I really hate it when people dismiss the problem of suffering, pain and unfairness. As a scientist, I know, maybe too well, that life for the vast majorityof sentient beings is hellish. For some it is torturous. The percentage of animals that survive to their adulthood in nature is extremely small. The percentage of predation, misery and suffering among those that live and die awful deaths is very large. Call me crazy but it is unfair that a creator is watching that awful “big picture” he created so we can defend his existence and create churches and temples of prayers for him. It is also very silly. I knew someone who lost his 6 year old girl to a gang rape and then burned alive; can we even imagine her pain and the lifelong hell for her mom, dad and loved ones? Don’t forget that level of awfulness is happening and has been happening to other humans and non-human animals since animals became sentient. Only faith-ridden people can dismiss all of that while they live their, mostly,comfortable existence oblivious to what is happening on our planet, and the possibility that it could be happening on thousands of other planets. Isn’t the idea of worshiping such “merciful” god repulsive? Worship… what a a gross and creepy concept.
you assume faith based people have not suffered grievous evils. you can defend the problem of evil as an argument without dismissing the sufferings of religious people so you can get on your high horse. it looks to be almost purposefully hypocritical and ironic to dismiss that. religious people exist in every country in the planet, we live in the era of the internet. i've seen people with cancer believe in God, many saints had such a slew of illnesses, some painful that i myself have wondered how they kept faith in God. in a video about people suffering from stone man syndrome, a woman believed in God. get off the arrogant high horse. you think no religious person has been raped, tortured, or the like? you're the only one dismissing suffering here. "the possibility that it could be happening on thousands of other planets. " fuckin lol. so God is just some stupid idea meanwhile you're actually entertaining the idea of life, in proportion to humanoids, animals etc, on other planets. more evidence for miracles than any significant, sentient form of life, mostly there's just been bacteria.
In my opinion, the problem of evil is a valid and sound argument against the existence of a certain kind of God. I fear that there might be a God (or even just a very powerful natural thing) that is in line with our observation of the natural world. This is not a theodicy, because such a thing would be horrible by my standards, but when I look at the natural world, the harsh God of the Old Testament seems to be the most plausible option for a God.
Assuming a God with something like the classical attributes, what would creation, as opposed to cloning, entail? The creation of Not-God. Flip the divine attributes and you have a pretty fair description of the world we're living in, which you seem to deplore. Yet would you, if you had the power, erase the existence of the universe as if it had never existed? If not, then even you would judge this deplorable world as somehow, in some way, good--good enough to be as opposed to not being. And that is not yet to factor in any sort of afterlife in which all the pain and suffering of all sentient beings could be healed, redeemed, transfigured.
As a health care provider involved in making the diagnosis of cancer, when I hear of miraculous cancer cure or remission, I know 1 of 2 things happened:1. immune system kicked in to fight the cancer. Rarely happens but can occur in certain types of malignancy. 2. This is more common, sadly. MISDIAGNOSIS. HELLO! Never had cancer to begin with. Making the diagnosis of cancer is fraught with difficulty and complications. Mistakes are made more commonly than we pathologists would ever admit , but it happens. 3. the language Drs. sometime use is confusing and not clearly undersrood or not heard. "you have a lung mass we think you probably have a malignancy we need more tests". patient thinks "i have a malignancy" Prayers are said. Additional tests are done the mass turns out to be benign or it resolves. "Prayer cured me". Point is these cures are not miraculous. Its people being naive and ignorant of science and the realities of modern medicine.
Your point about misdiagnosis is super important, and it's one I've often made in conversation with miracle proponents. It's trivially easy to imagine someone who already believes that miracles are possible discounting the possibility of misdiagnosis and reporting a miraculous healing because they already think they're likely to be the beneficiary of divine favor.
This is how the miracle was explained in Midnight Mass by the non-Christians. Of course, the real answer was vampire blood, so the joke is on you, I’m afraid
Emerson, you have to check out the apparitions of the Virgin Mary in Zeitoun, Egypt (1968-1971), and the miraculous manifestations of the Jesus crucifix in a church in Limpias, Spain (1019-1924). These may be the two best attested miraculous cases ever. I would advise to read the eyewitness testimonies themselves as opposed to reading the opinions of people about the testimonies.
