A couple people have commented that the quote from Hume is misattributed. The quote is not misattributed. It's found in his "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion" from 1779. In the quote, Hume is paraphrasing Epicurus. Keep calm and carry on.
@@HasanUnknown I know you Muslims don't believe in the book of John cause it's the last of the synoptic Gospels so you feel like it's been exaggerated, and you've watched a lot of Bart Ehrman. I have as well, and there are real problems with Islam. If you honestly look at your faith in the same light that you would another one you disagree with, you'll find that there are legitimate problems with Islam. The least is that your prophet said he thought originally he was interacting with a demon. No one who ever interacted with God thought they were dealing with anything other than something beyond righteous. Isaiah said he fell as one dead because of the overwhelming glory he encountered. And he claimed that Jesus didn't die on the cross but that it was made to appear that he had. How did he know this 600 years later? Because an angel in a cave told him. Really? Ok...cause Christian, Jewish, secular historians all agreed that Jesus died on the cross. Whether you believe that he rose is another story, but that claim holds no water. He married a girl at 6 years old and slept with her at 9 years old while hew as in his 50's. He clearly got everything he wanted out of the human Experience. Money, power, sex. Meanwhile Jesus had no place to lay his head to sleep. But of all of the gospels you guys will at least believe the book of Mark because it was the first book of the synoptic gospels. In the book of Mark the house where Jesus was at was so full of people that they had to lower a crippled man in from the roof, and Jesus said "Your sins are forgiven you" and they were upset saying "Who can forgive sins but God Himself" and Jesus said something amazing...."Which is easier to say...your sins are forgiven, or take up your bed and walk? But so you may KNOW that the son of man has power on earth to forgive sins, Take up your bed and walk!" and the man immediately got up and walked out. If you don't believe the other gospels, you have to at least believe the first one written where there are CLEARLY comparisons between Jesus and God. Yes..he was a man..but he was ALSO God...the spirit of God was in Him. So yeah....God in one place as a human is not as great as a non corpreal God that is infinitely in all places and times etc. Outside of space and time in fact. So...the finite can never be as great at the infinite. Jesus was God in a finite world. ...in the human body. That's not nearly a problem. Mohammad never did one miracle. They say his only miracle was the koran. Well can you believe a book that contains satanic verses.....claims the sun sets in a muddy spring? And the Sun runs his course for a period determined for him: that is the decree of (Him) the Exalted in Might, the All-Knowing. Qur’an 36:38 It is not for the sun to overtake the moon, nor doth the night outstrip the day. They float each in an orbit. Qur’an 36:40 The quran says twice that the sun sets in a pool of muddy water: Till, when he reached the setting-place of the sun, he found it setting in a muddy spring, and found a people thereabout. We said: O Dhu’l-Qarneyn! Either punish or show them kindness. Qur’an 18:86 Till, when he reached the rising-place of the sun, he found it rising on a people for whom We had appointed no shelter therefrom. Qur’an 18:90 There are a lot of blatantly inaccurate problems with the Koran. like that demons fly up your nose at night time etc. Just ...take some time to study your own religion and see it in it's entirety...faults and all...as well as it's beauty and you'll be more convincing to the next person who isn't as blind to those issues as you are. There's nothing as beautiful as realizing that you could and were genuinely wrong about something. It makes you more humble, and willing to look for truth whereever you find it regardless of what you feel or how biased you are about it. Google has millions of pages that will school you about the problems. Only when you've looked at them honestly....and worked through them can you truly be in a situation where you can proselytize others. The stars were created by Allah as missiles to throw at the devils? In order to not let them eavesdrop on the heavenly council? Not exactly a "scientific" world view. And We have (from of old), adorned the lowest heaven with lamps, and we have made such (Lamps as) missiles to drive away Satans, ... -- Sura 67:5 We have indeed decked the lower heaven with beauty (in) the stars, (for beauty) and for guard against all obstinate rebellious Satans. (So) they should not strain their ears in the direction of the Exalted Assembly but be cast away from every side. -- Sura 37:6-8 See also Suras 15:16-18, 55:33-35 etc. which seem to speak about the same thing.
One addition I'd make, though I know your time was too limited to include it, is that the probability of the Problem of Evil's success is always going to be inversely proportional to the probability of God's existence. This is obvious to point out, but it leads to the point that arguments we make which improve the likelihood of God's existence should be seen as decreasing the probability that needless suffering exists, for this example.
John 16:33 I tell you all this, through me you will find peace. you will suffer in this world but take courage I have overcome the world…. Our savior is the King of kings and Lord of lords…
The first two answers to the PoE pose significant issues of compatibility with Christendom. 1) Free will 2) Natural Law The premise is that the laws of nature, such that they are - and must be, lead to suffering. And that Free will, leaving the possibility for evil open, leads to evil choices. The issue then arises of the question of Heaven? Will there be no free will in heaven? Will there be no reliable physics in heaven? The issue is - if heaven is possible, then either evil and suffering do not have to follow from free will and natural law. And we are back to the dilemma. Or evil and suffering will always follow from free will and natural law, and heaven is not possible.
you can do anything you want in heaven, as its states that there is no corruption or sin or evil in heaven , on earth it will still exist until the day comes where they are gone to lake of fire. The reason we want to do sinful things is because they are there to tempt us if its not there we will have no desire to do it nor no reason to even think about it , i believe psychics will not apply there simply because pretty much endless things to do there
Your case is well stated however there are a multitude of differences between the Heaven and the earth post judgement vs the earth today. Some of this include that our sin nature will have been wiped clean, we will have no physical or material needs as we will either be in the spirit or in glorified bodies. We will have a complete understanding of the full consequences of sin and will share the same revulsion for sin that God does and we will have inherited the righteousness of Christ that was given to us when Jesus paid the price of our sins. We have not get the full benefit of that righteousness this side of eternity because our sin nature is still a part of us but once removed our nature will align with the nature of God and will will fully realize what it is to be an image bearer of God. So, without even touching on the other differences, these alone are enough to allow free will in heaven and the new earth yet there will be no sin as no one would choose the lesser when the greater is in infinite abundance. Natural laws do not apply in heaven as it is a spiritual realm. In the new earth will will be in incorruptible/immortal bodies so disease is null and void and natural disasters will be avoided with our enhanced knowledge, direct action by God, or rendered impotent as we will be immortal.
I really don't think your example for Moral Evil fits the explanation. This man didn't choose to forget his children were in the car, he just forgot. I don't think anyone would want to choose that.
@@CapturingChristianity HAVE YOU COMPLETELY lost your sense of logic??You're actually saying(& I didn't think even you would stoop this low)this guy made a 'clear headed conscious' choice to act in a negligent way which ended in his children's death!! If I remember the case correctly, it was the wife who said she was going to do so & so, then he had just put in a 12 hour shift, they were exchanging cars, in other words the plan didn't go as planned. No different than leaving your laptop on your roof but with more dyer consequences. Do you choose to act negligently when you are running around getting kids ready & you forget to plug their seatbelt in?? Sometimes we get fortunate & I bet you can think of many times when you have & other times we drop the ball. The consequences are not purposeful though they are consequences none the less. YOU had to answer this way in order to make your line of reasoning cohesive. Stop trying to APOLOGIZE for God!! Can you not imagine he could have come up with a better way? If this man chose to act negligently then WOW God's negligence is astounding!!! One might think he didn't even care.
@@CapturingChristianity I disagree. He didn't choose to act negligently. He forgot. Choosing neglectful behavior requires acknowledging the options and deliberately choosing the worse one. Like leaving a child in a car to run an errand thinking 'they will be fine', or driving drunk. He forgot. There was no choice.
I come away from this talk suspecting that the audience was thoroughly unchallenged in their beliefs, only reassured that they were correct. This isn't truth-seeking; this is an echo chamber. One of the reasons I left church and the faith itself was because people were so unserious about real issues in the world. I'm sorry Cameron, I know you tried. But this is deeply unpersuasive to people who have taken these issues seriously. I would like to challenge you to do better. To seek the truth is to let go of the notion you were right to begin with, to be open-minded enough to allow that a completely different paradigm might be correct. In essence, to let go of your ego. It's a difficult process, but it is vital.
God knows what he’s doing. He didn’t give us too much freedom. The problem has to be us, we just aren’t willing to admit it. We don’t want to look at the reasons we attract it. One of the reasons we attract suffering that you’ve not touched upon here is that we literally attract events into our life to help us confront sin. All of gods laws mean this happens. So much of the suffering you feel, is actually based on your own childhood experiences, getting re-experienced in adult life. God obviously wants you to be free of pain, so he makes sure events line up in such a way as to best trigger all of your core emotional wounds. You’ll think this is suffering, but suffering is living in pain, but sadly not connecting with its original cause and releasing it. Most of our emotions stem from causal emotions in childhood. So we view everything that happens in adult life through that lens.
Little surprised you did not mention redemptive suffering, nor helping as best we can to alleviate suffering of others in the world. Both aspects of suffering matter.
@@cactoidjim1477 Wouldn't matter if it was only in the tao of zen. By ignoring such an appreciable facet of suffering, Cameron just impeaches his own expertise / authority as a speaker. It is a big omission and I for one was awaiting his take on it. Even just 30 seconds and then dismiss it. Too bad.
Guys, his not catholic.Hence no theology on redemptive suffering. His expertise lyes in bringing the experts together to discus the profound questions.
@@arkofthecovenant6235 Thanks, I think we know that. Cameron is simply omitting or forgetting redemptive suffering concepts in the discussion, making it incomplete. Wish he'd included the topic is all.
@@garyworth6046 I could see that. As a catholic speaker and apologetic who also tackles atheism, Trent Horn never disappoints. Btw, I do assume you know who he is. 😀
Of course it is hard to understand, that is because it doesn't make any sense. This is what a crazy person(or crazy god) would do. 1st thing; normal people would forgive you after you messed up, not before - but Jesus died for sins that were not committed yet - that is not how forgiveness works. The way it works is you mess up then you may be forgiven. You don't go to your wife and say please forgive me, but I am going to forget our anniversary and not get you anything because that is what you mean to me, will you forgive me for forgetting next week? Oh, if if you want to punish someone for me forgetting our anniversary can you punish the kids and not me. That would be crazy, but that is exactly what god human sacrifice is. 2nd thing, this is a blood sacrifice, a human sacrifice and worse it is an innocent man being sacrificed for the crimes of others. Normal people punish the guilty and normal people know it is immoral to punish an innocent person for a guilty persons crime. 3rd, you and me both forgive other people without the need for a blood sacrifice. So if humans are capable of forgiving without a blood sacrifice so should god be capable of forgiving without a blood sacrifice. In other words people can do something god can't do. Lastly it wasn't really a sacrifice since according to Christians Jesus never died, he spent 1 1/2 days in Hell we are told(still alive in Hell) and then he returned and ascended into heaven according to the gospels. I mean if Jesus was god and all powerful he could have turned his pain receptors off while in Hell and we would never know the difference. Also, not to mention nothing could ever hurt a real god. But this god can have his feelings hurt if you call him a name. When someone does this he acts like the biggest baby ever and won't forgive them ever and also being the biggest bully in the universe he sends anyone who curses him to his torture pit for eternity, no discussion, no clamming down and to reason why someone called him a name, like a normal person would do. No, this god is irrational(AKA crazy) and he doesn't care about your reasons for doing so because he is unreasonable. In other words he is not an all loving god as the Christians claim. The good news is there is not even one piece of empirical evidence(AKA good evidence) this god exists. Peace
@@arkofthecovenant6235 So you forgive someone because you are commanded. I forgive someone because it is the right thing to do. It is also good to forgive for your own peace of mind as carrying a grudge only hurts you. But if you only forgiving someone because this is what you are told to do to be rewarded(heaven) or avoid punishment(Hell) then you are doing it for selfish reasons, which makes you a shallow self centered person. I used to be a Catholic, but now I realize I had no good reason to warrant believing this anymore. Peace
We can only blame ourselves for the suffering in this world. We do it to ourselves, it is not someone/thing else that is 'allowing' it. We have free will. We choose to do little about suffering. We choose leaders who cause much of that suffering, we don't stand up to leaders who create the suffering, we say trivial things like 'thoughts and prayers' but never DO anything worthwhile to fix issues. We spend money on trivial things when we could be helping people all over the world. We glorify people when we shouldn't be glorifying anyone, at all, etc. We are too busy trying to get the house, the car, the comfy life. We 'care' for a minute, but we don't care long enough. We can't stop all evil, we can't stop all suffering, but we sure can do a lot more than we are doing. Maybe you don't have the connections to start something, but you can join when there is one. We have organizations, and people do join, but not enough join, because it usually causes us to be uncomfortable for awhile, and most people don't want to be uncomfortable. So, we sit and watch as things happen to others, and do nothing. Some do, too many do not. We could be doing more. The suffering in this world is caused by people. It is not caused by God.
