good"?
Something has existed from eternity past. Something is infinitely old. How about the universe? Life may have existed long before any big expansion or big bang. You don't need multiverses or infinite gods for that to be the case.
Yep, they whole conundrum is just a strowman argument. I think David is out of his depth and his smugness and dismissiveness shows that he hasn’t even embraced Jesus in his heart.
Thanks David for posting, I've commented on this so many times but there are very few interested in cosmology. It has been proven that this universe is definitively impossible without a creator. Instantly they adopted their multiverse.
Sounds like you’re one of those not interested in cosmology. Your claim that it’s been proven that the universe if definitely impossible without a creator is complete bullshit. Where do you come up with this stuff?
Even If god created multiple universes that doesn't change that this universe has evil, either god is all powerful or all good, pick one as you definitely cant have both.
@@isaacramos8052 No, they don't. Atheist not believing in multiverse here. 🙋♂ Indeed my the reason to refuse the multiverse hypothesis is the same as for the god hypothesis: it can't be proven.
As a Christian, when I find a Christian who believes in the multi-verse, i ask: So are there other universes where Jesus didn't save humanity? And then silence.
This is actually not a very good explanation as it has some logical failings. It sounds good until you understand what it means to be perfectly good. Once you understand what it means to be perfectly good you will understand how this is not a good apologetic.
I have a question, wouldn't this theory leave room for people to think that God might care about some universes more than ours since He allows evil in this one?
Yes, this argument is very flawed and implies that God is not good or kind but cold and distant. It disproves the very thing he's trying to defend and will be picked apart by any competent atheist.
The argument isn't a serious one, it is more so to display how an infinite array of unobservable things being used to explain-away a problem is harmful to proper debate. On top of that this argument to my knowledge is relatively new (on top of being a satirical argument against the multiverse objection to fine-tuning) so questions such as yours likely haven't had much time put into resolving.
Then you'd be blowing up your time and energies over some other universe out there rather than coping with your lot in this one. That would be a most unintelligent use of one's good time in the overall sense of things.
@@ashesagainst7236the idea of there being an infinite amount of UNIQUE universes means there has to be at least one with evil in it. That doesn’t mean God doesn’t care about it. Scripture says God sent Jesus to die because he cared. No where in scripture does it say God is “all good”. The material world is physical so it’s bound to have imperfections. Why can’t you just accept that there is a plan for evil? Just keep up that arrogance when your body rots in the ground but your soul lives on lost without direction. Because you think you know better than the creator. Spirituality has been an important aspect human culture since the beginning. The embrace of science and rejection of spirituality is the reason depression is more common than ever before. Even tho antidepressants are used more than ever. Humans are not just meat robots that need certain chemicals in sufficient amounts for happiness. If you’re so sure there is no God and that the world is ridden with evil why are you even sticking around? To patronize believers and reinforce your ego? Take a high dose of shrooms and see how self assured you are.
I really like G Moore's demonstration, in the Principia Ethica, Moore being a non religious analytical philosopher by the way, that if you add the value of individual items in a given scenario, the value in the scenario, as a whole, might be different from the total sum of the items. So, quite literally, the world might have more value because there is evil in it, not less. There is also the notion that people lost in their hedonic bubbles have lost track of, but is quite intuitive, and has been known since forever by everyone with a working brain: the glory of an achievement is proportional to the difficulty of that achievement, overcoming the greatest evil possible is the greatest act of heroism possible (by definition), and this brings us back to old Leibniz and his original Theodicy, and that this is the best of all possible worlds (an argument Voltaire parodied without understanding it to well, or without much care for intellectual honesty). Rant over, thank you for bearing with me.
@@Tzimiskes3506 I suppose so, Moore himself calls this "organic wholes", he acknowledges the theological implications his argument might have, but says that he will not get into them because it would derail the focus of his strictly secular piece of philosophy. I think it very likely that other authors might have taken it from there and elaborated on those implications, because the argument itself is so good for solving the problem of evil from yet another angle. I was unaware of the term "holistic" though, I will have to take a look, thank you for the tip.
David, the argument you propose does nothing at all to address the problem of evil/pain. You seem to think the objection relies on some quantity of evil. On their view an infinite and good God could and would stop any and all evil. Even one instance constitutes an objection.
@@bengreen171 Yeah especially when the video went right over your head and don't understand that atheists use the same against Fine-tuning. Try harder, irrelevant dawkins drone ben.
This response will only work on atheists that don't actually have a philosophical understanding. This response is actually easily defeatable with anybody who has a slight understanding of philosophy.
@@displacegamer1379 This response isn't a serious philosophical response. It's a joke to highlight how dumb some atheist arguments are. You are exactly the type of person Dave is talking about in his most recent video with IP 😂😂
@@chrispark2698 really what kind of atheist do you think I am? Because I can definitely make an argument against this video and how it doesn't actually show anything.
@@displacegamer1379 The argument in this video isn't supposed to be a real argument. It's supposed to highlight how dumb the multiverse "argument" is from atheists.
Except most atheists don't answer the fine-tuning 'argument' with a 'multiverse' response. In most cases atheists would argue that the universe isn't very suitable for life at all. Only an extremely small part of the universe is suitable for life as we know it. So if the universe is someone's attempt to make a place that is fine-tuned for life, he did a very poor job. Your man-made fishtank, contrary to what you claim, is infinitely more fine-tuned for life than the universe. Your friend's fish may have died, but in the meanwhile, the fishtank was still home to millions of water-insects and microbes. And he could have bought other fish that would have been very comfortable with the new temperature. By the way, damaging a thermometer doesn't change the temperature in a fishtank. A thermometer only displays the temperature, it doesn't regulate it. Therefore you would need a thermostat. But even so, why would the existence of life be regarded as remarkable or surprising in any way? The current constellation of the universe just allows for a specific type of creatures to exists who can now attribute meaning to it and deem this a special outcome. There may have been billions of possible outcomes that all include life. We don't know that and as long as no one can calculate the odds, there is no reason to presume that life as we know it is very remarkable. It's like the lottery winner who claims that the lottery was fine-tuned for him.
Yes, one could even say a very specific portion of the universe supports life, almost as if its an impossibility that intelligent life could spontaneously form anywhere except it was designed to. The numbers that factor into supporting life would be more equivalent to winning the lottery thousands of times over, but I assume you'd call that a coincidence too right?
@@dited358 So if life would be possible everywhere: god did it. If life is possible almost nowhere: god did it. Why even pretend to think if that is the answer to everything? And I haven't called anything a 'coincidence', so why would you suggest I did? And first show me where you got those numbers from, only then we can assess them and decide if they are remarkable in any way.
You talk about life as if it is st ordinary while in reality it is infinitely complex. Those who recognise this fact turn away from the theory of macro evolution.
Personally, I'm lukewarm on the whole multiverse idea. I think it's an interesting in a sci-fi sort of way, but I don't see how we could ever verify or falsify it. My problem with the fine tuning argument is that if the universe was so finely tuned for life, then I would expect to find life everywhere. Instead, over 99.9999999% of the universe is a vacuum that kills life. Of the parts that aren't vacuum, something like 99% is a star where life would be burned and crushed. Life pretty much has to stick to planets, but only to the minority of planets which are neither too hot, nor too cold. And even much of a planet is inhospitable too, because too deep below the surface and it would be crushed, smothered, or burned, while too far above the surface and it's back to the vacuum again. Only a relatively thin skin near the surface could work. The vast majority of the universe will kill you, and to me that doesn't seem all that well fine tuned for life. On the other hand, an omniscient god would know of a way to create a universe absolutely teeming with life in every nook and cranny, while an omnipotent god wouldn't need to fine tune anything, but could forcefully make life appear in the most inhospitable of universes. Compared to those options, our universe looks more like it's fine tuned for imprisoning and killing, if you would allow a bit of hyperbole. I don't understand how this multiverse response would solve the problem of evil. The question is why an all loving god would knowingly allow bad things to happen that they could prevent. How does claiming an infinite number of universes, and then confining those bad things to just one of them answer the question?
I find your response interesting. On one hand you demonstrate a misunderstanding of the fine tuning argument, yet what you should understand about it you are adequately able to apply to the problem of the multiverse response to evil. The fine tuning argument never claims the universe is fine tuned for life everywhere in the universe. They argue that the universe is fine tuned for life to exist anywhere at all. Regarding the multiverse answer to evil, I totally agree with you. I find this to be a poor response because it fails to answer the existence of evil anywhere, not everywhere. The assumption is that a good God wouldn’t allow evil to exist in any universe. It’s interesting how universality applies to both arguments in your response.
I find it interesting when human choices are what lead to suffering, yet instead of taking responsibility for their own wickedness, humans get mad at God. Evil is a choice. Everyone rebels against God. Everyone willfully sins apart from infants and very young children who cannot grasp the concept of good vs evil. Therefore we're the problem, not God.
God did not intend for life to exist everywhere. He created this world for us humans, eventually to have the choice to be His child or not. There are things humans make that anyone could claim are missing this or that, but the humans who invented the object explain why they made it the way they did, and that is subjective every time, as is your understand of why God only made this planet to have life on it.
I'm just saying that about 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of the universe is hospitable to life (a back of the envelope calculation with a couple of dubious assumptions, but it gives an idea of the kind scale we're talking about.). It would have taken an omnipotent being literally no extra effort to make the universe a trillion trillion trillion trillion times more hospitable. The vast majority of the universe would still kill you, but it would make the fine tuning claim far more believable. Instead, the omnipotent creator of the universe decided that basically the bare minimum was good enough. Color me unimpressed.
@@GreatCollapsingHrung It's fine tuned to keep Earth intact. We were never meant to exist outside of Earth, nor any other physical life. That's the point: The universe is fine tuned so WE exist at all, to fulfill His purpose down here on this planet. God didn't want life everywhere else. He had a purpose for it to only exist here. Don't worry, God's not up at night losing sleep because you're not impressed by His miraculous creations.😆You'll see Him on judgement day, He'll tell ya what He thinks then.🙂
I understand why some find the argument from suffering convincing but I just never have. As you mention commonly we will say something along the lines of "God gave us free will and the ability to choose to obey or disobey him." I don't find the response "is it really so important that God punish us" very compelling in fact I would push back on that. It's not that negative outcomes are a punishment rather they are a consequence of making a decision just like putting your hand in the fire will burn and damage it or eating a good meal will lead to a satisfied belly so will there be natural consequences of moral decisions. A natural law like gravity. It needs to be said that these consequences are not local to the decision maker nor do they only have immediate effects, but the consequences extend beyond just ourselves and extend into the future. Genesis also gives us a decent outline about how certain decisions destroyed the relationship between man and God, man and nature, man and animal, and finally man and man. Just to pre-empt the "but muh natural disasters" or "muh cancer" Next we have the objection "is free will really that important" Well if you want a creation that is able to truly love then yes it is absolutely necessary. It requires the ability to choose otherwise.