I don't understand why people outside of Christianity experiencing miracles is a problem? Sure, that's evidence against some kinds Christianity, but it's still evidence for God.
@@ReverendDr.Thomas Minimizing as far as is practicable (subjective here I am well aware), suffering to sentient non-human animals. For me this mostly takes the form what I eat and clothes I wear.
20:52 If someone was denying that real evils occur, wouldn’t it be valid to respond with “you should really wrestle with these Detroit crime reports…they seem like real evils”? The reason why apologists want to walk through miracle reports is because they want acknowledgment that there are at least some legitimate miracles. Yes, both atheists and theists have things they can’t explain, and the big picture is important, but it’s also fruitful for both sides to give each other the courtesy of at least trying to engage data that the other thinks is notable.
Very good convo. Caleb is stuck on the skeptical side when it's not a Christian miracle, but will accept them and attributes it to his own personal idea of God. I like Caleb a lot, but man, his bias is so strong!
The bias of atheists is as great or greater. A Christian can accept evidence of supernatural interventions in any culture, naturalists cannot, just deny it.
@ramondm201 the difference is that theists deny others "miracles" and accept those that fall in line with their own personal religion, while those who are non believers in supernatural claims, expect to see how the claim actually happened versus just saying its a miracle of some sort. You have to show it was actually something non natural.
@@dustinellerbe4125 No, we don't necessarily deny the supernatural in other religions if we have good evidence for it. This is a very common fallacy. We can believe that people of other religions received miraculous cures, for example. And Catholicism has the greatest and most historically influential miracles.
@ramondm201 but do you attribute them to their gods, or do you think your God had influence on it? Most I've come across, just like Caleb, attribute it to Yahweh and his magic. You think your religion is true and is the cause for others miracle claims?
It's funny watching Caleb constantly searching for answers and objections instead of listening to the others arguments. Pathetic (and a little bit rude).
28.42 that's seems like post hoc ergo propter hoc. People pray all the time yet study after study shows in effect. You also have to consider other philosophical ideas. If the problem of evil is true God couldn't exist. Would one limb overturn that?
Interesting discussion. When I was practicing Catholicism, I always assumed miracles were designed by God for the sake of the people present to witness them (as opposed to acting as "objective proof" for other people (because if that's what God wanted, God would just provide that to everyone?)). I really do believe, for example, there could be a Eucharistic miracle or other explicitly Catholic miracle (stigmata) that could be scientifically investigation. How cool would that be, objectively scientific and repeatable evidence for the one true religion?! But despite the claims that these kinds of miracles HAVE been investigated scientifically (like the Buenos Aires miracles), when you really look into them, you don't find anything actually substantive or interesting. Man, why doesn't God give all the Catholic priests levitation powers? I'd imagine there'd be a lot of instant converts! Interestingly enough, as somebody who grew up Catholic, I likewise assumed miracles happening for other Christians or faiths were God just demonstrating mercy- that explanation can be used by any person of any religion to explain other religion's miracles. Makes me wonder, maybe there is a God that isn't necessarily belonging to any religion that's granting them? It arguably makes more sense (if we feel confident they are in fact miracles).
Did you really see the doctor talking about the miracle of Buenos Aires, about the longevity of white blood cells, heart tissue, human blood, etc.? And Tixla's where there are more details like the blood coming from inside? Why did you think it was bad?
@@ramondm201 I'm specifically referring to the miracles investigated by Dr. Ricardo Castanon Gomez. Dr. Zugibe, whose I believe is the only doctor to have looked at it and given a written report, states that it appeared to be a human heart and that the way he was told it was preserved would make its' current condition impossible. Sounds positive, right? However, the doctor never said he OBSERVED anything supernatural and he had no opportunity to confirm that the heart tissue had been preserved the way he had been told. His report is available online, on nacn-usa. I tried to link it, but I guess TH-cam deleted my comment when I tried? You should be able to find it. Here are a few additional reasons for why I don't find it convincing: 1. This flesh is miraculously preserved, but it's not publically available to see (I don't know if we even know where it is now). 2. The only time a scientist gave a statement on it was when they did not have the opportunity to observe it over an extended period of time (even just one or two full days may have been enough), which is an absolute requirement for determining its supernatural preservation. 3. It's not considered a confirmed miracle by the Catholic Church.