In a world where there's no God, it's actually worse than if God does exist. If God doesn't exist, pain is meaningless, purposeless and life is ultimately hopeless. If God does exist, pain is not purposeless, and there is still the hope of recieving eternal life WITHOUT pain. Athei by definition makes it worse.
William Roe's argument is valid, but is it sound? Well, it depends on how you define god. If you define god in that argument as a god who doesn't care about his creation, he just set the natural laws in motion at the beginning and watches (or not) how this plays out, then no the argument doesn't refute that god. The god as I just described would be perfectly compatible with the world around us, with all the unnecessary suffering. Now lets take the omni god of Christianity (which I am sure most here hold to) and slot that god into Roe's argument. He is all powerful, all loving and intervenes in the universe. When we do this, we see that this argument is both valid and sound. Why couldn't this omni god just lower the windows of the car that kid was in? Roll them back up just before the dad gets back? Sure the dad wouldn't have learned a lesson, but is that really worth the suffering of the child and the family afterwards? What was gained by this? Sure questions aren't arguments by #$*@ing definition! The reason I think Cameron has that little BTW thing about questions is because there is no answer to the question other than "my god is the strongest and he makes the rules so I have to listen no matter what or I get punished". Sounds like an abusive relationship, not a loving one.
Tobie, your sentiments and points are well taken and I just wanted you to know I read what you wrote and take it to heart and reflect on it. While I may get casual and play around with many topics, there are 2 that I hold in Huber regard: the top is this general issue of evil. The other is to convey I don’t categorize all people by camp and therefore dismiss or disrespect people because they’re skeptical agnostic or atheist (though I might because of their style or their sarcastic starting comments). There’s smart and thoughtful people in both camps. Rather than get into replies here, I just wanted you to know I hear you. For real. MKL
@@mkl2237 I know I say this every time, but as always thoughtful and sincere. Good on you MKL! I am not going to get into the weeds here, I will just say this : I agree there are smart people in all camps. I know the Problem of Suffering is tough topic for all camps! I think it is the topic that has deconverted most ex-Christians and I know a lot of Christians struggle with it. It sucks to see the world as it is, people hurting each other and nature being nature. Once again thanks for checking in and being you, my friend. Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted. Matthew 5:4
Can someone explain to me what Cameron's last point on optimism is trying to get at? I get the whole idea of Theists having a better way/reason to be optimistic, but it doesn't really explain why we should or need to be optimistic. It just seems to me as a coping mechanism to attempt to grasp our minds around the gross amounts of suffering around us rather than actually explaining why such sufferings exist. Sorry if I sound dumb or seems like I'm not getting his point, just kinda confused 😕
As a Christian, I agree with you. I do not think that his claim proved any validity in a theistic worldview, rather just a lack of hope in an atheistic worldview. However, his other two points were pretty well composed in my opinion.
DO NOT BE ANXIOUS OVER ANYTHING LET YOUR PETITION BE MADE KNOWN TO GOD.GOD IS OUR STRENGTH AND HOPE FOR EVERYTHING WE NEED IN THIS WORLD AND BEYOND TRUST IN HIM PHILIPPIANS 4.6.7)AMEN
At the beginning of the talk, Cameron said that "Questions aren't arguments." This is technically true because an argument is a collection of premises and a conclusion. However, this statement is highly misleading because some questions contain implicit arguments. For example, someone can say: "Do you think it's possible for anyone to win the lottery without playing the lottery?" The argument being that it's impossible to win the lottery without actually playing it (obviously).
this is amazing Cameron. this is why i started supporting you on Patreon. you are able to filter an unbelievable amount of knowledge and information down to a practical level. exactly what i need as i encounter these types of issues on a weekly basis. keep it up!
Has any philosopher ever entertained the idea that all evil is a result of human free will? For instance a hurricane kills a bunch of people, but didn’t those people have the free will choice to live there? Didn’t their ancestors make the free will choice to start a family in that location? We know that a hurricane in the abscene of human life isn’t evil it’s just a hurricane. But human beings at some point made free will choices that led them to be in the eventual path of that disaster. The same reasoning could go with any form of “natural evil”. Thoughts?
In reality I believe it is humans who exercise evil. But if you enter a god into the picture then you must take into account intentionally designed suffering. Human free will didn’t create disease…god did.
@@reality1958 The idea behind my thought process would be that disease/viruses as we know it are simply organisms looking to survive and propagate just like any other form of life. That inherently is not evil. If humans have the free will choice to live and interact with the world as they please they will come into contact with these organisms and they will respond accordingly. But that once again would be the human's free will choices to be in a certain location or partake in specific actions that would lead them to the exposure to this virus/disease.
@@user-wg5dm6oc3t well there you go. That is the point. Suffering. The question is what is the moral reason for a god to intentionally design suffering for living things that feel pain.
Name a place where humans can live and no natural disaster can happen that kills humans, then think if 7 billion people can live there. In addition to the fact that it is false that people can choose where to live.
@@CapturingChristianity Hi Cameron. I understood the Natural Law Theodicy but think it's weak. Surely God could have made the natural world completely benevolent? Doing so would have the huge advantage of throwing the entire focus and responsibility for evil onto human beings and their free will, and would contribute to soul building, etc. I don't agree with the free will and soul building arguments for evil, but at least they are reasonably credible. However, the fact that children die of cancer, drown in floods, etc, is the strongest argument against an omnibenevolent God. I said you side stepped the issue because you yourself say something along the lines of . . . "Does Natural Law provide a good enough reason why children die in a tsunami?". Surely as a Christain you have to believe that it does? In the video, however, you say you change your mind about this depending on the day. That's side stepping the issue and indicates to me at least that you think that the Natural law Theodicy argument is weak. To sum up . . . surely your God can't be all loving if bad things happen to people, and it's not as result of their own actions?
If I were still a Christian today, your talk would have left me less convinced of it, not more. You have presented nothing new, while demonstrating the shallowness of your reasoning process. If you want to know how an atheist handles the problem of suffering, read Epictetus and Sartre.
@@TheOtherCaleb He got the Christian belief right on the money: God has reasons for suffering that are beyond us, so *shrugs helplessly*. That's it. That's his whole argument. If you believe that too, then I guess you agree with him...?
@@riverofthewood I’ve got a different view of the metaphysics of omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, etc. Nonetheless, my theodicy would indeed include situations when God allows suffering for a reason that *will* be realized in the future.
@@TheOtherCaleb You realize there's nothing whatsoever new about that idea, right? It's the same old story Christians have been telling forever. And that is why we are still talking about the problem of suffering all these centuries later. As long as you can pretend that the answer is too great or to obscure for us to be able to understand, then you don't have to answer the question. So just like it's always been, it's a cop-out.
It's not that God allows "evil". Its that God creates it, " I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things." Isaiah 45:7.
@@realestateunplugged6129 Isaiah 45:7 King James Version The N.I.V changed it. They didn't even bother to use a synonym. I'm a Jew. That verse has always been troubling to Christians. Either everything comes from God or God isn't God.
The KJ version has made several interpretation errors. If you want the closes word-for-word translation (English), look at the NASB or better yet, look at the Septuagint. If you are Jewish, look at the Jewish Bible and see "I create woe."
@William Diaz What exactly is evil? Is it some gooey type substance that gets on people and makes them do bad things? Evil is a departure from good. Much like you will never find rust without iron, you’ll never find a lie without truth, and you’ll never find evil unless there is a departure from good, however, Iron, truth, and good can and do all exist without its opposite, I say this because you seem to think because God created all things that means somehow He created evil. However evil cannot exist unless there is a departure from good. God is the standard of good and anything that deviates from Him is evil. So no God didn’t create evil, evil is the result of doing the opposite of who He is.
@@rotm1313 Yes, mistakes were made by those who did not understand the Hebrew language. You quoted another English version. The Hebrew reads; 45:7 יוֹצֵר אוֹר וּבוֹרֵא חֹשֶׁךְ עֹשֶׂה שָׁלוֹם וּבוֹרֵא רָע אֲנִי יְהוָה עֹשֶׂה כָל־אֵֽלֶּה׃ ס the word used is רָע meaning to be bad or evil. Strong's H7489 in the following manner: evil. Our books are written in Hebrew or Aramaic. In some rare cases a combination of the two. Even if we use "woe" its synonym is wretchedness. Which it's synonyms are pain and suffering. You can't get away from it. God does these things.
First of all. God doesn’t let us die. That’s the first thing to remember. Secondly there is no hell. We end up In pain through our choices but by releasing the pain and repenting we can grow in love at any point after death. Thirdly, if we were connected to god, he would tell us there is a tsunami coming in plenty of time to escape it. Fourthly god wants a connection with us all. So if you aren’t hearing, that’s genuinely your own fault. God is there if you’re humble enough to feel you own grief and connect.
@@CapturingChristianity " It could be that God has morally sufficient reasons to allow evil and suffering. " Your God is omnipotent, whatever reason or end he has to allow suffering could be achieved without suffering by an omnipotent being. If God requires evil and suffering to achieve anything, he’s NOT omnipotent.
@@CapturingChristianity If God can’t soul build without suffering, why call him omnipotent? Does that also mean that there will be suffering in Heaven to achieve these goods ? Wouldnt that make Hell desirable aka would allow to achieve the so-called high order goods
BELIEF certainly can give you optimism. It is a great reassurance through the hard times you speak of. There are several problems not touched on though. Belief is just that. It's not necessarily truth. It can lead to truth but the farther fetched the belief the more unlikely the belief will be true. I can believe a girl likes me & may even fall in love with me & this is not unreasonable. Happens quite often. You however believe in an invisible magic man who is completely hidden from mankind. Who loves us & wants a personal relationship with us despite not caring if we are able to experience him or not in a way that will convince each one who attempts to. Also pain & suffering DOES NOT always lead to virtuous endurance. Just as often it leads to mental illness or death. And which type of suffering are you referring to? That caused by "God" for his purposes or just random bad times? Or are these the same? Your presentation was very well thought out but it presumes so many caveats which may or may not be viable.
I like your comment, but you lack the personal connection with god to understand certain things. God really does care. I know this because every time I’m truly humble god is there. This shows me the problem is me, not god. There is definitely no virtuous point to suffering though. God is not a maniac. But we are allowed to create things out of harmony with love, and we have. We’ve created fear; grief and anger. Literally all of these are releasable emotionally; so damage is never actually done in the end. At any point we can choose to be sorry and forgive those who made mistakes in love. In the end, gods universe is built around love. How could we learn fully what love is, if we didn’t have the choice to operate outside of love, albeit very unsuccessfully.
Free Will collapses into Jack's argument (unless he got it from somewhere else). 1. The good actions are those that ought to be done. 2. The evil actions are those that ought not be done. 3. Suppose an action is evil. 4. The action in 3 ought not be done. 5. Free will is promoted if and only if at least one person does the action in 3 (hence why God can't just create a world where people in reality just never do evil due to preferences). 6. Free will is a valuable thing. 7. That which promotes value is that which ought to be done. 8. The person does the action in 3 if and only if it ought to be done. 9. The person does what ought not to be done if and only if it ought to be done. 10. 9 is a contradiction so some premise in this argument must be rejected. We can reject 1 or 2, but then that would require showing actions which are good to do which aren't those that ought to be done, or the equivalent for evil actions. To my knowledge no good examples of those exist. 3 is an assumed premise, we could reject it by just assuming that there is no such thing as an evil action, i.e. one that ought not be done. But I don't think a Christian would want to make that assumption. 4 follows from 2 and 3, so we're not rejecting 4 unless we reject 2 or 3 (which probably aren't happening). 5 is the first genuinely contestable premise. God has free will and a preference against doing genuinely evil things. God always does what ought to be done and avoids doing what ought not be done, and yet he has free will. So just given the nature of God himself, there's no reason to believe 5, and given that we have to throw at least one premise out, it turns out that 5 is a pretty good candidate. 6 is another one on the chopping block. If what one means by free will is that they have the genuine possibility of doing what ought not be done, then by that definition, then plausibly God doesn't actually have free will. But if God is a perfect being, i.e. contains all the most valuable positive properties in their highest exemplification of value, then God lacking free will must mean that it isn't a valuable thing (else God would be less perfect by its lack). One could try to reject 7, but that puts Soul Building in jeopardy. Why ought it be the case that soul building be done, even if soul building is a valuable thing for persons (groups of persons)? Without 7, there's no connection between soul building and our actions so I don't think rejecting 7 is an option. 8 follows from 5-7 and so rejecting 8 is really going to demand rejecting 5 or 6. 9 follows from 2, 3 applied to 8, so again 5 or 6 is going to be the one we throw out. In short this argument results in a dilemma: It cannot be true that both: free will is promoted if and only if at least one person does what ought not be done, and that free will is a valuable thing. Soul Building: Why I don't find this one convincing is babies. Any baby that dies a baby is a baby that will never have experienced soul building. So either said babies go to heaven (age of innocence and all) defective in that they never experienced soul building, or they don't. If they do, then permanent evil has been done to them in permanent defect of the soul that God cannot undo. If they aren't defective when they go to heaven, despite a lack of soul building, then soul building is something that God can imbue into souls that never experienced it personally, or it's not a defect in souls at all and so there's nothing to fix, but no real value gained by experiencing it over not experiencing it. Natural Law: Possibly, natural laws can exist without tsunamis that just wipe out thousands of people. And so the only reason you'd accept natural laws like these is if you thought there was something valuable in the suffering they cause (like soul building) or the predictable harms that people could do to each other in the exercise of their will. So this section is actually predicated on the success of the other two.