“Coincidence” Coincidentally, was that actually a “TRUE” and “RATIONAL” claim or was it just determined by the blind, mindless, ultimately meaningless, accidental arrangement of random atoms and brain chemicals creating the illusion of stable patterns and regularities, that is determined by a “COINCIDENCE”??? LOL!! I’ll wait!! By the way, you just totally and utterly refuted yourself!!
Atheists: "Just grant us one miracle, and then we can explain the rest, without God. If we can't have that miracle, at least let us use the 'infinity of the gaps' to explain what we can't prove."😄 🤣 😂
As a theist, I really don’t see how this solves any problems. The problem of evil typically isn’t formulated as though God should only be allowing a certain amount of evil, but that He wouldn’t allow any at all, because He is perfectly good. So even if a multiverse exists, if He created one universe that wasn’t good then that impacts God’s perfect morality. The same doesn’t hold true with the atheist’s construction of a multiverse to escape the concept of chance. I think the traditional responses to both those problems work fine but I don’t think this one bears out.
I actually agree with you, but I don't think that was the point of the video. I think it is just a matter of an appeal to the unfalsifiable can work more than one way if you are going to count it as evidence. Having said that - I think a stronger argument for the problem of evil is that God is defined as both what He is and what He is not, one of those things being evil, so a perfectly good God does not necessitate the non-existence of evil. The existence of light does not necessitate the non-existence of darkness. Darkness is where light is not present and ultimately evil is where God is not presently acting. That one works for me. Though I do believe on a fundamental level that 'everything belongs', I couldn't for the life of me tell anyone HOW that is true. However, I'm not the one proposing that I don't believe anything that is not "fact". I KNOW I'm operating with (well reasoned) faith and do not claim otherwise.
Catholic teaching on the topic of evil is compelling to me, at least. And our sense of what 'good' is, is completely warped. God permits evil especially of the spiritual or demonic kind in order for us to purify our souls. Much in the way that a good teacher will force you to learn outside of your comfort zone. The goal is always to come closer to God and live as he teaches us to. If you want a secular framing, it would be as Jordan Peterson puts it, bring order to your life at short/medium term personal cost and watch the chaos disappear over the medium/long term.
The PoE presumes that all suffering is bad and that God must never allow evil if Good. Did I get that right? If so, then that objection begs the question as to what is good with no actual basis for judgment. It fails on logical grounds as a baseless assertion. If strictly an internal critique, then the atheist must allow that virtues are desirable but may only be experienced in the presence of possible suffering and free will. They must also allow that justice is part of being loving as well as it loves victims of wrongdoing. The moment you claim God ought not permit any suffering, then you bear the burden of proof. Going further, there's the objection of excessive suffering, but that also begs the question and requires omniscience to know anything to be too much for God's desired goals and purposes. So that covers the theodicy responses and the remaining burdens for the atheists. Then there's David Wood's fine response appealing to the multiverse when atheists also appeal to it in response to fine-tuning.
Couple ideas ill throw out there as ive lived many years trying out many hobbies, living many places and working many jobs. 1. Skiils (especially soft ones) can/are very transferrable between hobbies/jobs/interests. If you worked in a deli, you'll be better prepared to take on cooking for example as a hobby or career to explore with more foundation than you might believe. 2. Use those little pockets of time you have on the toilet, on break at work or bored at home but dont have the energy or drive to partake fully in whatever your interest is in, to read or wafch videos about sakd interest. Ive been getting into piano recently and while I wont always have a keyobard in front of me, I can read about music theory, study note memorization or even look up or listen to music id like to play someday. All from my phone.
The universe is not fine-tuned to accommodate us. We are fine-tuned to live in the universe. By whom, you may ask? By natural processes, just like every scientific and cosmological mystery that we have ever solved. Every answer we have ever discovered has pushed "God" back a little further, as we find that things have natural causes, not supernatural ones.
The most frustrating thing is when people complain God doesn't deal with evil, then read the OT and when God does deal with evil there they have shocked Pikachu face and say a loving God would never do such a thing.
amen they try to have it both ways
The heart of man is deceitfully wicked.
God way of dealing with evil is kill, kill, kill, kill. Making Satan a godly saint in comparison. I mean... have you ever read the bible?
He's god, as such... He should be above using such lowly method a simple mortal man will use. But no, he cant' or couldn't.
@@BornAgain223 It's not like god can, he too has limitation. Nothing to do with "having both ways". God condones slavery, & had his followers massacre the native population to steal there land & colonize it in his name. While allowing his followers to enslave the survivors. How did that made god different from the other gods that ordained their followers to do the same?
lol yep
So glad the multiverse brought me here! Loving your channel, David. I'm learning a lot and enjoying every single one of your videos. Thanks!
Welcome aboard!
It’s really enjoyable comedy. I’ve never seen someone make such a complete fool of himself.
@@cmar6461 understanding is hard I know
@@wesleyjakesta4095 especially for this creator, yet he chooses to record and upload videos showcasing his lack of understanding lol
@@cmar6461 who hurt you?
The fact that the universe is so in order blows my mind... It just can't be by chance..
Even if it is by chance, the universe had a beginning, which means nothing existed prior to the universe. It happened ONE TIME and suddenly we’re here. It’s so obvious that God knew exactly what He was doing, yet atheists/agnostics still deny it because they suppress the truth in their iniquities.
If someone was walking in the woods and found a row of pebbles perfectly in a row, they would be impressed by how the pebbles managed to end up there by themselves over time.
If they continued walking and then found another row of rocks, only these are also in the line, of the same color and size, they would start to suspect something unnatural had occured.
If they walked further still and found a row of rare and precious gemstones aligned in a perfect row, they would absolutely expect an intellegence was involved.
Yet when it comes to life, the universe, consciousness they shrug and say "Must be a coincidence."
@@platinumt3425 what would you say to people telling this is a cycle...the universe will start, then end, and then start again and end, and so on? Hindus believe this.
@Ss V
Your suggestion completely ignores entropy. Every interaction of matter and energy generates an amount of waste, unrecoverable and unusable loss of energy.
It's basically the static universe hypothesis which defies any attempt to understand the universe through physics:
Consider also the light of stars, or even the invisible light of infrared radiation emitted by every object.
The particle-waves that do not encounter objects or gravity wells, but pass between them in the vastness of space, can never be caught or reused.
They are gone, effectively taking with them the matter and energy used to generate them.
As a result, the universe is constantly decreasing in total matter and energy, which means it will eventually run out.
If it can eventually run out, then the universe must have started at some point.
Le mot Dieu n’est pour moi rien d’autre que l’expression et le produit des faiblesses humaines, et la Bible un recueil de légendes vénérables mais malgré tout assez primitives. Aucune interprétation, aussi subtile soit-elle, n’y changera rien (pour moi). »
Albert Einstein.
As a Christian with (basic) science qualifications, the more I learn about science the more I see The Hand of God in our wonderful Creation. Thanks David and God Bless.
Thats called bias
@@dannielz6 Anything we disagree with can be called 'bias'.
@@bhgtreeOk then where is the "hand of god" in evolution, when according to Genesis, everything was created by god ex nihilo?
Cool story bro. Why do we get cataracts while octopi don't? Why aren't we immune to rabies? Why do we have a little worm-thing called an appendix that attaches to our intestines that kills us when it explodes?
Science is able to explain all these things. Religion cannot explain why a perfect being would create humans with such glaring flaws.
@@dannielz6where in Genesis do you see creation ex nihilo? There’s nothing there in the Hebrew to indicate the absence of materials.
God bless David Wood and his family.
Respect from Serbia 🇷🇸 ☦️.
Thankyou for all the great videos over the years about the true nature of Islam.
We've endured 500 year Slavery under the Ottoman Califate ,but have never and will never loose our faith
Poz za brata
🇷🇴 🙏🏻
God bless you for keeping the faith in such circumstances
Slično i sa Hrvatima, ali posljedice se ipak osjećaju
To associate ottoman caliphate with Islam is to associate crusaders with Christianity. Be critical when it comes to things linked to afterlife. The ottomans were no gentler with us muslim arabs of the Middle East, so stop the victimisation.
Question and I want honest reponse : as a Serb, how do you feel about the Bosnian genocide ? I personally know people who lost all their family because of it.
Its always amazing to me when anyone says, "God cant, God couldnt, God wouldnt". Im just like how can you say that? Why would any finite thing feel entitled to put limits on the infinite?
So couldn't God create a world without worthless sufferings of innocent people or animals?
Of course being omnipotent it could have done a world like that but it didn't, so it is evil
He did it to make human develop courage etc? Couldn't he have done it without such natural violence? He set up the rules, so...
@@marco15x15 why would you try to understand that which you physically cannot? God is infinite, the first and the last. We are here for a short time. We can never hope to understand that gulf between us. Because of this there are things in Gods nature that seem contradictory. Like how can God be the source of good and evil? Idk it doesnt makes sense to me either. But I am reminded of Alan Watts when he rightly pointed out that the chaos at one level of Gods creation is harmony on another level. We cant hope to fully understand what the plan is. Its like physically impossible, but we can choose to be either positive or negative towards that plan.
God being able to break the laws of the universe also means that any "necessary" suffering isn't necessary, and that anything we don't understand could have been written in a different way that would make us understand it. With this in mind, anything that God has done must be intentional. This, of course, conflicts with the problem of evil since it means God intentionally allowed all of this suffering even if he could have found a way to prevent it.
@@marco15x15not with free will, how would he do this while giving us free will to love him?
@@stirpiano For every person that complains about suffering, another learns from it, humbles themselves and realizes what reality they live in, they come to God.
God doesn't need you, you need God, whether or not you find this out in your lifetime is not God's problem, it is yours.
There exists an infinite number of watches that don't work, which is how the Rolex keeps good time, but it was never actually designed; it just popped into existence, spontaneously.
good one
I am late to the discovery here, but I am so glad to find you back making videos. God bless you, David!
Glad to see you back David. Hope you and your family are well. God bless you man.
David is an idiot
I grew up in a Lutheran church...I thought a multiverse is when they sang a hymn and did more than only one verse! 😅🤣😂
🤣😂😅
🥁
What other churches have you checked out?