@@ramondm201 I'm specifically referring to the miracles investigated by Dr. Ricardo Castanon Gomez. Dr. Zugibe, whose I believe is the only doctor to have looked at it and given a written report, states that it appeared to be a human heart and that the way he was told it was preserved would make its' current condition impossible. Sounds positive, right? However, the doctor never said he OBSERVED anything supernatural and he had no opportunity to confirm that the heart tissue had been preserved the way he had been told. His actual report is available on nacn-usa, it's very short. Here are a few additional reasons for why I don't find it convincing: 1. This flesh is miraculously preserved, but it's not publically available to see (I don't know if we even know where it is now). 2. The only time a scientist gave a statement on it was when they did not have the opportunity to observe it over an extended period of time (even just one or two full days may have been enough), which is an absolute requirement for determining its supernatural preservation. 3. It's not considered a confirmed miracle by the Catholic Church.
Fellow lapsed Catholic here: for me, the possibility of fraud was a key reason to doubt the supposed miracle. I was also concerned that (if I recall correctly), the same doctor was involved in two or three separate cases in very different locations. A suspicious connection in my opinion. Further, the documentaries on it were being sold on a dubious looking website promoting some other very suspicious looking pseudo-miracles such as bleeding statues and someone who claimed to dictate messages from God. In Humean fashion, it just seemed deception or error were at least as likely an explanation.
Hi Joseph, sounds like we have a similar story; how long ago did you leave? Feel free to reach out on Facebook if you ever want to bounce ideas. Best of luck on the journey.
I really hate it when people dismiss the problem of suffering, pain and unfairness. As a scientist, I know, maybe too well, that life for the vast majorityof sentient beings is hellish. For some it is torturous. The percentage of animals that survive to their adulthood in nature is extremely small. The percentage of predation, misery and suffering among those that live and die awful deaths is very large. Call me crazy but it is unfair that a creator is watching that awful “big picture” he created so we can defend his existence and create churches and temples of prayers for him. It is also very silly. I knew someone who lost his 6 year old girl to a gang rape and then burned alive; can we even imagine her pain and the lifelong hell for her mom, dad and loved ones? Don’t forget that level of awfulness is happening and has been happening to other humans and non-human animals since animals became sentient. Only faith-ridden people can dismiss all of that while they live their, mostly,comfortable existence oblivious to what is happening on our planet, and the possibility that it could be happening on thousands of other planets. Isn’t the idea of worshiping such “merciful” god repulsive? Worship… what a a gross and creepy concept.
you assume faith based people have not suffered grievous evils. you can defend the problem of evil as an argument without dismissing the sufferings of religious people so you can get on your high horse. it looks to be almost purposefully hypocritical and ironic to dismiss that. religious people exist in every country in the planet, we live in the era of the internet. i've seen people with cancer believe in God, many saints had such a slew of illnesses, some painful that i myself have wondered how they kept faith in God. in a video about people suffering from stone man syndrome, a woman believed in God. get off the arrogant high horse. you think no religious person has been raped, tortured, or the like? you're the only one dismissing suffering here.
"the possibility that it could be happening on thousands of other planets. "
fuckin lol. so God is just some stupid idea meanwhile you're actually entertaining the idea of life, in proportion to humanoids, animals etc, on other planets. more evidence for miracles than any significant, sentient form of life, mostly there's just been bacteria.
In my opinion, the problem of evil is a valid and sound argument against the existence of a certain kind of God. I fear that there might be a God (or even just a very powerful natural thing) that is in line with our observation of the natural world. This is not a theodicy, because such a thing would be horrible by my standards, but when I look at the natural world, the harsh God of the Old Testament seems to be the most plausible option for a God.
Assuming a God with something like the classical attributes, what would creation, as opposed to cloning, entail? The creation of Not-God. Flip the divine attributes and you have a pretty fair description of the world we're living in, which you seem to deplore. Yet would you, if you had the power, erase the existence of the universe as if it had never existed? If not, then even you would judge this deplorable world as somehow, in some way, good--good enough to be as opposed to not being. And that is not yet to factor in any sort of afterlife in which all the pain and suffering of all sentient beings could be healed, redeemed, transfigured.