@@reality1958 I'm assuming they believe it's true. Otherwise there would be no problem of evil, since even if it ought to be the case that God prevents evils, God doesn't always do what ought to be done. So there could be gratuitous evils on their theology.
Premise 1, unless justified, can easily be rejected. The simple question would be what justifies "ought to", free will does not entail any "ought to" if that were the case then evil cannot be justified by free will.
@@diegonicucs6954 I'm not arguing that free will entails anything about oughts. The premise is ultimately just a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for an action's being good. If the premise were false then there would be some good actions for which it's not the case that they ought to be done. But if that's the case, then what makes them good if it's not the case that anyone ever ought to do them? That's obviously just a nonsense use of the term "good" in a way that no normal person would ever use the term, for the sole purpose of "well ashyuallying" out of a premise.
"Able, Willing"...but Hume forgets God is also Just. Basically Hume is looking at humans as innocent creatures, but from God's perspective they are not innocent, so any suffering that befalls a human, or humans, isn't undeserved, and any saving from suffering is pure grace.
If you assume god is just from the beginning then you are begging the question. The question(more or less) is “is god just?” If you assume that then you’re reasoning is circular
i would ask, why is the natural system the way it is? God allows for an earthquake to kill many, etc. for those that believe in original sin, is that the answer? because of Adam's sin?
Really appreciate your work Cameron so I'm saying this with the utmost respect. Your delivery and logic were pretty tepid. To minimize the emotional part of suffering is to make humans robots and that doesn't jive with the world we live in, and your answers seemed very vague at best. Not to mention your Q&A was pretty pathetic. I can't point fingers because I couldn't do any better, but I don't consider myself an apologist. You never considered the devil and demons role with pain and suffering? REALLY!? EVER!!? And you're giving a talk on it?! And then your answer..."look into it YOURSELF and see what the scholars say." Ok...YOU'RE supposed to be the one giving a talk on suffering so you should be well versed in the subject which is why we came to hear what you had to say...but....ok...thanks for that. Jeez. Then the next one about people going to hell who don't hear the Gospel you give some watered down remark about how we condemn ourselves based upon the light that we have....yeah...humans purposely cause themselves to writhe in unspeakable agony forever....under our OWN DECISION...That's just stupid. That's like saying every person who's guilty would force themselves to stay in a burning inferno prison no matter the pain and suffering there if the sun was shining and the grass was green outside and they could go if they wanted....ALL because they chose that. What kind of demented thinking is this? And then you say "there's more to say but I'll leave it at that." WELL YEAH! That's why they asked you dude, to wrap up the questions with well thought out ideas and logic. Not to say...there's a lot to say...but people choose to go to hell. Another blunder. People go to hell because Jesus said God will throw them into hell because of their sins and they are condemned ALREADY. And this is the condemnation that men loved darkness more than light. THAT is an answer. We don't choose to go to hell dude. Sorry...don't buy that. Dude, I've watched you for years and think a lot of you, but you gotta keep pushing forward and tightening up your perspective and responses.
"The reasons for our suffering are far beyond our reason to understand." So, why didn't your god simply make us so that we could understand? Or is he unable to do that?
Another problem is that if a god exists, that god doesn’t just allow suffering but actually…intentionally…designs it. Some examples are diseases (including over 6000 genetic diseases that infect innocent infant babies), natural disasters, parasites, poisonous plants and animals, predators, infection that leads to gangrene, etc. That a god actually chooses to inflict suffering is the point. That tells you what the nature of that god is…just like the choices of a person.
Did you actually listen to the presentation? God is not a person, but a being that is over our pay grade. Try to explain calculus to an insect…. Let me know how that goes.
Actually God's original design has zero suffering. Once fallen suffering is a natural state of things. You also do not seem to understand the concept of Holiness, God is also perfectly/infinitely Holy, even a speck of wrong doing is amplified 100 fold from Gods perspective, it would be the equivalent of a normal man to Hitler, Hitler's sin is amplified 100 fold compared to a normal man's goodnesss/holiness, it is atrocious what Hitler did in a normal man's eyes. That is what a sinner sin looks like to God's eyes.
@@reality1958 Hello. There is definitely much destruction and pain in this life. In fact there is more pain, violence, and destruction than we could ever know. History has recorded countless examples for us. But the dilemma is not why does God allow all this suffering? The real dilemma is how can a holy God allow all these sinners to live? If justice was to be carried out then every single one of us who perish in hell forever(Revelation 21:8). The flood of Noah was a good act of justice but there's just one problem! God allowed 8 sinners to live. How can a holy God allow sinners into heaven? The answer to this great dilemma is found in Christ alone. Jesus Christ did what none of us could ever do. He followed God completely with perfect righteousness. "God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood-to be received by faith." Romans 3:25
I also think that compared to eternity- even the most miserable painful life here is nothing to us once we move on. So I guess this falls into the God will make up for it argument
Here’s my answer to the atheistic problem of evil. Yes, the world is overall good. However, that alone does not justify unnecessary evils. Unnecessary evils can exist in a overall good world. It’s that the evil shouldn’t outweigh the good. The thing about the problem of evil, is that there are unnecessary evils that shouldn’t exist if there is an omnibenevolent and omnipotent being. Now, there’s of course a deeper question which is, why is it that atheists should or can be optimistic if there are these unnecessary evils or any evils at all? Well, let’s suppose each of these cases of natural evils really is completely justified given natural law and a kind of soul-building thing. This is no different than if God were never around because nature just is as it is. It is consistent, and will bring about whatever it happens to bring. If an unintervening God is just and good for creating this world, then so is an atheistic world with laws we have. Although atheists don’t have an afterlife to go to, life is often times leading us to learn from others and things around us. Living is worth it, because we can explore it. Learning is the value (or a value) our life brings. The future can be bleak, but scientific advancements also allows us to grow in health and protection. Our ability to think is what ultimately brings the most value. Thinking is why life is worth it. To think is to live life to the fullest and give purpose to it. Now comes the unnecessary evils. Let’s say not all evils are justifiable. Why live or love life? That is because of its overall goodness, the possibility for growth and overcoming challenges. As pointless as this process is, it is ultimately worth it as it allows us to live with the goods we get, rather than die having not lived at all. Despite that we’ll forget all of our experiences after we die. With these in mind, one may wonder, is there really unjustified evil if there is a God? For that, I currently have no answer, but I suspect that there is still unjustified evil.
@@ailurophile4341 The feeling of hunger and hunger itself, is justifiable when had in a short time interval, fasting is often a good thing. And if healthy enough, people can go past the recommended limit of 24 hours without food and be fine, as long as they continue to drink plenty of water. Hunger is sometimes due to a lack of effort on the humans part. So no, just because I am hungry, I wouldn't call God bad or evil. Even if the hunger was not out of human laziness or something, I wouldn't call God evil. I might say he's not perfect, but I wouldn't say he's evil. Being evil would require the intent to cause harm. Also, "Unnecessary evil is just the absence and lack of good." So if I smash a rock for no reason, would it be evil? If not, that definition is clearly flawed, and for that reason, I do not go by it. Just because you might not be able to know bad without the good, one could make a similar argument that you couldn't know the good without the bad. I don't know if that's why you go by that definition, but it's not the only one you could to go by. An alternative is to say the bad is what works in opposition to what is good.
God doesn’t allow pain or suffering,the Bible says satan is currently in control of the world,it is he who is the author of evil. God allowed humans to try doing things our way when our first parents sinned. However we know that God will put and end to suffering and evil. He will cast down the enemy.
A possible John Dewey (pragmatist) response to the problem of evil? So if God doesn't exist, evil isn't a logical problem. If God exists, but is not omnipotent, evil isn't a logical problem. If God exists AND is omnipotent, evil is part of a plan or architecture for our existence, and also not a logical problem. In all 3 cases, evil remains *our problem*, and we are the ones responsible to solve it. So anywhere on a continuum of God's "powerfulness", the human actions are much the same (i.e., eradicating evil; multiplying good). Therefore, religions should have been more into characterizing good vs. evil than into characterizing God, as figuring out what good and evil actually is, would impact human action. We can figure out what God is from what good is (and the negation of God from what bad is). I understand this to be what Dewey means when referring to God as a "hypostatization" of ideals about good and evil. I'm thinking this is also the atheist position, namely that there is no "problem of evil" other than trying to multiply good/eradicate evil, and that we shouldn't expect solutions to the problem to be handed to us by divine intervention. Swinburn quote: What was the context for it in Swinburn's writing? I fail to see a clear meaning for it to the topic. Or I fail to see how it favors the theist over the atheist or vice versa.
Nothing new here. Supposing humans do have free will and the man is about to leave the twins in the car. God already knows this because he is omniscient yet he chooses to not intervene and let’s the twins die. Either way, the problem of evil hasn’t gone away. God must therefore have taken a choice to NOT intervene which means he is an evil God for allowing it to happen when he could have stopped it. Or, he cannot intervene which means he isn’t omnipotent. Or even he doesn’t know and therefore cannot intervene, meaning he really isn’t a god at all. You apologetics really should think these rationales through
I want to stress the burden of argument. Can a reasonable case be formed against god? In short to reject god, he doesn’t need to be proven guilty of immortality bur only if there is enough evidence to go to trial or for debate. If we have enough evidence to debate the morality of god, then god is deceitful in crafting circumstances leading to a reasonable debate on his character considering the consequence hell.
What amazes me is how much philosophy is its own religion. It imagines its own god then proposes arguments for its god's actions. The God of the Bible is COMPLETELY different from the god Cameron has conjured up for his audience as his philosopher god's prophet. Jesus said, "Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out." John 12 v31 meaning that Jesus was about to replace Satan in heaven as earth's representative. See Luke 4 verses 6-7. Revelation 12 says, "So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. ... Woe to the inhabitants of the earth and the sea! For the devil has come down to you, having great wrath, because he knows that he has a short time." 𝐉𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐨𝐨𝐤 𝐨𝐟 𝐉𝐨𝐛, 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐯𝐞𝐧'𝐬 𝐬𝐚𝐤𝐞!
What's missing is the definition of evil (Noun: profound immorality and wickedness, especially when regarded as a supernatural force). Evil is a bad term used to describe spiritual views attributed to the causation of natural or man-made events. It's a non-starter for most atheists who don't believe in evil or sin. Natural events like tsunami's should not be characterized as evil because there is no intent by nature to produce harm.
Evil isn’t an accurate term I’ll give you that. Though, if you watch his discussion/interview w/ David Wood on the problem of evil, David clarifies that by “evil” people are just referring to bad stuff. Usually, evil is broken down into two categories, the moral evil and the natural evil. Moral evil being the evils (or bad stuff) caused by moral agents. Natural evils being the evils that are caused by nature or something not driven by conscious decisions.
Can someone please explain to this man that there is a difference between an atheist and then naturalist. These two philosophies overlap over one issue is there a God/gods other than that they need not agree on anything else. For instance it's perfectly National for a atheist to not believe in a God but still be spiritual or even believe in the supernatural, personally I do not fall into that camp but to each their own. Cameron you are a philosopher you should know that being specific in your language is very important this is the kind of mistake that I'd expect from Kent hoven not a half decent philosopher.
Yes, it's true one can be an Atheist and not be a Naturalist. But anyone who is a Naturalist is automatically an Atheist. Naturalism is a universal negative fallacy, as it claims to know the supernatural definitely doesn't exist. One would need to be all-knowing to know that (which is ironic because being all-knowing is supernatural trait of God lol)
@@lightbeforethetunnel I guess I abide by a different take on naturalism…which is all that is demonstrated is of the natural. No “supernature “ has ever been demonstrated
I've been trying to think about how i want to respond to this. I think apologists always miss the mark when answering the problem of evil. Lets start with original sin, here's an analogy i like to use. Lets say you (god) build your kids (Adam and Eve) the ultimate play room (garden of eden). You put everything a kid could ever want in that room and they are aloud to play with any toy. But then YOU make the decision to put a bag of heroin (tree of knowledge) smack dab in the middle of it but you forbid your kids from playing with it. Then YOU allow a child molesting heroin addict (the serpent) into your kids play area. You watch as your kids are manipulated and worse. You have the power to stop it but you don't, cause you love your kids so much you don't want to interfere with their free will or at least that's what you tell the court. Be honest though, in this scenario are the kids bad or is it the parent's fault. Clearly its the parents fault, so how is god any different? Why do you excuse such obvious horrid behavior. Has for your response to natural evil, god couldn't build souls without cancer in children? I'm sorry but soul building is such a joke of an answer. I hope someday you come to realization that your religion is chopped full of obvious problems and contradictions.