@@nickkerinklio8239 I'm no longer under any human...other than Jesus (Who is fully God and fully Man.
I have been struggling to find churches that actually teach what the Bible teaches...but we are not to forsake the gathering...
I'm in a seeker sensitive church where I tend to ruffle feathers and the sharing of the Gospel seems to be viewed as "beating people over the head with the Bible"...
I'm a born again believer in Christ Jesus!
God's Only Son Permits Eternal Life!
😇🙏💪
Kids ideas are so funny sometimes. 😄
The problem of evil has been seemingly discussed ad nauseam. I’d like to know about the “problem of good”. Why is there good in the midst of all the evil?
Same answers. There would not be good without evil and vice versa. How would you know what is good and what is not withour being able to compare ? The famous tree of the knowledge of good and evil is necessary for the good to exist.
Because "good" is an evolutionary adaptation, same as belief in God.
(In ooga booga terms) Species cooperates = higher chance of survival.
So it isn't even "good", it is merely pragmatical. Cold and calculated, not warm.
@@tubsy.
Nope, good is not any adaptation and Hitler and Stalin proved it. There was no survival issue back then, no that long ago. Evil is evil and has nothing to do with evolution or adaptation, you can always find a "good" reason to do evil things.
But wait, if we are talking of the Christian faith, then good before evil, thus it (good) did existed without evil existing. It was the rebellion of x angels that we have evil. So I get what garfinke is asking. I wonder if it hope, both the hope that those who don't want evil will keep away from it and hope that those who are doing evil change from it.
@@tubsy.
“Adaptation”
“Pragmatic”
“So it isn’t even good”
Was that actually a good claim? that is was that actually a “TRUE” claim or was it nothing more substantive than a pragmatic adaptation?
By the way, you just totally and utterly refuted yourself. Equally, “PRAGMATISM” is a value claim and so comes with a whole load of metaphysical baggage!!
You are now in the domain of metaphysics buddy!! And that’s our domain. So you clearly have an enormous explanatory gap especially if you are actually a strictly reductive materialist, atheist or philosophical naturalist. So you clearly have an enormous burden of proof.
SORRY BUT EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS REQUIRE EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE. Your rules not ours!!
What can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence!! So the atheistic, nihilistic mantra goes!!
I am the first to comment so what do I say when I'm the first to comment? What do I always say when I'm first to comment? It's time to come to Jesus Christ I mean seriously people look at this world.
That's as good as any first comment
Yes
Followers of Jesus are the sole reason my country doesn't have universal health care
@@muskyoxes what country if you don't mind me asking?
@qiexia probably in America. Go to England and enjoy your year long wait time for life saving care if you want tax payer funded healthcare
Recently discovered your channel, David and I'm just loving it! Thank the Lord for David Wood!!
Glad you enjoy it!
@@apologeticsroadshow David, so thankful for you and your ministry brother... glory to God for how He's moved in your life 💛 blessings to you and your family
@@apologeticsroadshow
Have you heard of Canadian atheist Reed Westward, aka TMM (TheMessianicManic), David?
I think he's worth responding to directly.
The problem is the concept of their evil is so human centric rights and not actual order. Atheist will always think freedom and freewill accomplish without commands. But we are very dependent in nature but nature is living and not an idea nor belief it has limit and start. Evil is not a other force to counter good, but evil is failure. If they waiting proof of God and putting nonsense question where not actual deal to God but to human being. They want visible application while ignoring the fact that there is invisible factors. They also putting God should be nice to be good but God is person also have emotion and will. God will not bow down to be acknowledge of someone. All things we get is our own problem. God have reasonable beyond your feelings and anything. God show us how to live but Humanity's ancestor choose to live the way God thought to them so they suffer. There must someone to be consume in food chain but evil is destroying the food chain. If you think pacifist at all cost is the best way. You should consider why people want to die despite of happiness they experience on earth and everything. Don't think because you sympathies to something you are good. Where just making faction under system that God has created. Ok maybe it's become Atheist and God will not touch your life ever again if you continue. It's your choice to be skeptic and choose your belief but existence of one another doesn't need to be acknowledge by everyone to determine their relation to another since they never interact the way does people does. Probably if you say characteristic of God to Atheist, they will always ask and think human expression of media depiction of god in fiction without not really getting into it because they really wanna think there is no God because they are scared and upset to know the fact that may a higher being punish or counter their actions from simple things or all cost. A perfect order universe is nothing means nothing is living. Well if they gonna put their degree and put complex deep termination is nonsense since their proofs and evidence has no direction they making argument to misplace the point of evidence so they can buy time more. There is history and artifacts and nations that has account even ancient but they will throw it to trash since what they call science is there shield, that they just read to someone author while saying we must not acknowledge human authors about God what an irony, they make exception to us because the authors is human while they accepting human readable information from books and across the web. Science is just method we use to understand a thing and not actually to prove right or wrong. What a false idea of their beliefs is everything must accomplish to an order where no life must not come to end and cruelty while forgetting the fact that consuming anything is cruelty. God create a universe with limitation so emotion and experience exist. But most atheist think they are superior because most proclaimed atheist in internet is intelligent while I see across the world a lot of dumb not proclaimed atheist without all this iQ and degree to influence their beliefs and biased. It's just deep words, idea and grammar and better skill in conversation is what they are fruitful and why they are proud but very low in executing long term decision since they just twisting a certain idea to bend in their own benefits. Still theist is not superior since the duty they prevail have a lot problems need to fix and missing.
@@apologeticsroadshow Is this your new official channel? Or is this channel that someone else is moderating?
D. Wood kept staying almost completely silent after he gave his main channel away, so I thought he is done with making videos but recently new videos just keep coming and coming filled with apologetics.
@@bengreen171
But they weren't this is why he started this new channel and a couple of other channels fresh where he does not have problems with receiving strikes every second day.
You see he had hundreds if not thousands of videos in his old channel and people were constantly complaining about some of those videos and that led to a constant flow of strikes so if this channel grows big enough to have all sorts of videos as well, especially about Islam being evil then this channel as well will begin to receive strikes on a regular basis.
@@nikokapanen82 other people are creating channels and uploading his videos...David is out of youtube
@@ssv7195 Apologetics Roadshow, the channel you've just watched this video on, Philosophy Underground and Acts 17 Polemics.
These are all David's new channels he himself has started to post videos on, after he quit the Acts17Apologetics channel.
@@bengreen171 It may start again. He was getting strikes left and right on the old channel. Many TH-cam creators were experiencing similar issues.
@@bengreen171 He hasn't talked about Islam much and has it sequestered mostly in the one channel. It was his criticism of Islam that caused the problems with youtube censorship, and it has "gone away" because he's doing more mainstream apologetics on a new, dedicated channel.
Very interesting. Thank you, sir
👍🏻☦️
So many new uploads 🥲 thanks David!
More to come!
I wonder if the mercury poisoning had anything to do with the fish dying
There are problems with multiverse theory. 1) It is possible that every generated universe is the same. 2) If every universe is different, then a perfect universe must exist. 3) If a perfect universe exists, then a perfect being must exist. All of these premises are logically sound and valid.
Perfection is the property that "improvement is impossible" - it must remain eternally the same in order to maintain eternal perfection. A good person, place, or thing can be improved. Given this, is it possible for there to be more than one perfect person, place, or thing?
Our universe is not perfect, which means it may only be fine tuned for life as we know it. Evil and suffering exist in our universe, which speaks of its imperfection. If there is an infinitely diverse multiverse, the perfect one is elsewhere.
The point of allowing evil and suffering in our universe is not a simple matter. It must be examined from a big picture perspective rather than one which uses a microscope.
I enjoyed that. Thank you for your humorous apologetics. May God bless everyone with a growing knowledge of his grace and mercy. The heart is the issue, belief is the avenue to reconciliation.
Even the atheists? The muslims the apostates the gays the trans people?
Hi Brother David! Nice to se you back in great form! Love your Videos! I was a subscriber of Acts17, loved it! Will subscribe to your new channel! Keep the great content coming!
Awesome! Thank you!
I've been looking for this. Not because I'm an athiest. But because I can't find the answers as to why innocents and animals with no free will are made to suffer so terribly. I'd like to see more of this topic.
If you want a nuanced description of the more general Christian response to the problem of evil I’d recommend InspiringPhilosophy.
God hates tbe slaughter of the innocent. He hates it very, very much.
However, He will not stop a man who intends to sin from doing so.
God gives us all a rope long enough to hang ourselves with, and He gives us a Rock to stand on.
People who lie and steal and murer, people who promote abortion and communism, people who deny the existence of the God who has called to their hearts, they will be punished appropriately to their actions and their intentions.
He is not inactive though.
He directs people, animals, and events in such a way that even heinous crimes end up hwlping people and glorifying Him.
Remember God is utside of time, so a crime a century ago could lead to a type of psychological screening today that prevents thousands of instances of the same crime.
Because of man’s sin … that’s why the world is suffering… the whole creation is suffering the effects of our wickedness but there’s good news : God promised a savior and sent His only son to sacrifice Himself for our sins and overcome the Death that we owe for our sins! God loved creation and proved it and is proving it every day ☦️🕊
How the hack does this video help you with your question? The sin in Woods Multiverse is still intentional condoned. And he is proposing an even more powerful god, now not only able to create a whole universe, but (close to) infinitly many and all but one of them even more delicate. This is vastly different from the multiverses proposed by some atheists, since each of these 'secular' universes is not fine tuned, but this even more powerful god would need to be ridiculously complex in order to be able to understand what he is doing.
Often theists respond by pointing to free will, saying that god values it so much he allows the exercise of freewill even if it causes suffering. There are lots of theological problems with this argument though, like the fact that god already places lots of restrictions on freewill. You can't think someone out of existence. You can't exercise your freewill to fly or breathe underwater. It wouldn't be hard for God to place further restrictions on freewill by making it impossible to use it to bring about unnecessary suffering. Also, god, knowing the end from the beginning could have simply created only the sorts of people who he knew wouldn't exercise their freewill to cause unnecessary suffering. There's also the argument that freewill, under god, doesn't exist at all... if we are powerless to do anything god doesn't know we'll do then every "choice" we make is inevitable, thus freewill is just an illusion.
But instead of refuting it, let me grant the freewill rebuttal for a second. That still doesn't resolve the issue of suffering resulting from natural causes/ acts of god. When a child gets brain cancer, or a village gets leveled by a tsunami and thousands painfully drown to death, that wasn't the result of people's freewill. God either caused that directly or stood by and let it happen. In either case it means he can't be simultaneously all loving and all powerful since an all loving God would never allow unnecessary suffering and an all powerful god wouldn't need to rely on suffering to bring about his will.
