@@RadicOmega what good does having an intuitive grasp of good and evil do for this thought experiment? I think the whole thing is absurd without defining those terms.
@@danglingondivineladders3994 people rely on our intuitive understanding of concepts all the time, we don’t have to have precise definitions of goodness in order to know a proper utilization of it or not
While I agree with Max, and I'm sure his scholarly work is great, I feel like he was unprepared for this debate. Alex's objections were very clever but foreseeable, and could have been addressed better with some more prep work on Max's part.
NO EXCUSES FOR PEOPLE REJECTING THE FREE GIFT of 💛➕SALVATION ❗ ACTION SPEAKS 🔈 LOUDER 🔈 THAN WORDS ❗JESUS CHRIST IS THE LIVING WORDS OF GOD 👍👌👌 💯 % Philippians 2: 5 - 8 5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in very nature[a] God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; 7 rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature[b] of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death- even death on a cross! ACTION SPEAKS 🔈 LOUDER 🔈 THAN WORDS. NO EXCUSES FOR PEOPLE REJECTING THE FREE GIFT
Alex is only an expert at creating wild assumptions without substantiating them. Ironically what he himself demands. That's why it's easy to raise objects but problematic to spell out a comprehensive explanation. Hence, he's aware that skepticism gives him that advantage which is blatantly disingenuous.
@@creatinechris Easy, so you're an Atheist. Do you believe good & evil really exist & if so prove it (given we are evolutionary bi-products). Then we will proceed. Because i have developed immunity against skeptic's unsubstantiated skepticism.
@@appearances9250 Well we don't need to do that though? If good and evil doesn't exist than, fine god also doesnt exist and if he does, he can't be defined as good. So it is not in our interest (atheists) in this particular discussion to prove that. We can grant You that good and evil exist, define them and than argue that god isn't or even can't be good.
@@appearances9250 It is completely irrelevant whether or no an atheist believe or not in good & evil. The point of the "evil god" answer is to show an internal problem with the "good god" argument (which imply that good and evil exist).
You should add some sort of notification thing that you use that is not shown on stream when you want to talk, so there isn't an awkward interaction around the interruption each time.
Hey Cameron. Hope you're good. I was wondering if you'd consider bringing Jake Brancatella (aka "The Muslim Metaphysician") on for a discussion on the Trinity and/or Incarnation. Jake had some very good, respectful and highly academic dialogues with Dr Josh Sijuwade, Dr Beau Branson, and most recently Eastern Orthodox scholar Dr David Bradshaw (you can check the last two out on the "Orthodox Shahada" channel, and the other on Jake's channel - "The Muslim Metaphysician"). Jake is very respectful, non-polemical, and well-versed in the topics of the trinity and incarnation. I think it would be an awesome discussion and one of the best ways to bridge Christian-Muslim apologetics and pave the way to fruitful interfaith dialogues (which needless to say have been horrible as of late). Please do take this into consideration. Thanks, man ☺️
Love the discussion. I'm always nervous thinking about these topics in depth because I'm tempted to think it's possible God is a mix of good and evil. As a believer I believe in an all loving perfect God. But at the same time it's not simple and easy to always view it that way.
Excellent exchange. The theist was unable to provide one single instance of symmetry breaking and therefore unable to justify his preferred version of divine entity. A very good way to show the price that one has to pay for defending ad-hoc unfalsifiable views about what is true.
Just because he didn’t have an adequate reply doesn’t mean their isn’t one. If you read the comments you will observe that many theists felt as though the proper counter arguments were not addressed, and some went on to address them individually.
I really didn't think that thought experiment was very fairly presented to begin with. I could set up 3 hypothetical worlds and show you are more likely to chose a certain one also, but that isn't evidence for a good or a bad God.
Feels like Max should have prepared better. Alex had a counter for most point and Max was often left having to concede and agree. Seems like theists need to go back to the drawing board on this one. Also, I really liked the format, and for the record this is not about "winning" or "losing". I applaud Max for just admitting he needs time to think, that's how one should act if one values truth and accuracy.