@@HermaeusMoron Good thing i never said babies. Also it is said we are all goods children, its also said that Adam and Eve were innocent, like children. Its a great analogy that shows one of the many plot holes in the Christian religion.
Interesting, but it's not the Christian response. Look at Job, all these same issues are discussed and you do similarly address them and lead God's response which is that his ways are higher. HOWEVER, God says Job go it right, huh!? Where did Job get it right? Chapter 9, where Job says he needs a days man an advocate, specifically a GODMAN who can represent both sides who justifies redemption, salvation who will initiate a resurrection. NOW, a SAVIOR CANNOT BE EVIL, here's where you properly use your necessity argument that suffering exposes the highest virtue and God's suffering on the cross is the necessity of the suffering of the necessary being to expose the highest way or virtue on the cross. John 3:16 is in context with "just as the serpent was raised in the wilderness " Jesus is not simply saying he "allows " but that he causes the suffering from the evil serpent, and his suffering for all the suffering and evil achieved the highest good which is salvation.
@@tony1685 how is god good here? God wagers satan that Job will remain loyal. God gives satan leave to try to break Job, and 10 people die over this wager. 1. Why does god care what satan thinks? 2. How does the loss of 10 people, 10 loved ones, justify a silly wager in which why would god care what satan thinks anyway?
The problem with the argument from evil is the Atheist argument itself is an appeal to incredulity fallacy. The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone decides that something did not happen or does not exist because they cannot personally understand the workings. The fallacy is an argument from ignorance. And unless Atheists come up with a full working understanding for why/how evil exists, that isn't just speculation or opinions, then it's not something they can base an argument on when arguing against God's existence.
The argument does, however, work quite well against the claim of a good/just god. I would agree it’s not a great argument against a gods existence, because a god could be a monster.
@@reality1958 It doesn't work well against a good/just God either. I actually just finished responding to your question "where did evil originate" in another thread just now, and the answer I wrote there is quite long and once you know that, you'll likely understand why the argument from evil doesn't work as an argument against a good/just God either.
@@lightbeforethetunnel I don’t know where that thread is but I disagree. It works very well. Justice and goodness falls into a pretty consistent line of thinking. For example. It is unjust to kill/punish/blame person A for what person B did. God does this multiple times. It is unjust/immoral to cause another suffering without just cause. God does this…truly…multiple times. And there is more, but I’m sure I will come across your other post soon.
@@reality1958 There is a vast difference between seeing that something happened for no reason and seeing no reason for why something happened. God knows an infinite number of goods and bads; we know a finite. Every argument we make is based in our attempts to understand God’s intentions
@@whatsinaname691 I understand your logic, but that still doesn’t evidence that gods intentions are good. That a god knows more than we do has nothing to do with whether that god is moral or not
There's a great book by an LDS author that shows that there's perfect harmony between the prophetic statements concerning the garden of Eden being in Missouri and the Old Testament account concerning the garden of Eden. It's called Canaan, Babylon, and Egypt A Comparative Theological Analysis on Creation sold by Eborn Books.
A couple of other notes: - You trivialize the appeal to emotion at the beginning, and then the crux of your third argument is an emotional appeal? Seems like a double standard. - The child death in a car seat is not an example of free will - it would imply intention to let the children die, which was obviously not the case. It appears to be a freak accident, perhaps caused by exhaustion or inattention or your standard-issue brain fart. - The reality of free will seems extremely tenuous and messy. The Christian apologetic line of "we are not robots" seems to think of us as beings fully in control of our thoughts and actions, (or at least using that as a north star for what we can shoot for), despite a mountain of evidence (and just plain lived experience) showing that not to be true. Addiction, mental illness, the prevalence of erroneous beliefs and conspiracy theories, and the effects of environmental factors run against that idea. Not to mention the wild inconsistency of how free will seems to work in the Christian canon. Some people get direct spiritual interventions from God while others get none. Heaven seems to have no free will, and God also intervenes in Bible stories to change the outcome of peoples' actions.
“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” ~Dawkins
If you have a relationship with God, your mind/heart will change. You will stop “woe is me” and look to be a servant to others. Humans have been constantly solving the woes of this world (example: River blindness with Ivermectin).
@@julianmartinez8954 do you have kids? I discipline my teen daughter much differently than when she was a toddler… Notice that the OT taught on 10 commandments, in the NT Jesus the Christ only mentions 6. God is not changing, his method of teaching has…. Peace…
Barbara, will you help me get some insight. From your perspective on the evil and morality issue…. What response from theists do you find most irritating (or angering)( or weakest)?
Evil does not exist. Good does not exist. Just like, in a dream, you cannot be morally responsible for anything your dream avatar does in the dream.... we are all part of one consciousness, which could be called "God" and we are all literally in that God (are that God), same as dreams are just perceptions actually in the sleeping mind. We are literally in God's mind. It's super simple. It is called nondualism (Advaita Vedanta). We are not the "doers." NO need for ultimate redemption because no need for praise nor blame. All is God playing as humanity, etc.
One possibility: God is imaginary. In classical concept of soul with one life, the situation of one person being born to nice life with medical care, etc. and one to poor conditions.... In those cases even "free will" is not a good explanation. If every person would have the same starting point, then sure. But that is not the case.
@@begood4786 There is evil, therefore God is not imaginary. Sure, if you want to introduce evil god, that makes sense. But not if you want to present an ultimate "good guy".
@@reality1958 What is "bad"? You're still using relational language that only makes sense if God exists. The only way to hold this position is to abandon moral realism, which is obviously false since we immediately experience morality. That's like arguing the physical world doesn't exist.
Simple answer. He is the source of all evil. It is logically IMPOSSIBLE for a good God to create a world where evil exists. A logical contradiction similar to a god creating a square-circle world.
This is actually not true, logically speaking. To create the potential for flaw, there cannot be any pre-existing potential for flaw, or else you didn’t create it, it already existed. But if the potential for flaw didn’t already exist, then creating the potential for flaw could not itself be a flaw. So creating the potential for flaw must be an act of perfection, & therefore necessarily something a perfect being must do.
this guy does not know God. He never preaches scripture, he never calls on God for prayer and help, he never reaches conclusions of God, he's seeking from a pure fleshly standpoint. This is why this guy went catholic. He never had the truth in him. "They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us."
The Answer would have too be God didn’t want too live with Bots so he gave humans free will like himself and cursed humans for disobedience turned his face to us so that we might return too him without knowing out right. It is true God is evil it says soo in the Bible “ God creates light and darkness, Good and Evil. There a video titled YHWH was a dragon by Mr Mythos I recommend the council of El part where YHWH is a Dragon and Elohim is the creator but overall the entire video. It’s interesting in the News Testament Jesus calls the fake Jews the synagogue of Satan and calls the Pharisees Brood of vipers and that their father is the Devil and that they do not know his Father.
He quotes Chevy commercial to suggest people want to skip over the source of problems. Not accept the reality. This guy says do not accept the arguments against the existence of god. It is based on the belief god exists. He never proves god exists. Only that arguments disproving god are faulty. The problem is starting with an assertion that is false. We may believe we have free choice but there is overwhelming scientific evidence it is not true. Of course not yet fully determined. Religion needs free will otherwise repentance has no meaning.
The Gospel: Plain and Simple “But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.” - 2 Corithians 11:3 Ask someone today if they are saved and you will most likely hear responses like these: “I have accepted Jesus into my heart.” Or “I have made him Lord of my life.” “I’ve been baptized.” “I said a prayer.” Sounds all good and churchy don’t it; but it is difficult to de-termine whether or not a person actually knows the gospel that saves them. These useless phrases don’t describe a thing about what the gospel is and has left a devastating effect of people not knowing what it is that they are saved from nor how they are saved; which leaves a more serious effect of people questioning their salvation. Let’s not muddy the simplicity of salvation that is in Christ with vague church sounding phrases that do not communicate anything. But rather present God’s word with clarity and assuredness. So here is the gospel: plain and simple. Sin was passed upon all men by one man Adam, and death is a consequence of this sin (Rom 5:12). Mankind has an eternal destiny of condemnation and wrath - Hell - because of this sin (Rom 6:23). No matter what good works one might do we are still found sinners in the sight of our Creator God. And all unrighteousness and those who follow get indignation and wrath. We cannot be found righteous for by God’s law we are found sinners (Rom 3:19-20). If we have broken even one law we are found guilty. It is for this reason of not being able to create our own righteousness and being born in a sinful flesh that we need a savior (Titus 3:5). Christ is that Savior, God manifested in the flesh, sinless, died in our place on a cross 2000 years ago. Taking upon him the wrath and judgement that was intended for us sinners. And it is through his bloodshed, burial, and resurrection on our behalf that we are able to have peace with God and forgiveness of our sins (1 Cor 15:1-4, Col 3:14). This good news is unto all but only those that believe in it are made righteous in Christ (Romans 3:22). It is then after we have heard this good news of Christ’s righteousness available to us freely, that we are sealed with the Holy Spirit and we are now part of Christ’s body the church (Eph 1:13) There is nothing that we need to do, no good works that are required, and no bad works that can separate us from our new position in Christ (Romans 8:35-39). Faith and belief in this information from God’s word is the gospel. The gospel is not accepting Jesus into your heart. The gospel is not making him lord of your life, it is not saying a prayer and it is not being baptized with water. So next time someone asks you if you are saved. Give them the clear assured answer Yes And let me tell you why Find more free resources at www.graceambassadors.com
A couple people have commented that the quote from Hume is misattributed. The quote is not misattributed. It's found in his "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion" from 1779. In the quote, Hume is paraphrasing Epicurus.
Keep calm and carry on.
@@jakegreen5081 "Hume is paraphrasing Epicurus." It's not the speaker who is paraphrasing., it's Hume.
@@HasanUnknown I know you Muslims don't believe in the book of John cause it's the last of the synoptic Gospels so you feel like it's been exaggerated, and you've watched a lot of Bart Ehrman. I have as well, and there are real problems with Islam. If you honestly look at your faith in the same light that you would another one you disagree with, you'll find that there are legitimate problems with Islam. The least is that your prophet said he thought originally he was interacting with a demon. No one who ever interacted with God thought they were dealing with anything other than something beyond righteous. Isaiah said he fell as one dead because of the overwhelming glory he encountered. And he claimed that Jesus didn't die on the cross but that it was made to appear that he had. How did he know this 600 years later? Because an angel in a cave told him. Really? Ok...cause Christian, Jewish, secular historians all agreed that Jesus died on the cross. Whether you believe that he rose is another story, but that claim holds no water. He married a girl at 6 years old and slept with her at 9 years old while hew as in his 50's. He clearly got everything he wanted out of the human Experience. Money, power, sex. Meanwhile Jesus had no place to lay his head to sleep.
But of all of the gospels you guys will at least believe the book of Mark because it was the first book of the synoptic gospels. In the book of Mark the house where Jesus was at was so full of people that they had to lower a crippled man in from the roof, and Jesus said "Your sins are forgiven you" and they were upset saying "Who can forgive sins but God Himself" and Jesus said something amazing...."Which is easier to say...your sins are forgiven, or take up your bed and walk? But so you may KNOW that the son of man has power on earth to forgive sins, Take up your bed and walk!" and the man immediately got up and walked out. If you don't believe the other gospels, you have to at least believe the first one written where there are CLEARLY comparisons between Jesus and God. Yes..he was a man..but he was ALSO God...the spirit of God was in Him. So yeah....God in one place as a human is not as great as a non corpreal God that is infinitely in all places and times etc. Outside of space and time in fact. So...the finite can never be as great at the infinite. Jesus was God in a finite world. ...in the human body. That's not nearly a problem. Mohammad never did one miracle. They say his only miracle was the koran. Well can you believe a book that contains satanic verses.....claims the sun sets in a muddy spring?
And the Sun runs his course for a period determined for him: that is the decree of (Him) the Exalted in Might, the All-Knowing.
Qur’an 36:38
It is not for the sun to overtake the moon, nor doth the night outstrip the day. They float each in an orbit.
Qur’an 36:40
The quran says twice that the sun sets in a pool of muddy water:
Till, when he reached the setting-place of the sun, he found it setting in a muddy spring, and found a people thereabout. We said: O Dhu’l-Qarneyn! Either punish or show them kindness.
Qur’an 18:86
Till, when he reached the rising-place of the sun, he found it rising on a people for whom We had appointed no shelter therefrom.