Hope that helps. Keep questioning. And remember to apportion your belief in any claim based on the actual evidence for the claim. It's what you do for everything else, don't make your favorite religion the one exception.
Every time I look into the night sky I'm in awe of God's creation.
Same with the evening sky for me. So beautiful. : )
I wonder if the creator truly had good intentions . If it did have good intentions what went wrong ? If it didn't have good intentions, why ? Maybe the creator isn't as perfect as some encourage others to think. Maybe it's perfection is beyond the understanding of humans . Maybe its good nature is beyond the understanding of human capacities to distinguish between good and evil,right and wrong. What if the full explanation where given to you but you couldn't comprehend it because its beyond your understanding . It would be like interpreting a foreign language or making sense of highly complex mathematical computations all the while only having a small grasp of very basic math. I hope the creator is truly good and trustworthy. If its not I wouldn't want to be on it's side. I watch ground as of now. I'm of the belief there is a creator, but am not sure if it's worthy of worship/devotion. I can't encourage people to worship/devote themselves to something which I'm not sure is good or bad. Even if I reach a decision, that doesn't mean I've made the right one. I'm interested in doing what is good. What is good based on the wisdom in the world is a difficult matter to grasp. Many times people have taken part in what they belived are good things until they realized the so called good things they took part in and encouraged others to take part in where actually bad. Instead of contributing to the solutions, they contributed to the problems. Misplacing good for evil and evil for good.
@@michaelelijah-cd7wn HE not it
@@michaelelijah-cd7wn You're describing luciferianism or gnosticism, a religion that posits Yahweh is a lesser god who enslaved humanity and that satan is the good guy who gave them the enlightenment to get free. Buying into this story is doing exactly what Adam and Eve did. Given that Hollywood sells this story dressed up in superhero narratives amongst many others, it would be a god idea to reject it entirely and put your hope in Jesus.
@@michaelelijah-cd7wn look up the series " good and evil" by the Pearls
Thanks!
I'm glad you're making videos like the last few they have been very helpful
Great simplified explanations yet again by the genius, Dr wood
Thanks for what you do
"Genius" my ass
If he was a genius he would be lecturing in a University, not on you tube😂
With his PhD, he is more than qualified, but he’s trying to reach more people on TH-cam because in universities, they teach you that you were made from a rock and then evolved to chimpanzee, Most likely that’s something you believe in. you tell me when was the last time you saw chimpanzee make a comment on TH-cam like you!! 🤣🤣🤣
Except he's wrong. Hes addressing a debate where both sides have bad premises, so subsequently whatever analogy or line of reason he uses following that is going to be garbage.
One problem with the teleological argument is that it assumes that intelligent life can only exist within these parameters. Its like saying that only a bowl can contain water because it's the only thing designed specifically to perform that function. So rhetorically why not a divet in a rock? Its not ideal but still performs the same function.
Secondly is the many worlds interpretation being used to defend against great statistical odds. Statistical odds don't really work that way and we have no way of verifying if it exists.
Dr from a real school, or a fariytale University?
I've been working in Adobe Premiere Pro for a few months, and I can recognize smoothed-out transitions all the time now when I see them in a video (like when that fish picture smoothly slid in).
I appreciate the work needed for that. :)
These atheists are simply benighted. Christians are bright and blessed.
William Blake said,
'Ever night and every morn
Some to endless night are born,
Every day and every night
Some are born to sweet delight..
Some are born to sweet delight
Some are born to endless night.'
Well if you believe that the Earth is definitely 7,000 years old, you are benighted for sure.
My multiverse response:
The only reason you need to appeal to an infinite number of universes is to stand a chance of being right in 1.
my physics teacher used a similar example for explaining one topic in quantum physics. She said basically if you play lotto and it has combinations up to 22000 if you buy 22000 tickets you will win at least 1 lol
@@drunkduck8073 indeed. I usually ask those using lottery metaphors how they won a lottery without acquiring a ticket
@@geoffschnoogs6888 you can say what you wish, but it won't make your nonsense logically or rationally valid.
You don't know my metaphysics or conception of God so anything you say is a fallacious argument from ignorance...
Anyway good luck with your coderless code paradox and just remember idgaf about the opinion of atheists. Such walking contradictions bore me.
@@adr3ns why did you eat so hard with this 😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭
@@adr3ns Wow! You write like a super edgey teenager! I guess you must be smarter than us dumb athiests, who don't believe in talking bushes and snakes.
A multiverse where an infinite number of possibilities exist?
There only needs to be one where a classically-described God exists for him to exist in all of them.
And if there's a possibility (and there is never a possibility of zero) that one universe coincidentally collapses every other universe to one via intellectual intention or by natural phenomena, then it has already happened.
Multiverse is just a paradox machine that allows people to generate random, contextless arguments.
Infinite number is a conundrum 😂
@Os Grace Yeah exactly
"and there is never a possibility of zero" Prove it.
@@LaomerKedor I don't claim that. Proponents of the multiverse claim that as part of the assumption and definition of a multiverse. Infinity and the negation of zero possibility go hand in hand according to multiverse theory.
@@Eraktab I think you misunderstood these proponents and/or pose their claims in a manner that they didn't state them. Physicists usually don't talk about supernatural things when they make notions about their models.
"If they're consistent"
Yeah that's the problem.
Even the complaint of suffering they reject heaven and eternity in comparison to temporary suffering that makes present suffering insignificant.
Suffering is part of life but evil is either a decision or outcome which is done by man (or men). In nature the idea of evil does not really exist and it is what makes us different from animals because we can reflect on our actions and decides upon good or evil. I am not good, I am evil, I was born evil and everyone is born evil too but I have with great effort and grace with God been able not to be act upon my darkness.
Why do Christians ignore Hell when they say that infinite heaven makes all the suffering just a speck?
@@Greyz174
Hell is a choice; You want a world without God you are given it.
You, right now, can ask to know more about Christ and we could teach you and you could accept him.
Will you?
@@Greyz174 Hell is a world without God. Hell is a choice based on you rejection of God or not.
@@kriegjaeger ive asked.
Why would anyone with a sound mind who knows what he is getting into choose Hell? The "you do this to yourself" view is obviously a post hoc rarionalization so it doesnt sound as crazy to know that people are getting forced into it
Can you deacribe a situation in real life where a single person was of sound mind, looked at something that would cause a speck of the suffering Hell does, was under no misunderstandings that he would end up there, knew how to enact a plan to avoid it, and said "actually you know what I am just going to reject goodness and jump into this state of suffering that sounds like a great idea, i just really dont like good things"
When you have infinity on your side, so much is possible! 😂😂😂
One time Hawking rolled past me at Cambridge. His nurse or wife or whatever was with him.
Well now I feel old. Thanks, Wood.
Mad respect for that Saitama merch in the background. Always happy when I find a fellow brother in Christ with a superb sense of humor and cultural appreciation. 😂
Way more reasons and proofs to believe in God than not. Thank God for another video:)
Well, he plays chess against himself. Easy for him to steer the topic in the direction he wants it to go (while keeping important things falling under the table/not having the inconvenience of being presented with questions about "how do you know what you say is true")
@@melgonz2087 You were either high or are still high. So whatever you are atheist or believer don't really mean much to me. Anyone who takes drugs is beneath me. Do something with your life instead of writing comments on the internet.
@@LaomerKedor Actually: He does present the typical logic from low-tier atheists and replies back with humor and his opinions about it. You want to prove your own bs mate? challenge him and have a debate with him. I don't think you will win though.
@@VindensSaga "You want to prove your own bs mate? challenge him and have a debate with him."
That wouldn't be the only logical possible consequence.
There are enough high-tier atheists within the English speaking world, that I as someone who doesn't speak English in real life wouldn't bother to think about dealing with the inconvenience to have to speak English fluently on the spot while engaging in an argument.
I have apologists within my own realm of language and already debated booth, Christians and Moslems (as a hobby, not as a full time job that i have besides this).
@@VindensSaga Wow. beneath you. That's Christ like
Even if there is a multiverse with many universes, Christ is King in all of them.
You don't know that. Maybe your laughable religion is only in this universe.
I'm so gad to see David Wood again! May God continue to use your unique ministry.
I don't understand how this answers the question of why god allows evil. Even if there's an infinite amount of universes that have no evil in them, why does he allow it in this one?
Simple answer, free will, and after the Garden of Eden with Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit, they got a corrupted mind and body, and which could do good or evil, God wants us to be redeemed by our choice, not forcing us to be saved but offering us the way to be saved
We are back to square one. The multiverse response to probelm of evil goes to shit if you have to go back to freewill or sin. For me it's fairly simple, I never asked or consented to be part of gods creation or its plans. If the god is a personal god who cares and also thinks freewill is important, it should care about my freewill to be part of its existence or not to begin with, which it didn't.
@@averdadeeumaso4003 How is our free will responsible for bone cancer or earthquakes? If your omnipotent god would exist, why would he torture humans with things like this?
@@klausroxin4437 God is cruel merely by creating this world. Consider that one billion people suffer from dehydration, and millions die as a result. It's ironic, given that 80% of the world is composed of water, yet it's too salty. Drinking seawater can even be fatal . That nothing but cruel , it's like saying : 'Hey, your whole body is paralyzed? Don't worry, I'll cure you if you run a marathon. Good luck ! 👍'
@@klausroxin4437 It is, because free will was used for sin instead of doing good, and thus punishment is warranted automatically. There is no "tôrture", you probably think also that prisons, judges and courts shouldn't exist going by that logic
I'm a Christian and inlove your channel but i don't consider this as a good argument. The reason is that atheist could easily reply that creating just a "bad" universe deems to contradict the idea of an all-loving and caring heavenly Father Whom we Christians serve.
No but you see there is an infinite number of universes! If God is limited to making only universes that are "good" Then there isn't truly an infinite number of universes, therefore destroying the multiverse theory. Lol. It's all just a way to dodge the reality we live in.
Also, I don't think this was a serious response from DW. It's a sarcastic mockery of this utterly non-scientific "scientific" proposal made by those who see themselves as true champions of logic and reason as opposed to the dumb, God-of-the-gaps-proposing theists
The Dizzle is on a roll!
The Dizzle is just getting started!
@@apologeticsroadshow space is science that does not stand up to real science i.e space science is fake
@Apologetics Roadshow [Jonathan] Ross said he defeated your argument a few comments down. He obviously didn't and is quite shortsighted but maybe do a video similar to the ones you did on Muslims when they made such dumb comments?