As a health care provider involved in making the diagnosis of cancer, when I hear of miraculous cancer cure or remission, I know 1 of 2 things happened:1. immune system kicked in to fight the cancer. Rarely happens but can occur in certain types of malignancy.
2. This is more common, sadly. MISDIAGNOSIS. HELLO! Never had cancer to begin with. Making the diagnosis of cancer is fraught with difficulty and complications. Mistakes are made more commonly than we pathologists would ever admit , but it happens.
3. the language Drs. sometime use is confusing and not clearly undersrood or not heard. "you have a lung mass we think you probably have a malignancy we need more tests". patient thinks "i have a malignancy" Prayers are said. Additional tests are done the mass turns out to be benign or it resolves. "Prayer cured me".
Point is these cures are not miraculous. Its people being naive and ignorant of science and the realities of modern medicine.
Your point about misdiagnosis is super important, and it's one I've often made in conversation with miracle proponents. It's trivially easy to imagine someone who already believes that miracles are possible discounting the possibility of misdiagnosis and reporting a miraculous healing because they already think they're likely to be the beneficiary of divine favor.
This is how the miracle was explained in Midnight Mass by the non-Christians. Of course, the real answer was vampire blood, so the joke is on you, I’m afraid
Ha ha naturalism disproved! Which time of the show discussed the problem of evil most?
I'm just here to confirm that Midnight Mass is indeed a great show.
Emerson, you have to check out the apparitions of the Virgin Mary in Zeitoun, Egypt (1968-1971), and the miraculous manifestations of the Jesus crucifix in a church in Limpias, Spain (1019-1924).
These may be the two best attested miraculous cases ever.
I would advise to read the eyewitness testimonies themselves as opposed to reading the opinions of people about the testimonies.
I don't understand why people outside of Christianity experiencing miracles is a problem? Sure, that's evidence against some kinds Christianity, but it's still evidence for God.
Very very good conversation
@@ReverendDr.Thomas
Nothing is good or bad but thinking makes it so.
@@ReverendDr.Thomas
What an interesting reply :-) Yes I am vegan.
@@ReverendDr.Thomas
Minimizing as far as is practicable (subjective here I am well aware), suffering to sentient non-human animals. For me this mostly takes the form what I eat and clothes I wear.
@@Kvothe3
How do you know what animal think?
@@jaskitstepkit7153
Sometimes, like when a pet is hungry or happy to see you or when an animal is in pain, yah you can tell.
20:52 If someone was denying that real evils occur, wouldn’t it be valid to respond with “you should really wrestle with these Detroit crime reports…they seem like real evils”? The reason why apologists want to walk through miracle reports is because they want acknowledgment that there are at least some legitimate miracles. Yes, both atheists and theists have things they can’t explain, and the big picture is important, but it’s also fruitful for both sides to give each other the courtesy of at least trying to engage data that the other thinks is notable.
Yaaaay! Jonathan! :)
?
Very good convo. Caleb is stuck on the skeptical side when it's not a Christian miracle, but will accept them and attributes it to his own personal idea of God. I like Caleb a lot, but man, his bias is so strong!
@@ReverendDr.Thomas I'm not a theist anymore.
The bias of atheists is as great or greater. A Christian can accept evidence of supernatural interventions in any culture, naturalists cannot, just deny it.
@ramondm201 the difference is that theists deny others "miracles" and accept those that fall in line with their own personal religion, while those who are non believers in supernatural claims, expect to see how the claim actually happened versus just saying its a miracle of some sort. You have to show it was actually something non natural.
@@dustinellerbe4125 No, we don't necessarily deny the supernatural in other religions if we have good evidence for it. This is a very common fallacy. We can believe that people of other religions received miraculous cures, for example. And Catholicism has the greatest and most historically influential miracles.
@ramondm201 but do you attribute them to their gods, or do you think your God had influence on it? Most I've come across, just like Caleb, attribute it to Yahweh and his magic. You think your religion is true and is the cause for others miracle claims?