Qur’an 18:90
There are a lot of blatantly inaccurate problems with the Koran. like that demons fly up your nose at night time etc. Just ...take some time to study your own religion and see it in it's entirety...faults and all...as well as it's beauty and you'll be more convincing to the next person who isn't as blind to those issues as you are. There's nothing as beautiful as realizing that you could and were genuinely wrong about something. It makes you more humble, and willing to look for truth whereever you find it regardless of what you feel or how biased you are about it. Google has millions of pages that will school you about the problems. Only when you've looked at them honestly....and worked through them can you truly be in a situation where you can proselytize others.
The stars were created by Allah as missiles to throw at the devils? In order to not let them eavesdrop on the heavenly council? Not exactly a "scientific" world view.
And We have (from of old), adorned the lowest heaven with lamps,
and we have made such (Lamps as) missiles to drive away Satans, ...
-- Sura 67:5
We have indeed decked the lower heaven with beauty (in) the stars,
(for beauty) and for guard against all obstinate rebellious Satans.
(So) they should not strain their ears in the direction of the Exalted Assembly but be cast away from every side.
-- Sura 37:6-8
See also Suras 15:16-18, 55:33-35 etc. which seem to speak about the same thing.
I always love these videos, thank you for this ❤️
One addition I'd make, though I know your time was too limited to include it, is that the probability of the Problem of Evil's success is always going to be inversely proportional to the probability of God's existence. This is obvious to point out, but it leads to the point that arguments we make which improve the likelihood of God's existence should be seen as decreasing the probability that needless suffering exists, for this example.
John 16:33 I tell you all this, through me you will find peace. you will suffer in this world but take courage I have overcome the world…. Our savior is the King of kings and Lord of lords…
The first two answers to the PoE pose significant issues of compatibility with Christendom.
1) Free will
2) Natural Law
The premise is that the laws of nature, such that they are - and must be, lead to suffering.
And that Free will, leaving the possibility for evil open, leads to evil choices.
The issue then arises of the question of Heaven?
Will there be no free will in heaven?
Will there be no reliable physics in heaven?
The issue is - if heaven is possible, then either evil and suffering do not have to follow from free will and natural law. And we are back to the dilemma.
Or evil and suffering will always follow from free will and natural law, and heaven is not possible.
you can do anything you want in heaven, as its states that there is no corruption or sin or evil in heaven , on earth it will still exist until the day comes where they are gone to lake of fire. The reason we want to do sinful things is because they are there to tempt us if its not there we will have no desire to do it nor no reason to even think about it , i believe psychics will not apply there simply because pretty much endless things to do there
Your case is well stated however there are a multitude of differences between the Heaven and the earth post judgement vs the earth today. Some of this include that our sin nature will have been wiped clean, we will have no physical or material needs as we will either be in the spirit or in glorified bodies. We will have a complete understanding of the full consequences of sin and will share the same revulsion for sin that God does and we will have inherited the righteousness of Christ that was given to us when Jesus paid the price of our sins. We have not get the full benefit of that righteousness this side of eternity because our sin nature is still a part of us but once removed our nature will align with the nature of God and will will fully realize what it is to be an image bearer of God. So, without even touching on the other differences, these alone are enough to allow free will in heaven and the new earth yet there will be no sin as no one would choose the lesser when the greater is in infinite abundance. Natural laws do not apply in heaven as it is a spiritual realm. In the new earth will will be in incorruptible/immortal bodies so disease is null and void and natural disasters will be avoided with our enhanced knowledge, direct action by God, or rendered impotent as we will be immortal.
I really don't think your example for Moral Evil fits the explanation. This man didn't choose to forget his children were in the car, he just forgot. I don't think anyone would want to choose that.
How can a father forget his two children in the car before leaving?
He chose to act negligently.
@@CapturingChristianity HAVE YOU COMPLETELY lost your sense of logic??You're actually saying(& I didn't think even you would stoop this low)this guy made a 'clear headed conscious' choice to act in a negligent way which ended in his children's death!! If I remember the case correctly, it was the wife who said she was going to do so & so, then he had just put in a 12 hour shift, they were exchanging cars, in other words the plan didn't go as planned. No different than leaving your laptop on your roof but with more dyer consequences. Do you choose to act negligently when you are running around getting kids ready & you forget to plug their seatbelt in?? Sometimes we get fortunate & I bet you can think of many times when you have & other times we drop the ball. The consequences are not purposeful though they are consequences none the less. YOU had to answer this way in order to make your line of reasoning cohesive. Stop trying to APOLOGIZE for God!! Can you not imagine he could have come up with a better way? If this man chose to act negligently then WOW God's negligence is astounding!!! One might think he didn't even care.
@@CapturingChristianity I disagree. He didn't choose to act negligently. He forgot. Choosing neglectful behavior requires acknowledging the options and deliberately choosing the worse one. Like leaving a child in a car to run an errand thinking 'they will be fine', or driving drunk. He forgot. There was no choice.
Would there be human suffering if man obeyed God’s commandments?
I come away from this talk suspecting that the audience was thoroughly unchallenged in their beliefs, only reassured that they were correct. This isn't truth-seeking; this is an echo chamber.
One of the reasons I left church and the faith itself was because people were so unserious about real issues in the world. I'm sorry Cameron, I know you tried. But this is deeply unpersuasive to people who have taken these issues seriously.
I would like to challenge you to do better. To seek the truth is to let go of the notion you were right to begin with, to be open-minded enough to allow that a completely different paradigm might be correct. In essence, to let go of your ego. It's a difficult process, but it is vital.
God knows what he’s doing. He didn’t give us too much freedom.
The problem has to be us, we just aren’t willing to admit it. We don’t want to look at the reasons we attract it.
One of the reasons we attract suffering that you’ve not touched upon here is that we literally attract events into our life to help us confront sin.
All of gods laws mean this happens. So much of the suffering you feel, is actually based on your own childhood experiences, getting re-experienced in adult life.
God obviously wants you to be free of pain, so he makes sure events line up in such a way as to best trigger all of your core emotional wounds.
You’ll think this is suffering, but suffering is living in pain, but sadly not connecting with its original cause and releasing it.
Most of our emotions stem from causal emotions in childhood. So we view everything that happens in adult life through that lens.
Little surprised you did not mention redemptive suffering, nor helping as best we can to alleviate suffering of others in the world. Both aspects of suffering matter.
Especially since Redemptive Suffering is a core tenet of Catholicism.
@@cactoidjim1477 Wouldn't matter if it was only in the tao of zen. By ignoring such an appreciable facet of suffering, Cameron just impeaches his own expertise / authority as a speaker. It is a big omission and I for one was awaiting his take on it. Even just 30 seconds and then dismiss it. Too bad.
Guys, his not catholic.Hence no theology on redemptive suffering. His expertise lyes in bringing the experts together to discus the profound questions.
@@arkofthecovenant6235 Thanks, I think we know that. Cameron is simply omitting or forgetting redemptive suffering concepts in the discussion, making it incomplete. Wish he'd included the topic is all.
@@garyworth6046
I could see that. As a catholic speaker and apologetic who also tackles atheism, Trent Horn never disappoints. Btw, I do assume you know who he is. 😀
The forgiveness from that father to the man who killed his son is beautiful but hard to understand as I put myself in the shoes of the father. Wow
Of course it is hard to understand, that is because it doesn't make any sense. This is what a crazy person(or crazy god) would do. 1st thing; normal people would forgive you after you messed up, not before - but Jesus died for sins that were not committed yet - that is not how forgiveness works. The way it works is you mess up then you may be forgiven. You don't go to your wife and say please forgive me, but I am going to forget our anniversary and not get you anything because that is what you mean to me, will you forgive me for forgetting next week? Oh, if if you want to punish someone for me forgetting our anniversary can you punish the kids and not me. That would be crazy, but that is exactly what god human sacrifice is. 2nd thing, this is a blood sacrifice, a human sacrifice and worse it is an innocent man being sacrificed for the crimes of others. Normal people punish the guilty and normal people know it is immoral to punish an innocent person for a guilty persons crime. 3rd, you and me both forgive other people without the need for a blood sacrifice. So if humans are capable of forgiving without a blood sacrifice so should god be capable of forgiving without a blood sacrifice. In other words people can do something god can't do. Lastly it wasn't really a sacrifice since according to Christians Jesus never died, he spent 1 1/2 days in Hell we are told(still alive in Hell) and then he returned and ascended into heaven according to the gospels. I mean if Jesus was god and all powerful he could have turned his pain receptors off while in Hell and we would never know the difference. Also, not to mention nothing could ever hurt a real god. But this god can have his feelings hurt if you call him a name. When someone does this he acts like the biggest baby ever and won't forgive them ever and also being the biggest bully in the universe he sends anyone who curses him to his torture pit for eternity, no discussion, no clamming down and to reason why someone called him a name, like a normal person would do. No, this god is irrational(AKA crazy) and he doesn't care about your reasons for doing so because he is unreasonable. In other words he is not an all loving god as the Christians claim.
The good news is there is not even one piece of empirical evidence(AKA good evidence) this god exists.
Peace
In Catholicism forgiveness is not only a virtue(charity) but a command that is contingent upon YOU being also forgiven. It’s in the bible. 🕯✝️🕯
@@arkofthecovenant6235 So you forgive someone because you are commanded. I forgive someone because it is the right thing to do. It is also good to forgive for your own peace of mind as carrying a grudge only hurts you. But if you only forgiving someone because this is what you are told to do to be rewarded(heaven) or avoid punishment(Hell) then you are doing it for selfish reasons, which makes you a shallow self centered person.
I used to be a Catholic, but now I realize I had no good reason to warrant believing this anymore.
Peace
WHEN YOU ARE BROKEN HEARTED IAM CLOSE TO YOU(PSALM 34.18 )AMEN
Great job Cam!
We can only blame ourselves for the suffering in this world. We do it to ourselves, it is not someone/thing else that is 'allowing' it. We have free will. We choose to do little about suffering. We choose leaders who cause much of that suffering, we don't stand up to leaders who create the suffering, we say trivial things like 'thoughts and prayers' but never DO anything worthwhile to fix issues. We spend money on trivial things when we could be helping people all over the world. We glorify people when we shouldn't be glorifying anyone, at all, etc.
We are too busy trying to get the house, the car, the comfy life. We 'care' for a minute, but we don't care long enough. We can't stop all evil, we can't stop all suffering, but we sure can do a lot more than we are doing. Maybe you don't have the connections to start something, but you can join when there is one.
We have organizations, and people do join, but not enough join, because it usually causes us to be uncomfortable for awhile, and most people don't want to be uncomfortable. So, we sit and watch as things happen to others, and do nothing. Some do, too many do not.
We could be doing more.
The suffering in this world is caused by people. It is not caused by God.
Thank you
GOD USES PAIN TO HUMBLE US AMEN
Sounds like a malevolent god
In a world where there's no God, it's actually worse than if God does exist. If God doesn't exist, pain is meaningless, purposeless and life is ultimately hopeless. If God does exist, pain is not purposeless, and there is still the hope of recieving eternal life WITHOUT pain. Athei by definition makes it worse.
William Roe's argument is valid, but is it sound? Well, it depends on how you define god. If you define god in that argument as a god who doesn't care about his creation, he just set the natural laws in motion at the beginning and watches (or not) how this plays out, then no the argument doesn't refute that god. The god as I just described would be perfectly compatible with the world around us, with all the unnecessary suffering.
Now lets take the omni god of Christianity (which I am sure most here hold to) and slot that god into Roe's argument. He is all powerful, all loving and intervenes in the universe. When we do this, we see that this argument is both valid and sound.
Why couldn't this omni god just lower the windows of the car that kid was in? Roll them back up just before the dad gets back? Sure the dad wouldn't have learned a lesson, but is that really worth the suffering of the child and the family afterwards? What was gained by this?
Sure questions aren't arguments by #$*@ing definition! The reason I think Cameron has that little BTW thing about questions is because there is no answer to the question other than "my god is the strongest and he makes the rules so I have to listen no matter what or I get punished". Sounds like an abusive relationship, not a loving one.
Tobie, your sentiments and points are well taken and I just wanted you to know I read what you wrote and take it to heart and reflect on it.
While I may get casual and play around with many topics, there are 2 that I hold in Huber regard: the top is this general issue of evil. The other is to convey I don’t categorize all people by camp and therefore dismiss or disrespect people because they’re skeptical agnostic or atheist (though I might because of their style or their sarcastic starting comments). There’s smart and thoughtful people in both camps. Rather than get into replies here, I just wanted you to know I hear you. For real. MKL
@@mkl2237 I know I say this every time, but as always thoughtful and sincere. Good on you MKL! I am not going to get into the weeds here, I will just say this :
I agree there are smart people in all camps. I know the Problem of Suffering is tough topic for all camps! I think it is the topic that has deconverted most ex-Christians and I know a lot of Christians struggle with it. It sucks to see the world as it is, people hurting each other and nature being nature.
Once again thanks for checking in and being you, my friend.
Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted. Matthew 5:4
These ungodly ads on christian youtube channels are so ridiculous
Can someone explain to me what Cameron's last point on optimism is trying to get at?
I get the whole idea of Theists having a better way/reason to be optimistic, but it doesn't really explain why we should or need to be optimistic.
It just seems to me as a coping mechanism to attempt to grasp our minds around the gross amounts of suffering around us rather than actually explaining why such sufferings exist.
Sorry if I sound dumb or seems like I'm not getting his point, just kinda confused 😕
As a Christian, I agree with you. I do not think that his claim proved any validity in a theistic worldview, rather just a lack of hope in an atheistic worldview. However, his other two points were pretty well composed in my opinion.
DO NOT BE ANXIOUS OVER ANYTHING LET YOUR PETITION BE MADE KNOWN TO GOD.GOD IS OUR STRENGTH AND HOPE FOR EVERYTHING WE NEED IN THIS WORLD AND BEYOND TRUST IN HIM PHILIPPIANS 4.6.7)AMEN
At the beginning of the talk, Cameron said that "Questions aren't arguments." This is technically true because an argument is a collection of premises and a conclusion. However, this statement is highly misleading because some questions contain implicit arguments. For example, someone can say: "Do you think it's possible for anyone to win the lottery without playing the lottery?"
The argument being that it's impossible to win the lottery without actually playing it (obviously).
'We are type of animal' can anyone explain what Cameron meant by this?
Biological and genetic similarities
@@hopefull61256 Can an animal worship God?
@@-WondersofCreation I sometimes wonder if they do. If in times of terror or sadness they cry out to God in some sort of visceral way.
Some animals experience strong emotions, particularly mammals who mourn the often violent death of their babies.
We qualify as animals
this is amazing Cameron. this is why i started supporting you on Patreon. you are able to filter an unbelievable amount of knowledge and information down to a practical level. exactly what i need as i encounter these types of issues on a weekly basis. keep it up!
Has any philosopher ever entertained the idea that all evil is a result of human free will? For instance a hurricane kills a bunch of people, but didn’t those people have the free will choice to live there? Didn’t their ancestors make the free will choice to start a family in that location? We know that a hurricane in the abscene of human life isn’t evil it’s just a hurricane. But human beings at some point made free will choices that led them to be in the eventual path of that disaster. The same reasoning could go with any form of “natural evil”. Thoughts?
In reality I believe it is humans who exercise evil. But if you enter a god into the picture then you must take into account intentionally designed suffering. Human free will didn’t create disease…god did.
@@reality1958 The idea behind my thought process would be that disease/viruses as we know it are simply organisms looking to survive and propagate just like any other form of life. That inherently is not evil. If humans have the free will choice to live and interact with the world as they please they will come into contact with these organisms and they will respond accordingly. But that once again would be the human's free will choices to be in a certain location or partake in specific actions that would lead them to the exposure to this virus/disease.
@@UncensoredChristian the accurate question is why would a god intentionally design diseases to infect life and inflict suffering
@@user-wg5dm6oc3t well there you go. That is the point. Suffering. The question is what is the moral reason for a god to intentionally design suffering for living things that feel pain.
Name a place where humans can live and no natural disaster can happen that kills humans, then think if 7 billion people can live there. In addition to the fact that it is false that people can choose where to live.
This was pretty poor. Is it me, or did he simply sidestep the problem of natural evil (floods, etc)?
The Natural Law Theodicy, the second reason, is a direct response to natural disasters.
@@CapturingChristianity Hi Cameron. I understood the Natural Law Theodicy but think it's weak. Surely God could have made the natural world completely benevolent? Doing so would have the huge advantage of throwing the entire focus and responsibility for evil onto human beings and their free will, and would contribute to soul building, etc. I don't agree with the free will and soul building arguments for evil, but at least they are reasonably credible. However, the fact that children die of cancer, drown in floods, etc, is the strongest argument against an omnibenevolent God.
I said you side stepped the issue because you yourself say something along the lines of . . . "Does Natural Law provide a good enough reason why children die in a tsunami?". Surely as a Christain you have to believe that it does? In the video, however, you say you change your mind about this depending on the day. That's side stepping the issue and indicates to me at least that you think that the Natural law Theodicy argument is weak. To sum up . . . surely your God can't be all loving if bad things happen to people, and it's not as result of their own actions?
If I were still a Christian today, your talk would have left me less convinced of it, not more.
You have presented nothing new, while demonstrating the shallowness of your reasoning process.
If you want to know how an atheist handles the problem of suffering, read Epictetus and Sartre.
Glad to know that, but it’s extremely irrelevant. Point out what Cameron got wrong.
@@TheOtherCaleb He got the Christian belief right on the money: God has reasons for suffering that are beyond us, so *shrugs helplessly*.
That's it. That's his whole argument. If you believe that too, then I guess you agree with him...?
@@riverofthewood I’ve got a different view of the metaphysics of omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, etc. Nonetheless, my theodicy would indeed include situations when God allows suffering for a reason that *will* be realized in the future.
@@TheOtherCaleb You realize there's nothing whatsoever new about that idea, right? It's the same old story Christians have been telling forever. And that is why we are still talking about the problem of suffering all these centuries later.
As long as you can pretend that the answer is too great or to obscure for us to be able to understand, then you don't have to answer the question. So just like it's always been, it's a cop-out.
@@riverofthewood It’s not too obscure for us to understand. Did you miss the part of realized redemption that I put in my comment?
It's not that God allows "evil". Its that God creates it, " I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things." Isaiah 45:7.
"I bring prosperity and create disaster" - NIV
DISASTER not evil. Did you change the word yourself or what is your source dude?
@@realestateunplugged6129 Isaiah 45:7
King James Version The N.I.V changed it. They didn't even bother to use a synonym. I'm a Jew. That verse has always been troubling to Christians. Either everything comes from God or God isn't God.
The KJ version has made several interpretation errors. If you want the closes word-for-word translation (English), look at the NASB or better yet, look at the Septuagint. If you are Jewish, look at the Jewish Bible and see "I create woe."
@William Diaz
What exactly is evil? Is it some gooey type substance that gets on people and makes them do bad things? Evil is a departure from good. Much like you will never find rust without iron, you’ll never find a lie without truth, and you’ll never find evil unless there is a departure from good, however, Iron, truth, and good can and do all exist without its opposite, I say this because you seem to think because God created all things that means somehow He created evil. However evil cannot exist unless there is a departure from good. God is the standard of good and anything that deviates from Him is evil. So no God didn’t create evil, evil is the result of doing the opposite of who He is.
@@rotm1313 Yes, mistakes were made by those who did not understand the Hebrew language. You quoted another English version. The Hebrew reads; 45:7 יוֹצֵר אוֹר וּבוֹרֵא חֹשֶׁךְ עֹשֶׂה שָׁלוֹם וּבוֹרֵא רָע אֲנִי יְהוָה עֹשֶׂה כָל־אֵֽלֶּה׃ ס the word used is רָע meaning to be bad or evil. Strong's H7489 in the following manner: evil. Our books are written in Hebrew or Aramaic. In some rare cases a combination of the two. Even if we use "woe" its synonym is wretchedness. Which it's synonyms are pain and suffering. You can't get away from it. God does these things.
If god is omniscient we are not free
How can we be free and god knowing what we are going to do.
Knowing something does not equate to forcing you to do it.
@@mikeprew but even science proved we don't have free will.
@@papiball9811 No it hasn’t. Not even close. We’re still perfectly free scientifically and philosophically.
First of all. God doesn’t let us die. That’s the first thing to remember.
Secondly there is no hell. We end up In pain through our choices but by releasing the pain and repenting we can grow in love at any point after death.
Thirdly, if we were connected to god, he would tell us there is a tsunami coming in plenty of time to escape it.
Fourthly god wants a connection with us all. So if you aren’t hearing, that’s genuinely your own fault. God is there if you’re humble enough to feel you own grief and connect.
Cameron, all of your reasons are countered by God’s omnipotence and omnibenevolence.
They are not.
@@CapturingChristianity
" It could be that God has morally sufficient reasons to allow evil and suffering. " Your God is omnipotent, whatever reason or end he has to allow suffering could be achieved without suffering by an omnipotent being. If God requires evil and suffering to achieve anything, he’s NOT omnipotent.
@@AT-mu6ov Many higher-order goods (see the section on Soul-Building) necessitate suffering.
@@CapturingChristianity If God can’t soul build without suffering, why call him omnipotent? Does that also mean that there will be suffering in Heaven to achieve these goods ? Wouldnt that make Hell desirable aka would allow to achieve the so-called high order goods
@@CapturingChristianity Wouldn’t that make it a moral obligation to be as malevolent as possible to help others achieve such higher order goods ?
BELIEF certainly can give you optimism. It is a great reassurance through the hard times you speak of. There are several problems not touched on though. Belief is just that. It's not necessarily truth. It can lead to truth but the farther fetched the belief the more unlikely the belief will be true. I can believe a girl likes me & may even fall in love with me & this is not unreasonable. Happens quite often. You however believe in an invisible magic man who is completely hidden from mankind. Who loves us & wants a personal relationship with us despite not caring if we are able to experience him or not in a way that will convince each one who attempts to. Also pain & suffering DOES NOT always lead to virtuous endurance. Just as often it leads to mental illness or death. And which type of suffering are you referring to? That caused by "God" for his purposes or just random bad times? Or are these the same? Your presentation was very well thought out but it presumes so many caveats which may or may not be viable.
I would agree. It’s an incomplete presentation
I like your comment, but you lack the personal connection with god to understand certain things.
God really does care. I know this because every time I’m truly humble god is there. This shows me the problem is me, not god.
There is definitely no virtuous point to suffering though. God is not a maniac. But we are allowed to create things out of harmony with love, and we have.
We’ve created fear; grief and anger. Literally all of these are releasable emotionally; so damage is never actually done in the end. At any point we can choose to be sorry and forgive those who made mistakes in love.
In the end, gods universe is built around love. How could we learn fully what love is, if we didn’t have the choice to operate outside of love, albeit very unsuccessfully.
Free Will collapses into Jack's argument (unless he got it from somewhere else).
1. The good actions are those that ought to be done.
2. The evil actions are those that ought not be done.
3. Suppose an action is evil.
4. The action in 3 ought not be done.
5. Free will is promoted if and only if at least one person does the action in 3 (hence why God can't just create a world where people in reality just never do evil due to preferences).
6. Free will is a valuable thing.
7. That which promotes value is that which ought to be done.
8. The person does the action in 3 if and only if it ought to be done.
9. The person does what ought not to be done if and only if it ought to be done.
10. 9 is a contradiction so some premise in this argument must be rejected.
We can reject 1 or 2, but then that would require showing actions which are good to do which aren't those that ought to be done, or the equivalent for evil actions. To my knowledge no good examples of those exist. 3 is an assumed premise, we could reject it by just assuming that there is no such thing as an evil action, i.e. one that ought not be done. But I don't think a Christian would want to make that assumption. 4 follows from 2 and 3, so we're not rejecting 4 unless we reject 2 or 3 (which probably aren't happening).
5 is the first genuinely contestable premise. God has free will and a preference against doing genuinely evil things. God always does what ought to be done and avoids doing what ought not be done, and yet he has free will. So just given the nature of God himself, there's no reason to believe 5, and given that we have to throw at least one premise out, it turns out that 5 is a pretty good candidate.
6 is another one on the chopping block. If what one means by free will is that they have the genuine possibility of doing what ought not be done, then by that definition, then plausibly God doesn't actually have free will. But if God is a perfect being, i.e. contains all the most valuable positive properties in their highest exemplification of value, then God lacking free will must mean that it isn't a valuable thing (else God would be less perfect by its lack).
One could try to reject 7, but that puts Soul Building in jeopardy. Why ought it be the case that soul building be done, even if soul building is a valuable thing for persons (groups of persons)? Without 7, there's no connection between soul building and our actions so I don't think rejecting 7 is an option.
8 follows from 5-7 and so rejecting 8 is really going to demand rejecting 5 or 6.
9 follows from 2, 3 applied to 8, so again 5 or 6 is going to be the one we throw out. In short this argument results in a dilemma:
It cannot be true that both: free will is promoted if and only if at least one person does what ought not be done, and that free will is a valuable thing.
Soul Building:
Why I don't find this one convincing is babies. Any baby that dies a baby is a baby that will never have experienced soul building. So either said babies go to heaven (age of innocence and all) defective in that they never experienced soul building, or they don't. If they do, then permanent evil has been done to them in permanent defect of the soul that God cannot undo. If they aren't defective when they go to heaven, despite a lack of soul building, then soul building is something that God can imbue into souls that never experienced it personally, or it's not a defect in souls at all and so there's nothing to fix, but no real value gained by experiencing it over not experiencing it.