Edit in brackets
Whether there is one universe, or an infinite number, they all still require an origin, and nothing cannot create everything.
Thanks for these and what you do, David!
Also: the Channels tab for Apologetics Roadshow doesn't have Acts 17 Polemics listed. Perhaps these channels should reference each other there?
After studying apologetics relentlessly and debating atheists both online and face to face for more than 10 years I've come to the conclusion that you can never ever ever get through to 99% of these people. Even when you've shot down literally hundreds of their accusations against God over & over again they just keep repeating their same old garbage.
It still blows my mind that humans can self deceive with no limit I mean you actually think you have one any of the arguments with atheist you've had over the past 10 when you in reality have gotten your azz kicked for over 10yr and don't even realize this
They don’t want God to be real so they can be their own God of their own lives and not accountable for their thoughts and actions. I don’t bother on line anymore they are only there for hate and just trying to get a reaction from you
@@rickytavilla4259 no see you might be a wild hooligan that needs a master to control you and keep you from being a hoe and killing other people but some of us can not only self regulate but do one even better and that is some of us dont crave to do bad things and we are naturally good and live a good life doing goid to others as we would have them do unto us and are responsible for are own actions and have a moral compass that tells us that the god of the bible is a terrible being just like this followers.
@@rickytavilla4259 Isn't it you who want God to be real so that you can live forever and have all your wrongdoings forgiven so you won't be accountable for your thoughts and actions?
@@reformCopyright I’m not just a believer I’m a knower. I have been outside my physical body and know He is much more real then the tablet I’m writing on.
David,
I just love your videos. Thank you!
"come on... the dice are loaded!!" brilliant analogy..
Also interesting that BOTH Dawkins and Hitchens said that the Fine Tuning argument was the best one that the Christians had to offer.
Best of a very bad bunch. Still utterly flawed, with no value at all. There's not a jot of evidence for it; it's just an argument. Not a single established scientific theory in the field of cosmology or astrophysics includes: "a god did it", even less so your, specific god.
Thank you for the apologetic. I never considered the implications of the anthropic principle up on evil, but it is a logical step. I appreciate it
The good thing about our argument is that we argue for this universe. Not the 'if' ones
Especially since the multiverse is based entirely on faith, a rhetorical device to explain the evidence away. At least theism is a conclusion drawn from the evidence.
@@donatist59 except it isn't because atheism isn't contingent on the multiverse being true. All I've ever seen or heard is very weak evidence for theism and whatever evidence the theist claims can be used as evidence for any god that has been can be concieved.
Dr. Wood is back with several Fine Tuned TH-cam channels now. Muslims can't stop him now with false strikes because he has a Multiverse of YT channels now.
@@jameslay1489 The point us that our case just that bit stronger. U have in the past given some time and attention to these ideas and theories and they leave you dry every time. In fact, they leave you very dry and extremely empty and even confused. Unless you haven't really taken the time to look into them. Or if you're opinionated and an ideologue type and only see what your eyes are itching to see. But if you go in with an open mind you will see things you are not going to like. But the truth is the truth
@@jameslay1489 weak claim to theism is just broad way to say it's not important because it's lack of something they can bring, but incase of the arguments that involves the claims that theism are weak is just true because of many problem arise since the world's humanity always tend block to history of one another. declaring evidence or you declaring it's weak because you debunk it while a big course of history have a large account to proof to be dig in. it cancelation of work and studies so you can push your agenda. Not all god can be conceived if you think its mythical that is false and god's that human made can be describe is op in story but Supremes in reality is not describable as op they are just really capable on it. How does a civilization built without any influence on it's origins. Monkeys can't put new actions without influence of other factors. And building empire cannot be made by just a being start from nothing without minimal force or extreme force. The idea of knowledge and construction can be only be only adapt or teach and not created by dumb just because of fire. The concept must be explained by a being with understanding and not just a mass that suddenly appear. No God means no start and no start means no creation. Well theism is just a whole category of there is God while Theologist there is God. Not a all accounts comes from a civilization is true because there is false prophets . I will not defend all sorts of god you talking about but my point is there is God because there is objects and objects is not powerful to enough to withstand and describe what is God since they are not . All those point that you think is not must come to an account because it is nonsense since you don't have power on it to bring order like other universe. If the case is more specific then the claims is not weak. If the question is more wider or broad then it's weak because it has so far accuracy. If you are Atheist start to comprehend thing one by one first before making it as whole theory or concept. Because most of you atheist and also theist is just twisting thing or argument that already exist. There is no new idea you bring. We just have globalization and innovation cause of wide trade and good condition that we looks more advance to make things easy to achieve but before truths is we are trap in non- stop academic vices. Sometimes facts is just observable and countable but not defines everything so introducing claims is just method to prove something but never gained anything because it is just information that may collect then appear close to describe and understand a thing but never the perfect answer to prove anything.
I grew up in the Foster system, It wasn't God beating me, it was check-cashers trying to avoid their own issues.
It had nothing to do with me. The next crop of Foster kids went through the same, but with the knowledge an individual could outlast the beatings.
That was a weird conversation at my sister's wedding.
Thank you, David Wood, for saving Christianity once again.
Christianity is in shambles, so it definitely needs saving! 😂
It's one of the ABG (anything but God) theories which I call the Star Trek theory. Star Trek had a number of episodes where they travelled to multiple dimensions or multi verses, hence my name for it.
The parallel universes. I love the original series.
After eating of the Tree of knowledge og Good and Evil we had to come to a place where there was both good and evil (in Paradise there was only good), on order that we could experience the conequences of both good and evil and work on our ability in differentating between them.
When there was only good in the paradise, where did the snake come from?
@@klausroxin4437 These things cannot be talked about concretely. If you don't get any logic out of the idea of a snake in Paradise, then instead imagine that Paradise had an exit, door or gate leading out of it, because Paradise was also not a prison that you had to remain in against your will always, therefore there had to be an exit out there because otherwise there would be no Paradise but a prison.
Since you're almost at 100k subscribers, congratulations!
if God is good and if God is love, evil CANNOT exist anywhere. Not even in other universes because God doesn't change.
Of course evil can exist! if you give a mechanic instructions to fix a part on your car and your mechanic says sure I’ll fix it in two days time. Goes into the shop finds a minor issue that resulted in the parts failure fixes that. Then takes your part which is fine, steals it to sell it and replaces the part with a faulty one. Tells you your vehicle works fine now! He not only disobeyed your instructions but lied and stole to do it with his own free will. This is an example of the rebellion that was displayed to our good and holy God. It’s like that law that says anytime something bad can happen it will happen.
I disagree. To enact or do evil basically means to do something that is contrary to what God is or what He commands, while good would be the opposite. Humans were created with their own free will, meaning that we can freely choose to do acts contrary to what God is or what He commands of us. Evil isn’t a force or energy in the universe that God created just to oppose Him, it’s an act shown through the rebellion of humans against their creator. And you’re right, God doesn’t change, but humans do, and we’re constantly in a struggle between good and evil.
@@Squidgyy_ Nah Human can't do supernatural things, so they are not that free.
@@truthboom we are natural beings, not on the same supernatural plane as God Himself. We are free to do whatever is possible for us on a natural playing field.
God, in His infinite goodness, offered humanity to go away from Him (do evil) or to go toward Him (do good). He also only makes us live in the sin for a short period of time, until He sends us to go into the beds we have made. If we choose to go to Him, we live with Him and in perfect goodness forever, and if not, then we live in evil and perfect punishment
Amazing words David!
Thanks, Tjames!
My issue here is that if - hypothetically - the right kind of multiverse were proven to exist, then that would clearly rescue naturalism from having negligible probability according to the Fine Tuning argument, but it's difficult for me to see how it would be effective against the argument from suffering.
Because their claimed issue with suffering is the fact this is supposed to be the one perfect creation of an all knowing all powerful God why would He choose to create it with suffering? That falls apart when you appeal to the fact this is just one of infinite universes He created. There are countless utopian universes free of suffering, ours just happens to be one where conditions combined to result in the existence of suffering. In an infinite multiverse it’s simply a statistical certainty.
@@LiveFreeOrDie2A thanks for your thoughts.
It’s worth saying that not everything has to be statistically certain in an infinite multiverse. (E.g. there are infinitely many real numbers between 0 and 1, but we couldn’t then conclude that 2 is one of them.)
We also wouldn’t expect any universes full of nothing but unjust torture and meaningless agony, even in an infinite multiverse if God is good.
The other issue is that if a hypothesis predicts the vast majority of people live in utopias, our existence in this world is evidence against that hypothesis.
I think there are good responses to the problem of evil, but I don’t think this one works.
But I’m not sure it was intended to be either. I think it was trying to get atheistic multiverse proponents to see that speculating about multiverses can be a cop out.
But I think you can accept the multiverse response to Fine Tuning and still reject it as a response to suffering, without being inconsistent.
There’s a fairly good video if slightly unusual response to this by Apologetics Squared. I can dig out the link if you want.
@@LiveFreeOrDie2A or he just had a different concept of what is "perfect" to him.
Just from a human perspective: When you write a book, direct a movie or program a computer game, would you not "need" some suffering in an otherwise perfect world to make it worth while consuming?
Or if he would be dynamic, then suffering would just make his creation better by itself because it can then adapt.
@@MatthewFearnley I had the same thought (being a theist myself). This response to the problem of suffering is to point out how appealing to an infinite number of undetectable universes is a cop out. However, it really only works if you assume the premise that some universes allow pain suffering for an overall valuable purpose (such as virtue building, free will, etc.), else God would not have included these universes within the infinite array of universes. For instance, a good God wouldn't create a universe with *only* suffering and evil caused towards innocent people. Of course a theist could just claim that this God is one that does not care about suffering or evil.. but that would be hard for Christian theists (or others) to accept who claim that God is perfectly moral and just.
That being said, the response still works in some regard. It works because most atheists argue not from the standpoint that it's logically impossible for God to allow our suffering, but rather improbable considering alternative ways he could have created it (to be more good, more valuable, etc.). Then it follows that one could use this response by saying "though our universe with suffering isn't (supposedly) the most valuable compared to alternatives (such as a hedonistic paradise), those universes actually do exist, we just so happen to be on this universe that is less valuable (but still valuable and good in other ways)."
Additionally you could say that for God to be maximally good, he had to create an infinite number of universes, each with a combination of features that bring about different perspectives on "goodness." For instance, a universe with max pleasure is good, but it's not the same kind of good as a universe that has higher order virtues such as ours. For God to be good, he had to make all these "good" universes. The point is, it gets weird and cop out-ish when you start just appealing to infinite possibilities.
