Hey Pat glad to see you interviewing and doing shows again. This was an interesting conversation. You should check out Joshua Yen, Philosophy for All channel.
Perhaps there is no "Problem of Evil". Perhaps evil is a good thing, insofar as adversity, suffering, and struggle are necessary for existence. Without those things, everything is just too perfect, and there's nothing to do. We just sleep. It's like morphine. Problem is, too much and we don't wake back up. God rested on the 7th day, because everything was just too good. Adam's apple was God's narcan
When I think of evil, I don't think of everyday adversity and struggle, I think of mass shootings, people across the world who are starving, incarcerated, tortured, the children who suffer neglect and abuse etc...I think that's more what most people have in mind when they apply that word to real world phenomena, and I certainly don't think the world would be 'too perfect' without them. If I thought that God was purposefully inflicting that stuff on innocent kids as a sort of global character building exercise then I'd have to concur with the gnostics who considered him an evil demiurge, directly opposed to the god spoken of in the gospels, who we are told, "is love".
@@yerauldda4909 you seem to be describing a "difference in degree and quantity" between evil and everyday adversity and struggle. I certainly grant that difference. But consider this possibility: If the adversity and struggle we collectively encountered during our Earthly lives were minor, then our Heavenly lives (our hypothetical state of being where conditions are much better suited to amend the adversity and struggle we experienced on earth) would get boring quickly. That is, all the proverbial tears would be rapidly wiped--a bit too rapidly. Therefore, in order to ensure an enjoyable Heavenly life, it might be necessary to collate a much more massive set of adversities and struggles while here on Earth (a set we define as "evil")
@@ShaneShelldriick While I don’t presume to talk with authority on the content of the afterlife (and am generally sceptical of any mortal who does) I don’t lend any credence to the idea of one in which it’s possible to be ‘bored’. Boredom is a form of unfulfilled desire, and if union with god is the true object and end of all desire (as many great Christian texts have expressed so beautifully) then heaven should be the only place where boredom has no dominion. I’d add that the god of the gospels is described as one who overcomes and abolishes death and suffering, not one who reaches a kind of amicable co-existence with it. The idea of a god who is perfect love and goodness as such but also requires evil as a necessary component of his being seems completely incoherent and untenable to me.
@@yerauldda4909 Yes, this is very reasonable. But suppose God reasoned like this:: "Well, I want to make creatures to live with me forever in a Heavenly environment, but apparently it's inherently impossible to do this directly, since my first inhabitants of Eden %$#@ed everything up almost immediately. Not that I blame them, I probably would've been so bored with my Perfect Creation that I never would've woke back up had Adam not sinned. After doing some God Math, I've determined that, in order for creatures to flourish in a Perfect environment of infinite duration, they need to experience a sufficiently large Reservoir of BS in an Imperfect environment of finite duration"
“Because God isn’t conscious.” Wait, what? Thomists say that? Don’t they say that God has intellect and will? Feser adds “thoughts.” Is that not “consciousness?” Did I just totally miss something ? Am cleaning apartment at the moment so it’s possible! Also, he’s the Deadpool of philosophy. PS. I agree with Braxton Hunter about those dirty darn kangaroos 🦘
For the Thomist God's intellect, will and consciousness is analogous to these in creatures. God isn't a conscious agent in the same way humans are. The difference also isn't just one of degree, bur rather of type you could say. It's not that God knows just like humans but He knows way more facts than us, God's mode of knowledge is fundamentally different, we receive forms in our intellect, whereas by virtue of knowing Himself, God knows all the ways in which he can be participated in, which is what constitutes divine omniscience. Furthermore, the only direct object of His will is His own essence. He doesn't possess a plurality of mental states.
@@peterchristeas5519 yeah Peter said it better than me, but it ultimately boils down to divine simplicity. If God was "conscious" He would have parts and have some contingency which would make Him not necessary and thus not God. You can use analogy to say that God has something like thoughts or consciousness, but not in the same way we do
My problem with theism is whether god exists or not. How do you know your religion is the right one? Are all religion valid? Why is it important to worship god if it exists? Can't you live a virtuous life without expecting a divine reward? Why would the existence of god imply an afterlife? See? There are too many plot holes in Christian lore to me.