Natural Law:
Possibly, natural laws can exist without tsunamis that just wipe out thousands of people. And so the only reason you'd accept natural laws like these is if you thought there was something valuable in the suffering they cause (like soul building) or the predictable harms that people could do to each other in the exercise of their will. So this section is actually predicated on the success of the other two.
You say god always does what ought to be done. That surely is a claim, but how do you know that to be true?
@@reality1958 I'm assuming they believe it's true. Otherwise there would be no problem of evil, since even if it ought to be the case that God prevents evils, God doesn't always do what ought to be done. So there could be gratuitous evils on their theology.
@@logos8312 I see. Very good.
Premise 1, unless justified, can easily be rejected. The simple question would be what justifies "ought to", free will does not entail any "ought to" if that were the case then evil cannot be justified by free will.
@@diegonicucs6954 I'm not arguing that free will entails anything about oughts.
The premise is ultimately just a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for an action's being good. If the premise were false then there would be some good actions for which it's not the case that they ought to be done. But if that's the case, then what makes them good if it's not the case that anyone ever ought to do them?
That's obviously just a nonsense use of the term "good" in a way that no normal person would ever use the term, for the sole purpose of "well ashyuallying" out of a premise.
Good stuff
"Able, Willing"...but Hume forgets God is also Just. Basically Hume is looking at humans as innocent creatures, but from God's perspective they are not innocent, so any suffering that befalls a human, or humans, isn't undeserved, and any saving from suffering is pure grace.
You are claiming god is just. Designed suffering indicates otherwise
@@reality1958 You've sinned, you are guilty, there is no saving from suffering God owes you.
What about small kids suffering from hunger? Are they bad sinners too??
@@YuGiOhDuelChannel not the point. The point is a god that intentionally designed suffering. Malevolent
If you assume god is just from the beginning then you are begging the question. The question(more or less) is “is god just?” If you assume that then you’re reasoning is circular
i would ask, why is the natural system the way it is? God allows for an earthquake to kill many, etc. for those that believe in original sin, is that the answer? because of Adam's sin?
Really appreciate your work Cameron so I'm saying this with the utmost respect. Your delivery and logic were pretty tepid. To minimize the emotional part of suffering is to make humans robots and that doesn't jive with the world we live in, and your answers seemed very vague at best. Not to mention your Q&A was pretty pathetic. I can't point fingers because I couldn't do any better, but I don't consider myself an apologist.
You never considered the devil and demons role with pain and suffering? REALLY!? EVER!!? And you're giving a talk on it?! And then your answer..."look into it YOURSELF and see what the scholars say." Ok...YOU'RE supposed to be the one giving a talk on suffering so you should be well versed in the subject which is why we came to hear what you had to say...but....ok...thanks for that. Jeez.
Then the next one about people going to hell who don't hear the Gospel you give some watered down remark about how we condemn ourselves based upon the light that we have....yeah...humans purposely cause themselves to writhe in unspeakable agony forever....under our OWN DECISION...That's just stupid. That's like saying every person who's guilty would force themselves to stay in a burning inferno prison no matter the pain and suffering there if the sun was shining and the grass was green outside and they could go if they wanted....ALL because they chose that. What kind of demented thinking is this? And then you say "there's more to say but I'll leave it at that." WELL YEAH! That's why they asked you dude, to wrap up the questions with well thought out ideas and logic. Not to say...there's a lot to say...but people choose to go to hell. Another blunder. People go to hell because Jesus said God will throw them into hell because of their sins and they are condemned ALREADY. And this is the condemnation that men loved darkness more than light. THAT is an answer. We don't choose to go to hell dude. Sorry...don't buy that. Dude, I've watched you for years and think a lot of you, but you gotta keep pushing forward and tightening up your perspective and responses.
"The reasons for our suffering are far beyond our reason to understand." So, why didn't your god simply make us so that we could understand? Or is he unable to do that?
the question on hell and ignorance of God/Gospel is answered by Luke12: 43-48.
The question is deceptive. God doesn't allow pain and suffering, hw sends it. He creates it. Read the scriptures.
Another problem is that if a god exists, that god doesn’t just allow suffering but actually…intentionally…designs it.
Some examples are diseases (including over 6000 genetic diseases that infect innocent infant babies), natural disasters, parasites, poisonous plants and animals, predators, infection that leads to gangrene, etc.
That a god actually chooses to inflict suffering is the point. That tells you what the nature of that god is…just like the choices of a person.
Did you actually listen to the presentation? God is not a person, but a being that is over our pay grade. Try to explain calculus to an insect…. Let me know how that goes.
@@mighty_monkey_7347 not an answer to the problem, but an appeal to authority fallacy
Actually God's original design has zero suffering. Once fallen suffering is a natural state of things. You also do not seem to understand the concept of Holiness, God is also perfectly/infinitely Holy, even a speck of wrong doing is amplified 100 fold from Gods perspective, it would be the equivalent of a normal man to Hitler, Hitler's sin is amplified 100 fold compared to a normal man's goodnesss/holiness, it is atrocious what Hitler did in a normal man's eyes. That is what a sinner sin looks like to God's eyes.
@@reality1958 Hello. There is definitely much destruction and pain in this life. In fact there is more pain, violence, and destruction than we could ever know. History has recorded countless examples for us.
But the dilemma is not why does God allow all this suffering? The real dilemma is how can a holy God allow all these sinners to live? If justice was to be carried out then every single one of us who perish in hell forever(Revelation 21:8). The flood of Noah was a good act of justice but there's just one problem! God allowed 8 sinners to live. How can a holy God allow sinners into heaven?
The answer to this great dilemma is found in Christ alone. Jesus Christ did what none of us could ever do. He followed God completely with perfect righteousness.
"God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood-to be received by faith." Romans 3:25
@@YuGiOhDuelChannel not talking about original design. Talking about now and throughout mans history
I also think that compared to eternity- even the most miserable painful life here is nothing to us once we move on. So I guess this falls into the God will make up for it argument
Doesn’t make the suffering of a toddler from Tay Sachs disease acceptable or just
@Ross Duncan Love GOD with all your heart mind body soul, and to love your neighbor…. This is the purpose of a Christ follower. Is this easy…. NOPE !
@Ross Duncan Perhaps because there is no willful desire to be with God and accord our nature to his without choice and a life like this.
Here’s my answer to the atheistic problem of evil. Yes, the world is overall good. However, that alone does not justify unnecessary evils. Unnecessary evils can exist in a overall good world. It’s that the evil shouldn’t outweigh the good. The thing about the problem of evil, is that there are unnecessary evils that shouldn’t exist if there is an omnibenevolent and omnipotent being.
Now, there’s of course a deeper question which is, why is it that atheists should or can be optimistic if there are these unnecessary evils or any evils at all?
Well, let’s suppose each of these cases of natural evils really is completely justified given natural law and a kind of soul-building thing. This is no different than if God were never around because nature just is as it is. It is consistent, and will bring about whatever it happens to bring.
If an unintervening God is just and good for creating this world, then so is an atheistic world with laws we have.
Although atheists don’t have an afterlife to go to, life is often times leading us to learn from others and things around us. Living is worth it, because we can explore it. Learning is the value (or a value) our life brings. The future can be bleak, but scientific advancements also allows us to grow in health and protection. Our ability to think is what ultimately brings the most value.
Thinking is why life is worth it. To think is to live life to the fullest and give purpose to it.
Now comes the unnecessary evils. Let’s say not all evils are justifiable. Why live or love life? That is because of its overall goodness, the possibility for growth and overcoming challenges.
As pointless as this process is, it is ultimately worth it as it allows us to live with the goods we get, rather than die having not lived at all. Despite that we’ll forget all of our experiences after we die.
With these in mind, one may wonder, is there really unjustified evil if there is a God?
For that, I currently have no answer, but I suspect that there is still unjustified evil.
Unnecessary evil is just the absence and lack of good. Would you say if you're hungry, then it's suddenly God is evil? Since hunger is bad.
@@ailurophile4341 The feeling of hunger and hunger itself, is justifiable when had in a short time interval, fasting is often a good thing. And if healthy enough, people can go past the recommended limit of 24 hours without food and be fine, as long as they continue to drink plenty of water.
Hunger is sometimes due to a lack of effort on the humans part. So no, just because I am hungry, I wouldn't call God bad or evil. Even if the hunger was not out of human laziness or something, I wouldn't call God evil. I might say he's not perfect, but I wouldn't say he's evil. Being evil would require the intent to cause harm.
Also,
"Unnecessary evil is just the absence and lack of good."
So if I smash a rock for no reason, would it be evil? If not, that definition is clearly flawed, and for that reason, I do not go by it. Just because you might not be able to know bad without the good, one could make a similar argument that you couldn't know the good without the bad.
I don't know if that's why you go by that definition, but it's not the only one you could to go by. An alternative is to say the bad is what works in opposition to what is good.
God doesn’t allow pain or suffering,the Bible says satan is currently in control of the world,it is he who is the author of evil. God allowed humans to try doing things our way when our first parents sinned. However we know that God will put and end to suffering and evil. He will cast down the enemy.
A possible John Dewey (pragmatist) response to the problem of evil? So if God doesn't exist, evil isn't a logical problem. If God exists, but is not omnipotent, evil isn't a logical problem. If God exists AND is omnipotent, evil is part of a plan or architecture for our existence, and also not a logical problem. In all 3 cases, evil remains *our problem*, and we are the ones responsible to solve it. So anywhere on a continuum of God's "powerfulness", the human actions are much the same (i.e., eradicating evil; multiplying good). Therefore, religions should have been more into characterizing good vs. evil than into characterizing God, as figuring out what good and evil actually is, would impact human action. We can figure out what God is from what good is (and the negation of God from what bad is). I understand this to be what Dewey means when referring to God as a "hypostatization" of ideals about good and evil. I'm thinking this is also the atheist position, namely that there is no "problem of evil" other than trying to multiply good/eradicate evil, and that we shouldn't expect solutions to the problem to be handed to us by divine intervention.
Swinburn quote: What was the context for it in Swinburn's writing? I fail to see a clear meaning for it to the topic. Or I fail to see how it favors the theist over the atheist or vice versa.
Nothing new here. Supposing humans do have free will and the man is about to leave the twins in the car. God already knows this because he is omniscient yet he chooses to not intervene and let’s the twins die. Either way, the problem of evil hasn’t gone away. God must therefore have taken a choice to NOT intervene which means he is an evil God for allowing it to happen when he could have stopped it. Or, he cannot intervene which means he isn’t omnipotent. Or even he doesn’t know and therefore cannot intervene, meaning he really isn’t a god at all. You apologetics really should think these rationales through
@@user-wg5dm6oc3t why does god gift satan with the joy of tormenting mankind and encouraging sin/evil/suffering?
I want to stress the burden of argument. Can a reasonable case be formed against god?
In short to reject god, he doesn’t need to be proven guilty of immortality bur only if there is enough evidence to go to trial or for debate.
If we have enough evidence to debate the morality of god, then god is deceitful in crafting circumstances leading to a reasonable debate on his character considering the consequence hell.
How?
What amazes me is how much philosophy is its own religion. It imagines its own god then proposes arguments for its god's actions.
The God of the Bible is COMPLETELY different from the god Cameron has conjured up for his audience as his philosopher god's prophet.
Jesus said, "Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out." John 12 v31 meaning that Jesus was about to replace Satan in heaven as earth's representative. See Luke 4 verses 6-7. Revelation 12 says, "So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. ... Woe to the inhabitants of the earth and the sea! For the devil has come down to you, having great wrath, because he knows that he has a short time."
𝐉𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐨𝐨𝐤 𝐨𝐟 𝐉𝐨𝐛, 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐯𝐞𝐧'𝐬 𝐬𝐚𝐤𝐞!
I have a label for you: "fideism"
What's missing is the definition of evil (Noun: profound immorality and wickedness, especially when regarded as a supernatural force). Evil is a bad term used to describe spiritual views attributed to the causation of natural or man-made events. It's a non-starter for most atheists who don't believe in evil or sin. Natural events like tsunami's should not be characterized as evil because there is no intent by nature to produce harm.
Hear hear.
Evil isn’t an accurate term I’ll give you that. Though, if you watch his discussion/interview w/ David Wood on the problem of evil, David clarifies that by “evil” people are just referring to bad stuff.
Usually, evil is broken down into two categories, the moral evil and the natural evil. Moral evil being the evils (or bad stuff) caused by moral agents. Natural evils being the evils that are caused by nature or something not driven by conscious decisions.
It becomes evil when intent, as in intentional design, is entered into the picture with a god
I posted the Hebrew definition above. Its clear ra means 'evil, vicious, wicked, malicious, sinister, malevolent".
@@encounteringjack5699 Silly!
❤
So many atheists just malding on the comments.
We have a great deal to say
Can someone please explain to this man that there is a difference between an atheist and then naturalist. These two philosophies overlap over one issue is there a God/gods other than that they need not agree on anything else.