@@svr5423 So god makes us suffering to have a more entertaining evening on his couch while watching us? I think your movie analogy is very flawed.
Duuuuude! That analogy with the dice is perfect! I can’t wait to use that in conversation
That analogy only works if you think the parameters of the universe could've been different. You can calculate the odds of rolling a "6" on a 6-sided dice because there are 6 possible outcomes and only 1 "6". How do you calculate the possible outcomes of the universe? Are there infinite? Maybe. Is there just one? Maybe.
@@spacemoose4726 apparently there’s infinitely more outcomes but that just makes it more improbable
@haydenblack5648 Nobody actually knows that. That's the part he doesn't want you to know in the video, so don't be surprised if this argument doesn't "silence an atheist."
Also, the multiverse could explain the fine tuning argument even if there was an infinite of possibilities. His use of it to contradict atheists on the issue of the problem of evil is just wrong. The problem of evil is not simply, could God allow evil? Of course he could. The problem is, could he be all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful, and allow the existence of evil?
@@spacemoose4726 okay. You will believe and see the logic when you are ready and willing.
Scientists used to think rotting meat would create maggots, only later discovering they had to be put there by flies, but still say crystals or ooze create life.
it is all down to the drool of OOL (Origin Of Life Theory) in the muddy pool
Scientists might have, but *science* did not. I really don't think you understand what science 🧪 is.
@@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana then the multiverse is an illogical theory, is it not? it's cannot be observed.
What this gentleman means is that sometimes the science guys get it wrong, so why not now, since the multiverse theory cannot be observed.
@coffee beans
Multivsese _hypothesis_
@@joshuakarr-BibleMan ok. Now it makes sense 🙂🙄
David I'm so happy you made another channel. You're my go-to TH-camr :)
The random, unguided actions of particles in motion are, like, so evil, man.
IF God's message is so perfect and good why did they invent a whole Philosophy about Apologising all the damn time about it . ( It's a Joke , I always feel like I have to explain that )
@@minisimian I get your joke. Apologetics has been around since before Christianity was a thing.
Rationally and logically, I know multiverse reasoning gets shaved off by Occam's Razor, but it's still something that it's fun to speculate about, and in speculating, this is the most emotionally-satisfying way of dealing with this problem that I've ever seen. While experiencing suffering is horrible, it's still only a sample of one in a universe of billions (at least,) so this really isn't a problem of personal suffering. It's also possible to conceive of a species of intelligent creature that grows more virtuous through exposure to the virtue of others, rather than through suffering. At the very least, it's easy to imagine a universe in which all of the most pleasant experiences were gotten through exercising virtue, which is also clearly not the case. The problem, then, is to do with how temporal reality reflects on its creator; is our reality inhabited mostly by those who suffer, or mostly by those who don't? What does the answer to that question say about the one responsible?
The free will defense is mostly about explaining motives for God that would be realistic. In a logical sense, it's a perfectly adequate defense, but it ends with a value judgment. Is the significance of being able to choose to reject God, and not doing so, greater than the significance of all of that suffering; not just on Earth, but also in Hell? Remember, it's not free will as a whole that you'd have to sacrifice, in order to have a universe without evil; just the freedom to choose to do truly evil things. So, which has greater value; the merit of having had the chance to make a right choice wrong, and not done so, or real suffering being experienced by real people? We know what God's answer is, and it makes sense logically, but human beings also have feelings, and on an emotional level, the free will defense is unsatisfying to anyone who disagrees with God's value judgment on this.
What makes this multiverse counter-argument so much more emotionally-satisfying than the free will defense or any other, is that it completely changes the balance of creation; from being mostly a sinkhole of suffering and despair, to being mostly a good and happy place, where people don't suffer or face persecution, sickness or futility, and there's a nobility of sorts to the thought that the suffering that we experience is only one part of a much larger whole, and that by being part of that rare universe that experiences suffering, we've involuntarily taken that burden off the inhabitants of some other universe; or a hundred, or a million universes, that won't have to face what we went through.
Of course, one could use the angels in Heaven for the same purpose, provided there's enough of them to completely overwhelm the number of demons + the number of people in human history, and re-balance the scale that way. Either way, the important part of the problem is resolved, and God ceases to be someone who believes the ends justify the means, in the mind of the person who needs that kind of comforting thought.
An example of fine-tuning and design that I find fascinating is that of light. The velocity of light is precisely as required, as is the mass, size, and position of the sun in relation to the solar system and the earth. Light is pure energy that is fundamental to our existence in so many ways. But beyond that, light also reveals a stunning spectrum of colors! With light we see the beauty of the cosmos beyond our galaxy, as well as the beauty of a feather, or the iridescence of a bubble, or the colors reflected in a snowflake. How could chance or necessity account for the biological ability of the countless irreducibly complex mechanisms in the 'factories' contained in the cells of our eyes, nervous system and brains to perceive the reflection of this energy, and why, on pure naturalism would we have any emotional response to it, along with the desire to create beauty? This is far beyond being necessary for mere survival.
And how could chance or necessity explain the intricacies of the engineering of our ears to convert acoustic waves into sound that we can hear, and why would we have an emotional response to it as well, and a desire to create beautiful music?
This cannot be explained by chance or necessity, but only by the design of a loving creator, our God.
The argument from objective beauty states that if God does not exist, objective beauty does not exist. Objective beauty exists; therefore, God exists.
The Argument from Beauty is a beautiful argument!
Woah much better explanation of my point.
funny how there is no objective beauty amongst humans, and your argument fails with a whimper.
@@velkyn1 because beauty is just a term to describe order and how impressed someone. And not an existing being.
@@velkyn1Naturally we all have differing opinions on what we find beautiful. The existence of objective beauty is not contingent upon the subjective tastes and preferences of everyone being the same.
@@velkyn1 how does it fail prove it to me?
Brilliant!! 🙏🙏😍😍🤣.... Guy told me the other day I couldn't invoke evolutionary "speech" to argue against evolution! 😭😭
WOW! I bet he walked out of that KFC wtih his mind BLOWN!
Every knee will bow and every tongue will confess Jesus is LORD. Love you Dizzle. ✝️ ❤
@@sydneybell-by8vh Prove it using the scientific method.
@@MichaelWilliams-eq4kt will happen bud
@@amosamwig8394 we have 6 billion people living right now who could be saved. Why don’t he hurry up and do it right now? Waiting for another 6 billion people to grow after Mars colonization I guess. Maybe god does have a better plan for my tiny human brain. Maybe he’s waiting for colonization of the entire universe before he shows us the science
@@amosamwig8394 Why didn't he just make the science clear in the bible, could have saved a lot of souls.
@@amosamwig8394 I was responding to Sydney, who insisted it would not happen, but who then got scared and deleted his comment...hopefully so he could commit his life to follow Jesus.
Be blessed David Wood.
One of the problems that David's response to the atheist raises is that no matter how you construe it, even if our world is the only one of an "infinite" array of worlds that has evil in it, it would still make God the ultimate author of evil because he has produced this world knowing it would be evil.
So do you have children? If you do, you know that they have free will and might choose to do evil, to come to a bad end. So, do you take the risk? Is the love of family worth so much? According to God, yes. And of course He has paid a huge price so that we have a way out.
@@JJFrance I don't think you have children!
Good parents would try and stop their children from doing evil, if they could. There's a limit to how much a parent can prevent evil because we are not infallible or available 24-7. In lieu of a perfect parental world, we try and give children as much of a moral compass as we can.
But here's the problem trying to analogise God through human parenthood. On your theological standpoint, would God have known that Adam and Eve would disobey Him?
This response of yours has been doing the rounds forever. All it is, is an unreflective, kneejerk reaction to a serious theological problem.
Wrong. Evil is performed not authored. What He authored is free will, so that we can become individuals, and commands that we need to obey so that we do not live in misery. To debunk your claim even further you may continue reading.
If God is omnipotent, then He would have the power of infinite time compression and decompression which means that if He creates everything in an infinitely time decompressed setting, everything that will ever happen will happen in an instant and there will be no past or future for us to say He never knew before it happened. Therefore, He becomes omniscient and knows everything. Then He can compress time to the rate that it is going right now for us to experience life as it is. This is how He knows our future, yet we make the decisions. You read it here first.
@@warmachine40k
" yet we make the decisions."
An omnipotent creator would have already premade all the decisions that would have ever be made at the inception of creation.
@@help4343 Incorrect. Omnipotence is the power to do anything that the concept of power allows and NOT doing everything that can ever be done such as our decisions. Being omnipotent doesn't mean doing everything that can be done.
Always with the facts!!
God addressed this in the Old Testament, repeated in the New Testament. 'For it is,written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.' 1 Corinthians 1 v 19; v 20 '... hasn't God made foolish the wisdom of this world?'
Why should this be surprising in the light of God's plan and invitation that we should join Him in 'the world to come' mentioned by Jesus several times? As He said in John 18 v 36, 'My kingdom is not of this world...'
@ben green
You have put the cart before the horse.
Logic is a language man has created to describw and understand and communicate about the way the universe behaves.
Even this mistake aside, can you demonstrate the universe behaving illogically?
I hope you don't mean miracles, which are divine interventions with specific purposes. Those are not the universe behaving, but the Creator doing what He wants to do, like an adult staying up past his childrens' bedtimes.
Yes, Always sahih.
@@bengreen171 I think you misunderstood Joshua. You might want to re-read his text again and edit your comment.
No facts, I’ve never head the multiverse used as a response to fine tuning, he set himself up a straw man to fight rather than respond to someone.
I’m not well informed on multiverse theory, or fine tuning, but when I asked a physics teacher about what if the force of gravity were different etc.
His response was “it would be different, but that’s assuming those things even could be different, we don’t know”
When I was in the thick of my transition from hostility towards Christianity to embracing it, I read a book by theoretical physicist Lee Smolin called “The Trouble with Physics.” It was quasi-academic in that it didn’t presume the ineptitude of its audience and went to lengths to translate the real substance (or lack there-of) of things like M-theory and quantum loop gravity to the willing reader. In doing so, the author adroitly undercut the many years of pseudoscientific propaganda I had absorbed through “pop-science”. Man, I wish I could get more atheists to read that.
We can read it but it wont make us believers. You fell for the propaganda.
I believe the mercury that Todd released into his aquarium may have a little to do with his fish dying too.
Metallic mercury is practically insoluble in water. Fish living in contaminated reservoirs that flooded forested land became contaminated by mercury slowly released from decaying wood. So they do live in contaminated waters, enough to concentrate it in their tissues.