My few takeaways from this... 1. Max seems a bit unprepared. Some of Alex’a objections (such as privation theory of good) have been discussed in literature but Max had very little to say about them. 2. Alex seemed to be assuming that an evil God would make a world where people naturally suffer and are aware of their suffering but then never defended why suffering is not only bad but evil.
The theist seems to be assuming that a good god would make a world where people naturally delight and are aware of their delight but then never defends why delectation is not only comfortable but good.
Isn’t suffering just obviously evil? I mean, if suffering - or maybe more explicitly, causing others to suffer - isn’t evil, then what is? Also, if you want to claim suffering isn’t evil, you run into the same problem Alex was getting to when going through the 4 arguments near the end. That is - if you try to define suffering as good, then you might win trivially, but you are left with a world view that almost no theist would want to defend.
@@felipedantas2001 yes but as Alex rightly points out, it’s just a word game at that point. You have just defined “good” as whatever god happens to do, even if he tortures kittens. Most theists don’t want to just win an argument of definitions, they want to actually claim that god is merciful and loving, not malicious and hateful. So if we say, “fine theists, you can call his actions, ‘good’, but let’s use the same argument and just call it the “hateful and malicious” god argument instead of the “evil” god argument.” Most theists would still be deeply troubled by that argument, if indeed they found it convincing, of course
@@Blate1 This is not a word game. If the evil god exists, it would be an objective moral duty to perform evil actions. Just like that. The theist is troubled by the argument? Of course. Perhaps, the explanation is that the theist holds that one of the hypotheses is true whilst having no way to say which. The consequence of it? Holding that torture is objectively good or objectively bad, but having no way to say which is correct. A good reason to be troubled, indeed.
I don't know why, but Alex kind of reminds me of a highly secluded highly intellectual priest that lives in the monastery in the mountains lol. I think Alex would make a great Christian!
@@Qwerty-jy9mj I don't even remember myself. But 'Anton the apostate' has a rather nice ring to it, I probably just wanted to make sure I could legally use the title.
Like someone in the chat said, Alex totally conflates molinism’s possible world scenario with the more general philosophical understanding of possible worlds regarding the ontological argument. So his point about God always choosing to actualize a good world instead of an evil world totally misses the point of trying to attribute a nature to maximally great being.
Hi, could someone please tell me what the leading journals in this area of study are? Philosophy of religion, philosophical theology, whatever you want to call it. Also, are the journals divided into different confessions, like are there roman catholic journals on this, reformed ones etc.?
The problem with good being viewed as a cessation of evil, in my opinion, becomes apparent when you consider that evil things are not done in a purely negative light, that is to say we don't do evil for the sake of doing evil, we do evil because it benefits is in some way. A benefit is something that is good for us. I would challenge anyone to come up with a situation where someone does something evil when there is no benefit to them or anyone else, or even a perceived benefit where they do evil because they believe there is some benefit. Good I the other hand can be done for the sake of something good. We can do good because we love doing good. Can we do evil because we hate doing evil? So, whether you do good of evil, it is done for some good thing or done perceived good thing. This means that good, and not evil is the base, and that it is good that is perverted rather than evil. Though admittedly, the argument that good is a perversion of evil in that evil is that natural state and good is the cessation of that state is by far the cleverest argument I've heard against good being the thing that must be perverted...but it seems to mean to ultimately be flawed. It just occurred to me that philosophically speaking, evil trends to include suffering from natural disasters, and my comment is not actually intended to include those. Natural disasters are certainly bad for us as humans in many ways, but it's hard to claim they are evil in the same way as torturing a baby. In fact, it's possible to argue that natural disasters are good for the proper functioning of our planet without which we probably couldn't survive. So I personally wouldn't hold that this are intrinsically bad in and of themselves and should be excluded from the argument against privation that Alex is making.