It's funny watching Caleb constantly searching for answers and objections instead of listening to the others arguments. Pathetic (and a little bit rude).
28.42 that's seems like post hoc ergo propter hoc. People pray all the time yet study after study shows in effect. You also have to consider other philosophical ideas. If the problem of evil is true God couldn't exist. Would one limb overturn that?
Interesting discussion. When I was practicing Catholicism, I always assumed miracles were designed by God for the sake of the people present to witness them (as opposed to acting as "objective proof" for other people (because if that's what God wanted, God would just provide that to everyone?)).
I really do believe, for example, there could be a Eucharistic miracle or other explicitly Catholic miracle (stigmata) that could be scientifically investigation. How cool would that be, objectively scientific and repeatable evidence for the one true religion?! But despite the claims that these kinds of miracles HAVE been investigated scientifically (like the Buenos Aires miracles), when you really look into them, you don't find anything actually substantive or interesting. Man, why doesn't God give all the Catholic priests levitation powers? I'd imagine there'd be a lot of instant converts!
Interestingly enough, as somebody who grew up Catholic, I likewise assumed miracles happening for other Christians or faiths were God just demonstrating mercy- that explanation can be used by any person of any religion to explain other religion's miracles. Makes me wonder, maybe there is a God that isn't necessarily belonging to any religion that's granting them? It arguably makes more sense (if we feel confident they are in fact miracles).
Did you really see the doctor talking about the miracle of Buenos Aires, about the longevity of white blood cells, heart tissue, human blood, etc.? And Tixla's where there are more details like the blood coming from inside? Why did you think it was bad?
@@ramondm201 I'm specifically referring to the miracles investigated by Dr. Ricardo Castanon Gomez. Dr. Zugibe, whose I believe is the only doctor to have looked at it and given a written report, states that it appeared to be a human heart and that the way he was told it was preserved would make its' current condition impossible. Sounds positive, right? However, the doctor never said he OBSERVED anything supernatural and he had no opportunity to confirm that the heart tissue had been preserved the way he had been told. His report is available online, on nacn-usa. I tried to link it, but I guess TH-cam deleted my comment when I tried? You should be able to find it.
Here are a few additional reasons for why I don't find it convincing:
1. This flesh is miraculously preserved, but it's not publically available to see (I don't know if we even know where it is now).
2. The only time a scientist gave a statement on it was when they did not have the opportunity to observe it over an extended period of time (even just one or two full days may have been enough), which is an absolute requirement for determining its supernatural preservation.
3. It's not considered a confirmed miracle by the Catholic Church.
@@ramondm201 I'm specifically referring to the miracles investigated by Dr. Ricardo Castanon Gomez. Dr. Zugibe, whose I believe is the only doctor to have looked at it and given a written report, states that it appeared to be a human heart and that the way he was told it was preserved would make its' current condition impossible. Sounds positive, right? However, the doctor never said he OBSERVED anything supernatural and he had no opportunity to confirm that the heart tissue had been preserved the way he had been told. His actual report is available on nacn-usa, it's very short.
Here are a few additional reasons for why I don't find it convincing:
1. This flesh is miraculously preserved, but it's not publically available to see (I don't know if we even know where it is now).
2. The only time a scientist gave a statement on it was when they did not have the opportunity to observe it over an extended period of time (even just one or two full days may have been enough), which is an absolute requirement for determining its supernatural preservation.
3. It's not considered a confirmed miracle by the Catholic Church.
Fellow lapsed Catholic here: for me, the possibility of fraud was a key reason to doubt the supposed miracle. I was also concerned that (if I recall correctly), the same doctor was involved in two or three separate cases in very different locations. A suspicious connection in my opinion. Further, the documentaries on it were being sold on a dubious looking website promoting some other very suspicious looking pseudo-miracles such as bleeding statues and someone who claimed to dictate messages from God. In Humean fashion, it just seemed deception or error were at least as likely an explanation.
Hi Joseph, sounds like we have a similar story; how long ago did you leave? Feel free to reach out on Facebook if you ever want to bounce ideas. Best of luck on the journey.
29.57 what the millions of other sick people who have been prayered and didn't get healed