To me the "so much evil" argument in itself isn't even sensible. If the existence of evil means God, or a loving God, cannot exist, the question should be whether God allows any evil to exist at all. A thorn of a hidden rose bush pricking your finger, a cold wind blowing in your face through scarf giving you chills, getting a pebble in your shoe. Anything negative happening out of your own control would mean there is no God.
I don't agree. If getting a cold chill or a pebble in your shoe were the worst things that ever happened, I'd believe in a benevolent God easily. But a world with unending wars where people and children are tortured and maimed every single day for millennia...yeah, you've got a problem there.
@@shankz8854 You don't have to agree. The point is there is no magical line to be drawn anywhere. What we subjectively consider worse or less bad or whatever, is not important as long as it remains negative or "evil". If you want to question or deny God's existence based on the evil that's happening in the world, you have to take into account all kinds of evil and not just the kind that personally makes it hard for you to believe.
@@northstar2621 "negative" and "evil" are not identical terms. I agree that an entirely good universe where nothing even remotely bad happens is evidence for a benevolent God, but I also think that a maximally good universe without evil is evidence for a benevolent God too. But we don't live in either of those universes.
@@shankz8854 I didn't say they were the same thing, though.
But see, the lines we draw are all subjective... who gets to decide where it is drawn? Which kind of evil is acceptable and which isn't?
@@bengreen171 If God refused to allow freewill to choose evil the freewill is a lie and not free.
Another banger from D wood
This is just a warm up.
@@apologeticsroadshow can't wait for more 🤸♂️👍👍
@@apologeticsroadshow I'll be honest, I don't see how this remotely answers the problem of evil. Their problem is that evil exists at all, not that God made *this* universe with evil in it.
@@Draezeth and their reason why any amount of evil should never exist in any universe? their feelings.
Wouldn’t be much of a multiverse if there weren’t any variation.
@@bengreen171 Thank you for this insightful comment highlighting exactly *zero* problems, then telling Dr. Wood to do better.
So why did he create all those universes where evil exists?
Sure, he CAN create those universes, but that’s not the issue the problem of evil deals with.
The problem of evil is specifically a way of disproving a tri-omni God.
One who is omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent.
So God creating a multiverse that contains evil is certainly a problem, not because an omnipotent God can't do that, he can, but because an omniBENEVOLENT God can't do that. Since it would involve creating evil.
And the problem of evil hasn't had an answer for hundreds of years, of course.
I do not understand this response to the problem of evil. The problem of evil is the claim that an all good all powerful god would not create a world with this much suffering. How does postulating a bunch of other universes solve that problem. Even if we stipulate all the other universes are perfect, the question remains why an all good all powerful god would include this universe in that multiverse. I am a theist, but I don’t see how this argument deals with that problem at all. Am I missing something?
Right. Either god doesn't exist, or lacks one (or more) of the attributes they're said to have (all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good). A nuance not often pointed out is that a god could lack _any_ of those attributes and still result in an evil universe (they might not know they caused/allowed evil or that evil exists; they might know it exists but be powerless to stop it; or they might not be purely good). To me it seems most likely gods are simply an invention of humans, given our lack of evidence, but the Problem of Evil definitely proves certain definitions of god don't share reality with us.
I knew this would be about the multiverse before I clicked on it. Been watching too much D Wood lol
7:52
I’m not sure the multi-verse explanation works. I think the atheist counterpoint to that is how can a good God create even one universe that is “unjust”?
The very concept of justice would collapse that argument because they must inherently assume justice and fail to define it accurately in order to draw such a conclusion. Especially since they clearly ignore the coming judgement day among other things.
Because he didn't make an unjust world. It's that simple, really.
I love your ability to reason and use their arguments against them to make atheism sound foolish is always music to my ears but the important thing I take away from this video is when shown the foolishness of their thought process one may inadvertently or in some cases purposely give them something to ponder sparking not only a dialogue which may lead them to Christ but to plant the seed of doubt in man's rationale forcing them to rethink their stance and leading them to Christ so either way intentional or not which in your case I'm sure is intentional the seed has been sown praise Jesus and God bless
The reason I like debates - because you have an opportunity to hear an answer from the other side. In comparison of propaganda when people use only what fits their position, and where people are boiling in their own juice not even imagining why other people believe differently
Am I the only one who simply just didn't get what David was trying to say here?
How does a multiverse harmonize suffering with a good god?
Define the term "good."
@@pigzcanfly444 I believe that a maximally good god would bring about the minimal amount of suffering
@Josias Everett that doesn't define good nor does it explain the benefits of "minimizing" suffering. Care to try again?
@@pigzcanfly444 a maximally good god would bring about the highest amount of wellbeing and joy. Is that better?
@Josias Everett these are all subjective terms none of which you have defined in this thread. I asked you to define the word good. Then you decided to change the word to "maximally good God". Start with the basics. What is "good"?
Something has existed from eternity past. Something is infinitely old. How about the universe? Life may have existed long before any big expansion or big bang. You don't need multiverses or infinite gods for that to be the case.
Recently discovered your channel and i think your content is great
No. They don't say that "there is a multiverse."
They say there MIGHT be a multiverse.
Yep, they whole conundrum is just a strowman argument. I think David is out of his depth and his smugness and dismissiveness shows that he hasn’t even embraced Jesus in his heart.
Thanks David for posting, I've commented on this so many times but there are very few interested in cosmology. It has been proven that this universe is definitively impossible without a creator. Instantly they adopted their multiverse.
Sounds like you’re one of those not interested in cosmology. Your claim that it’s been proven that the universe if definitely impossible without a creator is complete bullshit. Where do you come up with this stuff?
Even If god created multiple universes that doesn't change that this universe has evil, either god is all powerful or all good, pick one as you definitely cant have both.
Why are you assuming all atheists believe in multi verse?
Because they do... now stop arguing and watch the video
@@isaacramos8052 No, they don't. Atheist not believing in multiverse here. 🙋♂
Indeed my the reason to refuse the multiverse hypothesis is the same as for the god hypothesis: it can't be proven.
Because of they believe in a big bang fairy tale, it's not out of line to assume they will believe ANY crap!
As a Christian, when I find a Christian who believes in the multi-verse, i ask: So are there other universes where Jesus didn't save humanity? And then silence.
You are so good at explaining things. Thank you. God bless you and may you prosper in what God has called you to do.
This is actually not a very good explanation as it has some logical failings. It sounds good until you understand what it means to be perfectly good. Once you understand what it means to be perfectly good you will understand how this is not a good apologetic.
No
I have a question, wouldn't this theory leave room for people to think that God might care about some universes more than ours since He allows evil in this one?
His argument is shit and he is hoping you don't think too hard about it.
Yes, this argument is very flawed and implies that God is not good or kind but cold and distant. It disproves the very thing he's trying to defend and will be picked apart by any competent atheist.
The argument isn't a serious one, it is more so to display how an infinite array of unobservable things being used to explain-away a problem is harmful to proper debate. On top of that this argument to my knowledge is relatively new (on top of being a satirical argument against the multiverse objection to fine-tuning) so questions such as yours likely haven't had much time put into resolving.
Then you'd be blowing up your time and energies over some other universe out there rather than coping with your lot in this one. That would be a most unintelligent use of one's good time in the overall sense of things.
@@ashesagainst7236the idea of there being an infinite amount of UNIQUE universes means there has to be at least one with evil in it. That doesn’t mean God doesn’t care about it.
Scripture says God sent Jesus to die because he cared. No where in scripture does it say God is “all good”. The material world is physical so it’s bound to have imperfections. Why can’t you just accept that there is a plan for evil?
Just keep up that arrogance when your body rots in the ground but your soul lives on lost without direction. Because you think you know better than the creator. Spirituality has been an important aspect human culture since the beginning.
The embrace of science and rejection of spirituality is the reason depression is more common than ever before. Even tho antidepressants are used more than ever. Humans are not just meat robots that need certain chemicals in sufficient amounts for happiness.
If you’re so sure there is no God and that the world is ridden with evil why are you even sticking around? To patronize believers and reinforce your ego? Take a high dose of shrooms and see how self assured you are.
I really like G Moore's demonstration, in the Principia Ethica, Moore being a non religious analytical philosopher by the way, that if you add the value of individual items in a given scenario, the value in the scenario, as a whole, might be different from the total sum of the items. So, quite literally, the world might have more value because there is evil in it, not less. There is also the notion that people lost in their hedonic bubbles have lost track of, but is quite intuitive, and has been known since forever by everyone with a working brain: the glory of an achievement is proportional to the difficulty of that achievement, overcoming the greatest evil possible is the greatest act of heroism possible (by definition), and this brings us back to old Leibniz and his original Theodicy, and that this is the best of all possible worlds (an argument Voltaire parodied without understanding it to well, or without much care for intellectual honesty). Rant over, thank you for bearing with me.
Just for clarification: Isn't the first part a Holistic argument?
@@Tzimiskes3506 I suppose so, Moore himself calls this "organic wholes", he acknowledges the theological implications his argument might have, but says that he will not get into them because it would derail the focus of his strictly secular piece of philosophy. I think it very likely that other authors might have taken it from there and elaborated on those implications, because the argument itself is so good for solving the problem of evil from yet another angle. I was unaware of the term "holistic" though, I will have to take a look, thank you for the tip.
@Edmund Burke I never read Voltaire, but if he strawmans that much I'd probably put the book down in disgust.
If someone believes in the multiverse, that is irrelevant to if they are an atheist. Atheism isn’t a claim about anything.
David, the argument you propose does nothing at all to address the problem of evil/pain. You seem to think the objection relies on some quantity of evil. On their view an infinite and good God could and would stop any and all evil. Even one instance constitutes an objection.
@@bengreen171 Yeah especially when the video went right over your head and don't understand that atheists use the same against Fine-tuning. Try harder, irrelevant dawkins drone ben.
@@bengreen171 He claimed to be forming a defensive argument.
@@bengreen171 I have not found this to be the case. He’s quite solid on Islam.
I enjoyed watching Godless Granny take apart this video on her TH-cam channel. The title of the video is "Evil is Good! According to David Wood."
This is actually kind of hilarious and I can't wait to get the chance to use this response.
You'll get demolished by anyone with half a brain.
This response will only work on atheists that don't actually have a philosophical understanding. This response is actually easily defeatable with anybody who has a slight understanding of philosophy.
@@displacegamer1379 This response isn't a serious philosophical response. It's a joke to highlight how dumb some atheist arguments are.