« The problem with good being viewed as a cessation of evil, in my opinion, becomes apparent when you consider that evil things are not done in a purely negative light » Yeah, and this observation becomes worthless when you realize that good things can equally be viewed in a non-purely positive light. « we don’t do evil for the sake of doing evil, we do evil because it benefits us in some way » I see you aren’t familiar with the theory of evolution otherwise you’d be accustomed with the selfish roots of altruism :| You can be forced into being altruistic by other people, or you can force yourself to do it because it brings you at least some things, like even just a good feeling. Nobody does good with zero benefits from it, not even just the continuation of their own life. « Can we do evil because we have doing evil? » Can we do evil and hate being evil would be a better question, the answer being yes, and can we do evil because we don’t care about doing evil, the answer is yes. « it’s hard to claim [natural disasters] are evil in the same way as torturing a baby » Well, it depends. If you think there is a person who knows about natural disasters, know how to eliminate them and has enough power to eliminate them, yet does nothing, natural evils are actually just like, or even worse than, torturing a baby. « it’s possible to argue that natural disasters are good for the proper functioning of the planet » 1) it’s also possible to argue they are bad 2) it’s not taking into account that you theists are defending the idea of an omnipotent omniscient god, meaning a god that could’ve made it such that what’s good for the planet doesn’t cause suffering to its population.
These guys may be smart, but they need to learn how to fix their hair from Cam. Also, it helps that they both have UK accents so they sound equally smart.
I enjoyed the discussion, but I think it would have been more productive to have Max put forth his best objection and they just discuss that the entire time. Debates don't have enough time for going through multiple lines of argument I don't think if you want to do more than a surface level breakdown.
@@DryApologist to be honest, it really didn't seem like Max had considered the other side of the argument at all. His objections appeared to still presuppose that God is good, without actually considering what arguments someone would make to rationalise an evil god. It really did surprise me how little he had considered how hypothetical apologetics could be used for this hypothetical evil god.
@@trybunt I wish they had gone more in the theodicies or one of the natural theology arguments more to show a clear symmetry breaker instead it seemed they more just touched on possible avenues. So, it was hard to know what his full perspective was.
@@DryApologist yes, that is true. My opinion was only based on max saying "I hadn't thought of that" or "I'll need to think on that" a surprising amount of times, it certainly surprised me at least. I think this is an interesting thought experiment which (hopefully) encourages people to think of their own counter apologetics. Its always good to consider the other side of the argument, unfortunately I'm seeing a lot of people in these comments who just seem to dismiss the entire thing as absurd, which really misses the point.
It was probably also that Max took back some stuff and gave consessions to Alex. I actually commend Max for doing it, it's a virtue according to me. But clearly, admitting that you are wrong to your dialectical opponent is a sign that you were at least a bit unprepared.
Both ways of thinking, seems to be complicated as each other. I'm still confused about 3rd theodicy in both sides. But I gotta check out Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz book about theodicies.
Evil, in its nature, leaves a soul in a wanting state. Malevolence is not an enduring attribute. It’s ways are of death, not life. An eternal living God cannot be evil, because evil is death.
@@lee9852 1) Life is more than heaven. Heaven is only a place for the living. 2) Biblically speaking, not all must die if they would pass into the realm of the living. (ex. Enoch)
@@jasensargent6176 that is true, Elijah and Enoch did not die and were sent to heaven anyways, but I think you’re accidentally ignoring the biggest part about this, death is not evil nor good, it simply is. If you go to heaven after you die is it not good? ( assuming you do get to go to heaven) and if you go to hell it would be evil right? Both are wrong. You die, but God supposedly judges you, and supposedly he is completely just. It is your actions he judges, which ultimately lead you to heaven or hell. So using that, we can then see that it is not death that is evil, only you your actions (edit was grammar)
- Would you rather be in Bliss World or Mixed World? - Probably Bliss World, but I also think there’s some value in the contrast we see between good and evil in Mixed World. - Would you rather be in Torture World or Mixed World? - Definitely, definitely, definitely Mixed World. Definitely.