Here, I’m no expert so take what I say with a grain of sugar, but I just want to show you that these concerns you have can be answered. 1. Christians know their God is the right one because the man who claimed to be God incarnate rose from the dead. Those who preached about this gained no fame or fortune but instead were mostly tortured to death for their testimony (i.e., “who would die for a lie” - those who died believed Jesus rose from the dead) 2. No, all religions are not valid since they contain contradictory beliefs. Either one is true, or the other is true or they’re all false. 3. It’s important to worship God if He exists because it’s important to give that which is due to that which it’s due to (i.e., Justice). If God is all good, all powerful, all knowing - then he deserves the fullness of our honor based on his nature. 4. Yes. But I believe being a [Catholic] Christian can help us to receive supernatural virtues. 5. I’m sure there’s an argument for this one, but I’m sorry, I don’t know it offhand 😅
You make a lot of assumptions and you haven't really taken enough time to look into each of these questions. I don't think a youtube comment can sufficiently answer all the questions but if you read enough books on the topic, I think you can make a more informed judgement. Anyways, I would like to respond to a few of your question. It's important to worship God if he exists, because God is defined as a being worthy of worship and to whom we are obliged due honour and worship. He holds us into existence at every moment and we owe him everything. To illustrate an analogy, we owe our parents some level of respect and honour, but with God it's infinitely increased since every single good thing we enjoy comes from him. Furthermore, human beings are ordered towards worshipping God, it is our final end so to speak. To be in relationship with God. You can live a virtuous life, without expecting a divine reward. The assumption you are making is that religious people live virtuous lives for a divine reward or that religious people think that you need a divine reward for you to live virtuously. I don't think it's the case that all religious people work towards a divine reward per se, some just want to avoid hell. That said, the reason many of us live a virtuous life, is to go to heaven and be with God for all eternity. In the Catholic worldview, the ultimate reward is being able to see God himself, in whom is all our desires. By seeing God by way of a beatific vision, we will be totally satisfied. This is because we believe that God alone can satisfy the longing of our souls. We wish to enjoy the company of God for all eternity. All created things are temporary and can never satisfy us, but God alone for whom we were made can. The existence of God does not in and of itself imply an afterlife, though I think some people make philosophical arguments in favour of the existence of an immortal soul. I think Edward Feser has a new book on the immortal soul, though I haven't read it. Generally, what people do, is they give certain motives of credibility for their religion after having made their philosophical proof for the existence of God, but yeah. If you are interested in answering the first question, then perhaps look on this channel's book recommends for the existence of God. In particular I personally recommend both Edward Feser 5 proofs of the existence of God, and Best argument for God by Pat Flynn to start out. If you are not convinced of the existence of God, it doesn't make sense to figure out which religion is true.
Hey Pat glad to see you interviewing and doing shows again. This was an interesting conversation. You should check out Joshua Yen, Philosophy for All channel.
Interesting approach.
Comment for traction for my favorite pod out there
Fun guy.
Perhaps there is no "Problem of Evil". Perhaps evil is a good thing, insofar as adversity, suffering, and struggle are necessary for existence. Without those things, everything is just too perfect, and there's nothing to do. We just sleep. It's like morphine. Problem is, too much and we don't wake back up. God rested on the 7th day, because everything was just too good. Adam's apple was God's narcan
Nothing fails like success
When I think of evil, I don't think of everyday adversity and struggle, I think of mass shootings, people across the world who are starving, incarcerated, tortured, the children who suffer neglect and abuse etc...I think that's more what most people have in mind when they apply that word to real world phenomena, and I certainly don't think the world would be 'too perfect' without them. If I thought that God was purposefully inflicting that stuff on innocent kids as a sort of global character building exercise then I'd have to concur with the gnostics who considered him an evil demiurge, directly opposed to the god spoken of in the gospels, who we are told, "is love".
@@yerauldda4909 you seem to be describing a "difference in degree and quantity" between evil and everyday adversity and struggle. I certainly grant that difference. But consider this possibility: If the adversity and struggle we collectively encountered during our Earthly lives were minor, then our Heavenly lives (our hypothetical state of being where conditions are much better suited to amend the adversity and struggle we experienced on earth) would get boring quickly. That is, all the proverbial tears would be rapidly wiped--a bit too rapidly. Therefore, in order to ensure an enjoyable Heavenly life, it might be necessary to collate a much more massive set of adversities and struggles while here on Earth (a set we define as "evil")
@@ShaneShelldriick While I don’t presume to talk with authority on the content of the afterlife (and am generally sceptical of any mortal who does) I don’t lend any credence to the idea of one in which it’s possible to be ‘bored’. Boredom is a form of unfulfilled desire, and if union with god is the true object and end of all desire (as many great Christian texts have expressed so beautifully) then heaven should be the only place where boredom has no dominion. I’d add that the god of the gospels is described as one who overcomes and abolishes death and suffering, not one who reaches a kind of amicable co-existence with it. The idea of a god who is perfect love and goodness as such but also requires evil as a necessary component of his being seems completely incoherent and untenable to me.