You are exactly the type of person Dave is talking about in his most recent video with IP 😂😂
@@chrispark2698 really what kind of atheist do you think I am? Because I can definitely make an argument against this video and how it doesn't actually show anything.
@@displacegamer1379 The argument in this video isn't supposed to be a real argument. It's supposed to highlight how dumb the multiverse "argument" is from atheists.
Why the universe is the way it is, Dr Hugh Ross. Great scientific read
Are you saying the Multiverse has black hole sized holes in the narrative?
😂😂😂
Did you know? black holes can come in very different sizes. Smaller ones just have a short life span.
Except most atheists don't answer the fine-tuning 'argument' with a 'multiverse' response. In most cases atheists would argue that the universe isn't very suitable for life at all. Only an extremely small part of the universe is suitable for life as we know it. So if the universe is someone's attempt to make a place that is fine-tuned for life, he did a very poor job.
Your man-made fishtank, contrary to what you claim, is infinitely more fine-tuned for life than the universe. Your friend's fish may have died, but in the meanwhile, the fishtank was still home to millions of water-insects and microbes. And he could have bought other fish that would have been very comfortable with the new temperature. By the way, damaging a thermometer doesn't change the temperature in a fishtank. A thermometer only displays the temperature, it doesn't regulate it. Therefore you would need a thermostat.
But even so, why would the existence of life be regarded as remarkable or surprising in any way? The current constellation of the universe just allows for a specific type of creatures to exists who can now attribute meaning to it and deem this a special outcome. There may have been billions of possible outcomes that all include life. We don't know that and as long as no one can calculate the odds, there is no reason to presume that life as we know it is very remarkable. It's like the lottery winner who claims that the lottery was fine-tuned for him.
Yes, one could even say a very specific portion of the universe supports life, almost as if its an impossibility that intelligent life could spontaneously form anywhere except it was designed to.
The numbers that factor into supporting life would be more equivalent to winning the lottery thousands of times over, but I assume you'd call that a coincidence too right?
@@dited358 So if life would be possible everywhere: god did it. If life is possible almost nowhere: god did it. Why even pretend to think if that is the answer to everything?
And I haven't called anything a 'coincidence', so why would you suggest I did? And first show me where you got those numbers from, only then we can assess them and decide if they are remarkable in any way.
You talk about life as if it is st ordinary while in reality it is infinitely complex. Those who recognise this fact turn away from the theory of macro evolution.
Amazing response. Well said, thank you!
Personally, I'm lukewarm on the whole multiverse idea. I think it's an interesting in a sci-fi sort of way, but I don't see how we could ever verify or falsify it.
My problem with the fine tuning argument is that if the universe was so finely tuned for life, then I would expect to find life everywhere. Instead, over 99.9999999% of the universe is a vacuum that kills life. Of the parts that aren't vacuum, something like 99% is a star where life would be burned and crushed. Life pretty much has to stick to planets, but only to the minority of planets which are neither too hot, nor too cold. And even much of a planet is inhospitable too, because too deep below the surface and it would be crushed, smothered, or burned, while too far above the surface and it's back to the vacuum again. Only a relatively thin skin near the surface could work. The vast majority of the universe will kill you, and to me that doesn't seem all that well fine tuned for life.
On the other hand, an omniscient god would know of a way to create a universe absolutely teeming with life in every nook and cranny, while an omnipotent god wouldn't need to fine tune anything, but could forcefully make life appear in the most inhospitable of universes. Compared to those options, our universe looks more like it's fine tuned for imprisoning and killing, if you would allow a bit of hyperbole.
I don't understand how this multiverse response would solve the problem of evil. The question is why an all loving god would knowingly allow bad things to happen that they could prevent. How does claiming an infinite number of universes, and then confining those bad things to just one of them answer the question?
I find your response interesting. On one hand you demonstrate a misunderstanding of the fine tuning argument, yet what you should understand about it you are adequately able to apply to the problem of the multiverse response to evil.
The fine tuning argument never claims the universe is fine tuned for life everywhere in the universe. They argue that the universe is fine tuned for life to exist anywhere at all.
Regarding the multiverse answer to evil, I totally agree with you. I find this to be a poor response because it fails to answer the existence of evil anywhere, not everywhere. The assumption is that a good God wouldn’t allow evil to exist in any universe.
It’s interesting how universality applies to both arguments in your response.
I find it interesting when human choices are what lead to suffering, yet instead of taking responsibility for their own wickedness, humans get mad at God. Evil is a choice. Everyone rebels against God. Everyone willfully sins apart from infants and very young children who cannot grasp the concept of good vs evil. Therefore we're the problem, not God.
God did not intend for life to exist everywhere. He created this world for us humans, eventually to have the choice to be His child or not.
There are things humans make that anyone could claim are missing this or that, but the humans who invented the object explain why they made it the way they did, and that is subjective every time, as is your understand of why God only made this planet to have life on it.
I'm just saying that about 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of the universe is hospitable to life (a back of the envelope calculation with a couple of dubious assumptions, but it gives an idea of the kind scale we're talking about.). It would have taken an omnipotent being literally no extra effort to make the universe a trillion trillion trillion trillion times more hospitable. The vast majority of the universe would still kill you, but it would make the fine tuning claim far more believable. Instead, the omnipotent creator of the universe decided that basically the bare minimum was good enough. Color me unimpressed.
@@GreatCollapsingHrung It's fine tuned to keep Earth intact. We were never meant to exist outside of Earth, nor any other physical life. That's the point: The universe is fine tuned so WE exist at all, to fulfill His purpose down here on this planet. God didn't want life everywhere else. He had a purpose for it to only exist here.
Don't worry, God's not up at night losing sleep because you're not impressed by His miraculous creations.😆You'll see Him on judgement day, He'll tell ya what He thinks then.🙂
I understand why some find the argument from suffering convincing but I just never have. As you mention commonly we will say something along the lines of "God gave us free will and the ability to choose to obey or disobey him." I don't find the response "is it really so important that God punish us" very compelling in fact I would push back on that. It's not that negative outcomes are a punishment rather they are a consequence of making a decision just like putting your hand in the fire will burn and damage it or eating a good meal will lead to a satisfied belly so will there be natural consequences of moral decisions. A natural law like gravity.
It needs to be said that these consequences are not local to the decision maker nor do they only have immediate effects, but the consequences extend beyond just ourselves and extend into the future. Genesis also gives us a decent outline about how certain decisions destroyed the relationship between man and God, man and nature, man and animal, and finally man and man. Just to pre-empt the "but muh natural disasters" or "muh cancer"
Next we have the objection "is free will really that important" Well if you want a creation that is able to truly love then yes it is absolutely necessary. It requires the ability to choose otherwise.
This guy does realize that it doesn’t have to be tuned at all. It can all purely be coincidence. Like I dunno 99 percent of shit around us lmao.
“Coincidence”
Coincidentally, was that actually a “TRUE” and “RATIONAL” claim or was it just determined by the blind, mindless, ultimately meaningless, accidental arrangement of random atoms and brain chemicals creating the illusion of stable patterns and regularities, that is determined by a “COINCIDENCE”??? LOL!! I’ll wait!!
By the way, you just totally and utterly refuted yourself!!
Atheists: "Just grant us one miracle, and then we can explain the rest, without God. If we can't have that miracle, at least let us use the 'infinity of the gaps' to explain what we can't prove."😄 🤣 😂
As a theist, I really don’t see how this solves any problems. The problem of evil typically isn’t formulated as though God should only be allowing a certain amount of evil, but that He wouldn’t allow any at all, because He is perfectly good. So even if a multiverse exists, if He created one universe that wasn’t good then that impacts God’s perfect morality.
The same doesn’t hold true with the atheist’s construction of a multiverse to escape the concept of chance.
I think the traditional responses to both those problems work fine but I don’t think this one bears out.
I actually agree with you, but I don't think that was the point of the video. I think it is just a matter of an appeal to the unfalsifiable can work more than one way if you are going to count it as evidence.
Having said that - I think a stronger argument for the problem of evil is that God is defined as both what He is and what He is not, one of those things being evil, so a perfectly good God does not necessitate the non-existence of evil. The existence of light does not necessitate the non-existence of darkness. Darkness is where light is not present and ultimately evil is where God is not presently acting. That one works for me.
Though I do believe on a fundamental level that 'everything belongs', I couldn't for the life of me tell anyone HOW that is true. However, I'm not the one proposing that I don't believe anything that is not "fact". I KNOW I'm operating with (well reasoned) faith and do not claim otherwise.
Catholic teaching on the topic of evil is compelling to me, at least. And our sense of what 'good' is, is completely warped. God permits evil especially of the spiritual or demonic kind in order for us to purify our souls. Much in the way that a good teacher will force you to learn outside of your comfort zone. The goal is always to come closer to God and live as he teaches us to. If you want a secular framing, it would be as Jordan Peterson puts it, bring order to your life at short/medium term personal cost and watch the chaos disappear over the medium/long term.
The PoE presumes that all suffering is bad and that God must never allow evil if Good. Did I get that right?
If so, then that objection begs the question as to what is good with no actual basis for judgment. It fails on logical grounds as a baseless assertion.
If strictly an internal critique, then the atheist must allow that virtues are desirable but may only be experienced in the presence of possible suffering and free will. They must also allow that justice is part of being loving as well as it loves victims of wrongdoing. The moment you claim God ought not permit any suffering, then you bear the burden of proof.
Going further, there's the objection of excessive suffering, but that also begs the question and requires omniscience to know anything to be too much for God's desired goals and purposes.
So that covers the theodicy responses and the remaining burdens for the atheists. Then there's David Wood's fine response appealing to the multiverse when atheists also appeal to it in response to fine-tuning.
Couple ideas ill throw out there as ive lived many years trying out many hobbies, living many places and working many jobs.
1. Skiils (especially soft ones) can/are very transferrable between hobbies/jobs/interests. If you worked in a deli, you'll be better prepared to take on cooking for example as a hobby or career to explore with more foundation than you might believe.
2. Use those little pockets of time you have on the toilet, on break at work or bored at home but dont have the energy or drive to partake fully in whatever your interest is in, to read or wafch videos about sakd interest. Ive been getting into piano recently and while I wont always have a keyobard in front of me, I can read about music theory, study note memorization or even look up or listen to music id like to play someday. All from my phone.
The universe is not fine-tuned to accommodate us. We are fine-tuned to live in the universe. By whom, you may ask? By natural processes, just like every scientific and cosmological mystery that we have ever solved. Every answer we have ever discovered has pushed "God" back a little further, as we find that things have natural causes, not supernatural ones.
So what created those natural processes?