Around the 20 minute mark they discussed God having the possibility of doing evil actions, but that's contrary to simple descriptions of God being pure act, with no potential. Disappointed that Max didn't nip this part of the discussion in the bud.
@@Oskar1000 by necessity, a God possessing all the omni's must be pure act, because, for example, having potential for greater power goes against the logic of omnipotence. They're debating the Omni God, thus the Omni God must be pure act.
@@Carther101 What about a potential to be equally good in another way. Also not sure you cannot be infinitely good and then become greater still. Infinity is tricky
@@Oskar1000 omnibenevolence is perfect goodness, not infinite goodness. He's all goodness. And he has no potential to "be good in another way" because he's good in all ways since he's goodness itself.
@@Carther101 Ok so God is all good, then he gets some more goodness. He is still all good. It's like a wholly orange thing getting bigger. It's still wholly orange. Or do you mean, God is the totality of goodness. In that case nothing that isn't god has any goodness which seems weird. I don't really want to be stuck arguing views on the entailments of omni-god, many of the moves made seem speculative for me and it's perfectly plausible that Max just don't share your particular views on what those entailments are, that's all I'm trying to say.
Good dialogue. So many to unpack. One thing though that came to mind is a quote from Os Guinness, 'No argument is unarguable. However, there are some thoughts that can be thought but not lived' or along those lines. It's clear that Alex is a smart and quick thinking critic of theistic arguments (not that I think his arguments hold up all the time, in fact at times i think he simply stretches his point too much to avoid giving up significant grounds (appeal to consequence fallacy) eg, he refuses to concede that existence is good, therefore to eat is good, a primitive reality, as opposed to the opposites eg, hunger, starvation (Alex's argument that this could easilybe reversed is just not credible by any stretch); another stretch for me is that Alex would prefer to get plugged into the pleasure fantasy world as opposed to living in the actual world, good grief! drug addicts choose this in principle-get high all the time to avoid the real world and they'd want to die tripping). Also, at times he misses the central thrust of Max's argument eg, the last point Max raised which was a conceptial construct, but Alex's response was quantitative. And Max had to clarify the point of the argument. Max is fair but perhaps overly generous, I think.
I’ve never seen a theist say God could not be evil because of the amount of good in the world. It’s the metaphysics of God which makes us believe God is good; not the amount of good in the world..
@@geomicpri No, God always existed first, and God is objectively good. There must first be Order before there can be Disorder. Otherwise it wouldn’t be disorder.
@@curiouslykristina But, this is exactly what the evil god challenge is testing. Is the concept of omnimalevolence irrational? If so, how? Maybe good is the cessation of evil? I mean, pain is not merely a lack of pleasure. It is a mental state, a conscience property and I have direct access to it, which gives it a positive reality. Also, possibly God is none of these things and it makes most sense to say that he is indifferent?
Great discussion! I don't share Alex's intuition on his last point, that torture world with 1000 people is better than mixed world with 1000 people suffering, and a few people enjoying life. It seems that overall the mixed world would indeed be a better one overall (at least, it's not obvious to me)
Great debate! Follow up question, though: are these really the best arguments against this challenge? I wasn't expecting to find something in there that I'd agree with, but I was expecting Max to at least have something to stand on, and it didn't feel like he did. While this challenge always felt intuitive to me (but also - not surprising, as I never felt that a good God makes sense anyway), I never gave it the same gravity that I do now. If this really does represent some of the best counter arguments, then it seems that there really is no way to claim to know that God is good (or to even consider it the more probable option). Any claims to God's goodness seems to be wishful thinking, at best. Am I wrong here?
It doesn’t represent the best arguments. I posted a comment, a long one, addressing a few counter arguments that I do not believe were addressed in the debate. Would you like it if I copied and pasted it here? Bearing in mind that I kind of just rattled stuff off the top of my noggin.