For instance it's perfectly National for a atheist to not believe in a God but still be spiritual or even believe in the supernatural, personally I do not fall into that camp but to each their own.
Cameron you are a philosopher you should know that being specific in your language is very important this is the kind of mistake that I'd expect from Kent hoven not a half decent philosopher.
At least his intentions are good.
Yes, it's true one can be an Atheist and not be a Naturalist. But anyone who is a Naturalist is automatically an Atheist.
Naturalism is a universal negative fallacy, as it claims to know the supernatural definitely doesn't exist. One would need to be all-knowing to know that (which is ironic because being all-knowing is supernatural trait of God lol)
@@lightbeforethetunnel I guess I abide by a different take on naturalism…which is all that is demonstrated is of the natural. No “supernature “ has ever been demonstrated
@@reality1958 And do you then believe that, since the supernatural hasn't been demonstrated, that means it doesn't exist?
@@lightbeforethetunnel it means I have no good reason to believe it does exist
I've been trying to think about how i want to respond to this. I think apologists always miss the mark when answering the problem of evil.
Lets start with original sin, here's an analogy i like to use.
Lets say you (god) build your kids (Adam and Eve) the ultimate play room (garden of eden). You put everything a kid could ever want in that room and they are aloud to play with any toy. But then YOU make the decision to put a bag of heroin (tree of knowledge) smack dab in the middle of it but you forbid your kids from playing with it. Then YOU allow a child molesting heroin addict (the serpent) into your kids play area. You watch as your kids are manipulated and worse. You have the power to stop it but you don't, cause you love your kids so much you don't want to interfere with their free will or at least that's what you tell the court.
Be honest though, in this scenario are the kids bad or is it the parent's fault. Clearly its the parents fault, so how is god any different? Why do you excuse such obvious horrid behavior.
Has for your response to natural evil, god couldn't build souls without cancer in children? I'm sorry but soul building is such a joke of an answer. I hope someday you come to realization that your religion is chopped full of obvious problems and contradictions.
Adam and Eve weren't baby's
@@HermaeusMoron Good thing i never said babies.
Also it is said we are all goods children, its also said that Adam and Eve were innocent, like children.
Its a great analogy that shows one of the many plot holes in the Christian religion.
Free will… what a way to start
The Christian default answer for everything…freewill
@@reality1958 it's ironic since the Bible says we don't have free will, but Cameron went to the God is Not Dead school of philosophy.
Interesting, but it's not the Christian response. Look at Job, all these same issues are discussed and you do similarly address them and lead God's response which is that his ways are higher. HOWEVER, God says Job go it right, huh!? Where did Job get it right? Chapter 9, where Job says he needs a days man an advocate, specifically a GODMAN who can represent both sides who justifies redemption, salvation who will initiate a resurrection.
NOW, a SAVIOR CANNOT BE EVIL, here's where you properly use your necessity argument that suffering exposes the highest virtue and God's suffering on the cross is the necessity of the suffering of the necessary being to expose the highest way or virtue on the cross.
John 3:16 is in context with "just as the serpent was raised in the wilderness " Jesus is not simply saying he "allows " but that he causes the suffering from the evil serpent, and his suffering for all the suffering and evil achieved the highest good which is salvation.
@@tony1685 do you think the story of Job paints god in a good light?
@@tony1685 how is god good here? God wagers satan that Job will remain loyal. God gives satan leave to try to break Job, and 10 people die over this wager.
1. Why does god care what satan thinks?
2. How does the loss of 10 people, 10 loved ones, justify a silly wager in which why would god care what satan thinks anyway?
@@tony1685 so god killed 10 people “for our benefit?” Not a good god Tony
The problem with the argument from evil is the Atheist argument itself is an appeal to incredulity fallacy.
The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone decides that something did not happen or does not exist because they cannot personally understand the workings. The fallacy is an argument from ignorance.
And unless Atheists come up with a full working understanding for why/how evil exists, that isn't just speculation or opinions, then it's not something they can base an argument on when arguing against God's existence.
The argument does, however, work quite well against the claim of a good/just god.
I would agree it’s not a great argument against a gods existence, because a god could be a monster.
@@reality1958 It doesn't work well against a good/just God either. I actually just finished responding to your question "where did evil originate" in another thread just now, and the answer I wrote there is quite long and once you know that, you'll likely understand why the argument from evil doesn't work as an argument against a good/just God either.
@@lightbeforethetunnel I don’t know where that thread is but I disagree. It works very well.
Justice and goodness falls into a pretty consistent line of thinking. For example.
It is unjust to kill/punish/blame person A for what person B did. God does this multiple times.
It is unjust/immoral to cause another suffering without just cause. God does this…truly…multiple times.
And there is more, but I’m sure I will come across your other post soon.
@@reality1958 There is a vast difference between seeing that something happened for no reason and seeing no reason for why something happened. God knows an infinite number of goods and bads; we know a finite. Every argument we make is based in our attempts to understand God’s intentions
@@whatsinaname691 I understand your logic, but that still doesn’t evidence that gods intentions are good.
That a god knows more than we do has nothing to do with whether that god is moral or not
What a crock.
There's a great book by an LDS author that shows that there's perfect harmony between the prophetic statements concerning the garden of Eden being in Missouri and the Old Testament account concerning the garden of Eden. It's called Canaan, Babylon, and Egypt A Comparative Theological Analysis on Creation sold by Eborn Books.
What has that got anything to do with the discussion in this video?
I once saw a guy who thought British were the true Israelites. Be careful that you don’t fall into believing ahistorical nonsense. LDS is full of it.
A couple of other notes:
- You trivialize the appeal to emotion at the beginning, and then the crux of your third argument is an emotional appeal? Seems like a double standard.
- The child death in a car seat is not an example of free will - it would imply intention to let the children die, which was obviously not the case. It appears to be a freak accident, perhaps caused by exhaustion or inattention or your standard-issue brain fart.
- The reality of free will seems extremely tenuous and messy. The Christian apologetic line of "we are not robots" seems to think of us as beings fully in control of our thoughts and actions, (or at least using that as a north star for what we can shoot for), despite a mountain of evidence (and just plain lived experience) showing that not to be true. Addiction, mental illness, the prevalence of erroneous beliefs and conspiracy theories, and the effects of environmental factors run against that idea. Not to mention the wild inconsistency of how free will seems to work in the Christian canon. Some people get direct spiritual interventions from God while others get none. Heaven seems to have no free will, and God also intervenes in Bible stories to change the outcome of peoples' actions.
If your goal is to be optimistic, you should believe in more things that make you feel good.
“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
~Dawkins
It is not necessarily proof that a god(s) doesn’t exist, but it is evidence that if a god(s) exists it is an immoral/unjust god
If you have a relationship with God, your mind/heart will change. You will stop “woe is me” and look to be a servant to others. Humans have been constantly solving the woes of this world (example: River blindness with Ivermectin).
It also shows inconsistencies in the god of Abraham
@@julianmartinez8954 do you have kids? I discipline my teen daughter much differently than when she was a toddler… Notice that the OT taught on 10 commandments, in the NT Jesus the Christ only mentions 6. God is not changing, his method of teaching has…. Peace…
@@mighty_monkey_7347 not an answer to the challenge.
Barbara, will you help me get some insight.
From your perspective on the evil and morality issue…. What response from theists do you find most irritating (or angering)( or weakest)?
Evil does not exist. Good does not exist. Just like, in a dream, you cannot be morally responsible for anything your dream avatar does in the dream.... we are all part of one consciousness, which could be called "God" and we are all literally in that God (are that God), same as dreams are just perceptions actually in the sleeping mind. We are literally in God's mind. It's super simple. It is called nondualism (Advaita Vedanta). We are not the "doers." NO need for ultimate redemption because no need for praise nor blame. All is God playing as humanity, etc.
One possibility: God is imaginary.
In classical concept of soul with one life, the situation of one person being born to nice life with medical care, etc. and one to poor conditions.... In those cases even "free will" is not a good explanation. If every person would have the same starting point, then sure. But that is not the case.
Another possibility is :God is NOT imaginary.
Please consider that as well. Sincerely an ex atheist.
@@begood4786 yet such a god cannot be demonstrated
@@begood4786 There is evil, therefore God is not imaginary.
Sure, if you want to introduce evil god, that makes sense. But not if you want to present an ultimate "good guy".
@@johnmakovec5698 the term evil is we humans labeling bad behavior. It doesn’t prove a god
@@reality1958 What is "bad"? You're still using relational language that only makes sense if God exists.
The only way to hold this position is to abandon moral realism, which is obviously false since we immediately experience morality. That's like arguing the physical world doesn't exist.
Simple answer. He is the source of all evil. It is logically IMPOSSIBLE for a good God to create a world where evil exists. A logical contradiction similar to a god creating a square-circle world.
This is actually not true, logically speaking. To create the potential for flaw, there cannot be any pre-existing potential for flaw, or else you didn’t create it, it already existed. But if the potential for flaw didn’t already exist, then creating the potential for flaw could not itself be a flaw. So creating the potential for flaw must be an act of perfection, & therefore necessarily something a perfect being must do.
this guy does not know God. He never preaches scripture, he never calls on God for prayer and help, he never reaches conclusions of God, he's seeking from a pure fleshly standpoint. This is why this guy went catholic. He never had the truth in him.
"They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us."
The Answer would have too be God didn’t want too live with Bots so he gave humans free will like himself and cursed humans for disobedience turned his face to us so that we might return too him without knowing out right. It is true God is evil it says soo in the Bible “ God creates light and darkness, Good and Evil. There a video titled YHWH was a dragon by Mr Mythos I recommend the council of El part where YHWH is a Dragon and Elohim is the creator but overall the entire video. It’s interesting in the News Testament Jesus calls the fake Jews the synagogue of Satan and calls the Pharisees Brood of vipers and that their father is the Devil and that they do not know his Father.
Yes but that doesn’t explain god intentionally inflicting suffering
He quotes Chevy commercial to suggest people want to skip over the source of problems. Not accept the reality. This guy says do not accept the arguments against the existence of god. It is based on the belief god exists. He never proves god exists. Only that arguments disproving god are faulty. The problem is starting with an assertion that is false.
We may believe we have free choice but there is overwhelming scientific evidence it is not true. Of course not yet fully determined. Religion needs free will otherwise repentance has no meaning.
The Gospel:
Plain and
Simple
“But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent
beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your
minds should be corrupted from the simplicity
that is in Christ.” - 2 Corithians 11:3
Ask someone today if they are saved and
you will most likely hear responses like these:
“I have accepted Jesus into my heart.” Or “I
have made him Lord of my life.” “I’ve been
baptized.” “I said a prayer.” Sounds all good
and churchy don’t it; but it is difficult to de-termine whether or not a person actually
knows the gospel that saves them. These useless phrases don’t describe a thing about what
the gospel is and has left a devastating effect
of people not knowing what it is that they are
saved from nor how they are saved; which
leaves a more serious effect of people questioning their salvation.
Let’s not muddy the simplicity of salvation that is in Christ with vague church
sounding phrases that do not communicate
anything. But rather present God’s word with
clarity and assuredness. So here is the gospel:
plain and simple.
Sin was passed upon all men by one man
Adam, and death is a consequence of this sin
(Rom 5:12). Mankind has an eternal destiny of
condemnation and wrath - Hell - because of
this sin (Rom 6:23). No matter what good
works one might do we are still found sinners
in the sight of our Creator God. And all unrighteousness and those who follow get indignation and wrath. We cannot be found
righteous for by God’s law we are found sinners (Rom 3:19-20). If we have broken even
one law we are found guilty.
It is for this reason of not being able to
create our own righteousness and being born
in a sinful flesh that we need a savior (Titus
3:5). Christ is that Savior, God manifested in
the flesh, sinless, died in our place on a cross
2000 years ago. Taking upon him the wrath
and judgement that was intended for us sinners. And it is through his bloodshed, burial,
and resurrection on our behalf that we are
able to have peace with God and forgiveness
of our sins (1 Cor 15:1-4, Col 3:14). This good
news is unto all but only those that believe in
it are made righteous in Christ (Romans
3:22).
It is then after we have heard this good
news of Christ’s righteousness available to us freely, that we are sealed with the Holy Spirit
and we are now part of Christ’s body the
church (Eph 1:13)
There is nothing that we need to do, no
good works that are required, and no bad
works that can separate us from our new position in Christ (Romans 8:35-39).
Faith and belief in this information from
God’s word is the gospel.
The gospel is not accepting Jesus into your
heart. The gospel is not making him lord of
your life, it is not saying a prayer and it is not
being baptized with water.
So next time someone asks you if you are
saved. Give them the clear assured answer
Yes And let me tell you why
Find more free resources at
www.graceambassadors.com
Why did god gift satan/evil with the freedom and power to attack Adam and Eve encouraging them to sin/fall?
@@reality1958
Free will God's not going to control his creations decisions. At the end evil will be destroyed and Good will be eternal.