@@yerauldda4909 Yes, this is very reasonable. But suppose God reasoned like this::
"Well, I want to make creatures to live with me forever in a Heavenly environment, but apparently it's inherently impossible to do this directly, since my first inhabitants of Eden %$#@ed everything up almost immediately. Not that I blame them, I probably would've been so bored with my Perfect Creation that I never would've woke back up had Adam not sinned. After doing some God Math, I've determined that, in order for creatures to flourish in a Perfect environment of infinite duration, they need to experience a sufficiently large Reservoir of BS in an Imperfect environment of finite duration"
“Because God isn’t conscious.”
Wait, what? Thomists say that? Don’t they say that God has intellect and will? Feser adds “thoughts.” Is that not “consciousness?”
Did I just totally miss something ? Am cleaning apartment at the moment so it’s possible!
Also, he’s the Deadpool of philosophy.
PS. I agree with Braxton Hunter about those dirty darn kangaroos 🦘
For the Thomist God's intellect, will and consciousness is analogous to these in creatures. God isn't a conscious agent in the same way humans are. The difference also isn't just one of degree, bur rather of type you could say. It's not that God knows just like humans but He knows way more facts than us, God's mode of knowledge is fundamentally different, we receive forms in our intellect, whereas by virtue of knowing Himself, God knows all the ways in which he can be participated in, which is what constitutes divine omniscience. Furthermore, the only direct object of His will is His own essence. He doesn't possess a plurality of mental states.
@@peterchristeas5519 yeah Peter said it better than me, but it ultimately boils down to divine simplicity. If God was "conscious" He would have parts and have some contingency which would make Him not necessary and thus not God. You can use analogy to say that God has something like thoughts or consciousness, but not in the same way we do
My problem with theism is whether god exists or not. How do you know your religion is the right one? Are all religion valid? Why is it important to worship god if it exists? Can't you live a virtuous life without expecting a divine reward? Why would the existence of god imply an afterlife? See? There are too many plot holes in Christian lore to me.
Here, I’m no expert so take what I say with a grain of sugar, but I just want to show you that these concerns you have can be answered.
1. Christians know their God is the right one because the man who claimed to be God incarnate rose from the dead. Those who preached about this gained no fame or fortune but instead were mostly tortured to death for their testimony (i.e., “who would die for a lie” - those who died believed Jesus rose from the dead)
2. No, all religions are not valid since they contain contradictory beliefs. Either one is true, or the other is true or they’re all false.
3. It’s important to worship God if He exists because it’s important to give that which is due to that which it’s due to (i.e., Justice). If God is all good, all powerful, all knowing - then he deserves the fullness of our honor based on his nature.
4. Yes. But I believe being a [Catholic] Christian can help us to receive supernatural virtues.
5. I’m sure there’s an argument for this one, but I’m sorry, I don’t know it offhand 😅
You make a lot of assumptions and you haven't really taken enough time to look into each of these questions. I don't think a youtube comment can sufficiently answer all the questions but if you read enough books on the topic, I think you can make a more informed judgement.
Anyways, I would like to respond to a few of your question. It's important to worship God if he exists, because God is defined as a being worthy of worship and to whom we are obliged due honour and worship. He holds us into existence at every moment and we owe him everything. To illustrate an analogy, we owe our parents some level of respect and honour, but with God it's infinitely increased since every single good thing we enjoy comes from him. Furthermore, human beings are ordered towards worshipping God, it is our final end so to speak. To be in relationship with God.
You can live a virtuous life, without expecting a divine reward. The assumption you are making is that religious people live virtuous lives for a divine reward or that religious people think that you need a divine reward for you to live virtuously. I don't think it's the case that all religious people work towards a divine reward per se, some just want to avoid hell. That said, the reason many of us live a virtuous life, is to go to heaven and be with God for all eternity. In the Catholic worldview, the ultimate reward is being able to see God himself, in whom is all our desires. By seeing God by way of a beatific vision, we will be totally satisfied. This is because we believe that God alone can satisfy the longing of our souls. We wish to enjoy the company of God for all eternity. All created things are temporary and can never satisfy us, but God alone for whom we were made can.
The existence of God does not in and of itself imply an afterlife, though I think some people make philosophical arguments in favour of the existence of an immortal soul. I think Edward Feser has a new book on the immortal soul, though I haven't read it. Generally, what people do, is they give certain motives of credibility for their religion after having made their philosophical proof for the existence of God, but yeah.
If you are interested in answering the first question, then perhaps look on this channel's book recommends for the existence of God. In particular I personally recommend both Edward Feser 5 proofs of the existence of God, and Best argument for God by Pat Flynn to start out. If you are not convinced of the existence of God, it doesn't make sense to figure out which religion is true.
None of these are problems with theism, which is simply the belief that at least one god exists