@@dew_diligence I don’t feel like Max viewed this as much of a debate, but rather a relaxed conversation. 1. The two theories are not symmetrical. If we had a maximally malicious God the world would be in a much worse state than it is. One could say that a maximally evil God could bring more evil out of goodness, but I would argue that. We could live in a world where our experience was an existence predominantly ruled by torture and pain and it would be much worse than any evil that you could potentially bring out of good. An omnipotent, maximally malicious God could ensure that we exist purely to suffer to the maximal degree. He could have had women giving birth only to then be tortured alongside their children, he could ensure that everyone felt immense physical and emotional pain at all times. This is not the case in our world. Further, if we have a maximally good God he can bring greater good out of evil, and we do see this happen. He would also give us the freedom to choose to love Him because love, in order to be love, needs to be freely given. This choice would also allow room for us to commit acts that one could deem objectively evil further resulting in a world where evil exists. Edit: I realize that this point was addressed later on so I will add to my argument. Though Alex proposed that mixed world could be worse than torture world, I would disagree. He forgot to add that mixed world would have far less torture than torture world could potentially have (would have, given the concept of a maximally evil God). Mixed world is our world. We can assess simply by looking at statistics, and whatnot, that there are many evil things occurring that could be occurring at much higher rates while still maintaining this “some people are joyful and it makes it worse for others” argument. We are not at max evil. This world is not torture world “and then some”. Even people who are suffering greatly can often still experience the love of others, they can be helped by strangers, they can hold onto those moments and cherish them. The grand majority of our population is not experiencing max pain levels. If this world was torture world then I imagine many more people would be on torture racks being burned alive, or experiencing the most pain one could possibly experience both mentally and physically, and it would not end. This continuous, prolonged torture is so rare that you may as well say that it doesn’t exist. Animals don’t have the same mental capacity that humans do and because of these variables I don’t think that they actually fit into this conversation. I don’t believe that Alex is thinking big enough when he thinks about “torture world”. I also think that he’s arguing with exceptions when speaking about those people who want to die, though it’s a low blow because we can’t actually measure that. Most people don’t want to die. 2. There is a false equivalency that Alex draws later on in this conversation when he uses the “good book, bad book” analogy. You simply cannot apply the same standard to an inanimate object as you do to a conscious, moral being. If I say to someone “I really like Sarah, I think she’s a really good person” I am not speaking of her bodily function and it’s ability to do what it should, I am speaking about her morality. This cannot be applied to a book. When speaking in terms of morality evil and bad could very well be considered synonymous, and evil could easily be antonymous to good. This is a false comparison. 3. Present people with two options. Option one: We have an omnipotent God who is, by nature, maximally good. Option two: We have a God who is limited in goodness, has an evil streak, but doesn’t act upon it. Ask people which they would prefer and I can almost guarantee that most people would prefer the maximally good God. Why? Because the God with an evil streak is basically a ticking time bomb. Imagine an all powerful God with an malicious streak, a God that does mostly good but occasionally has a desire to torture people for fun. How is that more morally commendable? If I occasionally have the desire to hurt children, but don’t cave to that desire, does that make me better than a person who never has that desire to do it at all? Of course not. I do understand why Alex is using this point though. Many Christians would use the same argument to defend Gods creation of man, and allowing us to have free will. I want to point out that there is a huge difference between not caving to a desire in the moment, and ridding oneself of the evil desire overall. If God had to rid himself of evil desires than He wouldn’t be God. God is existence, and in being existence (rather than simply existing) God is not lacking in anything. To have to rid oneself of evil desires would be to be lacking in goodness. So, our options are either a maximally good God or a maximally evil god. I have already gone over my points for why the former is a more adequate assumption.
for the last objection, the fact that the people living good lives can interact with those living bad means that those living bad lives may have a way out eventually, meaning that world will end up being a better world that pure agony world
The evil god works in mysterious ways. He likes to give people the false hope becuase it ultimately creates more suffering.. just because you can imagine a way that it reduces suffering, that doesn't change the hypothetical. There could be an evil god, and and good could be the result of free will given so people can choose evil, but they reject gods will. This could all be part of the plan, because those who reject gods will may end up suffering even more in some sort of hell chosen by people who freely choose to do good.
@@trybunt are you saying the virtuous people will be sent to hell while the rich and cruel people are sent to heaven? This would fail miserably since the rich and cruel people will compete against themselves and therefore create their own hell while the virtuous people can find common ground in hell and make it more bearable. Also the fact that people can live and embrace suffering in the world with a high degree of happiness by simply understanding that not being attached to material possessions and wordly things brings bliss kind of destroys your argument.
@@trybunt in order to improve on the torture world, it is necessary that those that exist with more privilege than the others need not to have free will lest they end up helping the less fortunate. only in this case can the system be maintained. also why in the world is empathy naturally selected for? Why not have God increase psychopathy and sociopathy by 40 percent?
@@trybunt a great argument for an evil god is if science decides that what is best for human well-being is to commit what we would consider as immoral. Say if we discovered that it would greatly increase a woman's fertility if we were to rape her or that spewing acid on an infants face will grant that infant immunity from cancer. that would be evidence of an evil God
@@christopherlin4078 once again you are trying to imagine a reason why there isn't an evil god without considering the fact that, if there was, its possible he has already factored in your objections, and this is the world with the most suffering. Some happiness might be necessary for the maximum suffering, and this is the worst of all possible worlds. We don't know the mind of this evil god, who are we to judge! (I'm just having a laugh buddy, surely you can imagine hypothetical apologetics for this hypothetical evil god, just reverse any typical argument, and it really does work)
I think we should consider "good" and "bad" like *live* and *die*. You cannot die without ever living. There's no bad without good. God always does good by nature, meaning God acts. He acts, and that's it. There's no possibility to act bad, if the intrinsic value of the action has only one value.
I think a problem with this while discussion is that in many ways good and evil are somehow these objective things that are not grounded in god which would mean there's something beyond god that god is subject to which means god isn't actually god add he wouldn't be the ultimate thing. Which would make most of this discussion logical nonsense.
Nope. Alex addressed that, and Max pretty much accepted what he said. Sure, if you define "good" as "god's command"/"god's nature"/anything similar - you can't say that god isn't good, but the statement that god is good is rendered meaningless.
@@dew_diligence just because Max accepted it doesn't mean Alex is right. One, I don't define good as God's command. The problem with that is God would need to issue commands about everything. Two, (this isn't a point you made but it's one I find useful to make here) if God and evil and products of us, it makes no sense to apply them to God, they would have arisen after Him and would only apply to us. If they also applied to God, they must be objective, apart from us. If they are not apart from us, they are subjective, and matters of opinion only, and therefore they do not truly exist. Therefore, three, if good and evil do truly exist objectively, and are apart from God, then God is subject to something outside of Himself, which would make God not actually God, as God by definition is subject only to Himself. Four, since God can't be subject to something outside of Himself, a correct morality must be part of what God is, that is, God is the standard by which all morality is judged. So, either what God is, is good and He is the moral objective standard, or morality not only can't be applied to God such that we can neither call Him good or evil, but that our concept of morality is simply subjective which means there is no good or evil. Having said all that, an evil god is a logical contradiction. When we consider God sans universe (think before the universe was created except the word before is a temporal term indicative of time which doesn't exist without the universe). We have no problem with the mythical aspects of a good God creating something which may as well be some sort of universe. But consider the motivation of a purely evil god. Hate is to evil much as love is to good. We can talk about ding good because we love to do good, but can we talk about doing evil because we hate to do evil? So, can a completely evil god do evil because he hates doing evil? The concept makes no sense. So could such a god create a universe because he hates the universe? Now, if he created a universe maliciously because he derived some enjoyment or pleasure from it, that's plausible, except then we're not talking about a completely evil god, but one in which resides a mix of good and evil. The problem with that is while you can compare goodness and evilness to something purely evil and purely good to judge how good or bad something is, you can't have a standard that is mixed or it isn't a standard, for if there is a mixture then how do we know how much of the standard of good or evil in order to judge the thing to which we want to know if it is good or evil. So, if god is a mix of good and evil then we can't know what good or evil is to talk about them. So, since as I noted above, if good and evil are real, God must be the standard by which we judge good and evil or He wouldn't be God, and God can't be pure evil as that is actually logically contradictory, and God can't be a mix as that is meaningless, there God must either be good or neither good nor evil. However, the neutral positron doesn't give God a reason to create the universe aside from having to, which means god is subject to something and not God, or boredom, which means God lacks something and is therefore not God as God by definition can't be subject anything external and can't be lacking in any way. This only leaves God being good as a possibility. For more, consider "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis, in particular book 1 chapter 2, and one of the chapters in book 2. Books 1, 2, and 3 are past of a single volume, much like the "Fellowship of the Ring" contains two books (yes, the Lord of the Rings is technically not a trilogy as it is technically made up of 6 books, which were published individually initially and then grouped into 3 volumes containing 2 books each).
@@miltonwetherbee5489 Thanks for the long reply. I'll read it and respond later (need to start recording a video of my own, so now is not the best time)
I didn’t say that Max’s acceptance means Alex was right, but if you want to say that the discussion is logical nonsense, you can’t ignore the fact that your objection has been addressed (i.e. you need to respond to what was said about it). Nor did I say that you define good as what god commanded. The rest of your first paragraph doesn’t change what I’d said - if god is the standard, then “god is good” is a tautology. It doesn’t say anything about god, only that he is what he is. Alex also answered that - if that’s all you mean, then sure - god is good, but then the challenge can simply be changed to something like “hating”, “malevolent”, etc. i.e. god is good, but that says nothing about his priorities, which may actually still be causing as much suffering as possible (for example). Your second paragraph seems to be mainly word play. Here’s why: what stems from it is that being evil means “hating evil”, in the same way that being good means “loving good”. But, usually loving good and hating evil or not opposites, right? So, wouldn’t it make much more sense to say something like “desiring good” and “desiring evil”. Only then, your objection fails. I don’t accept that we need a standard, but, in the theoretical case where there is a god and there is a standard, and all you’re saying is that god is the standard - you’re saying nothing at all when you say he’s good. I’m definitely not going to read or listen to five hours of CS Lewis. The bits and pieces that people like to quote from him really doesn’t make me feel like he has anything of substance to add. That said - I will refer you to my latest video, on the Euthyphro dilemma, as that also gives some answers to what you’re saying here (and it’s just 23 minutes, not 5 hours, and you can always set it to play at x1.5): ruclips.net/video/81KqJDS2HyU/видео.html
The Goodness of God can be defined as whatever He chooses to do, regardless of whether we like it or not. Being the Supreme Being, He is Goodness-in-itself apriori and cannot do anything that goes against His nature (i.e. evil). I think there are two main contentions against this perspective. One is that God's Goodness does not always align with our sense of pleasure and happiness, and the other is that God seems to be under a different moral standard than us humans. To the first contention, I would say that our feelings about God's Goodness are completely subjective. Just because we may at times experience God's Goodness as 'opressive' or 'mean' does not mean that His actions are evil. Our feelings are completely irrelevant to the status of God's actions. To the second contention, I would say that yes, God is subject to a very different moral standard than us humans. As a matter of fact, God isn't subject to any moral law other than His Divine Nature. This 'moral inequality' shouldn't be so controversial. There are many examples of this type of inequality in society which people have no issue with; for example, the difference in authority between a parent and a child. Thus, we see that God is Goodness-in-itself and everything that He does is Good. I should add that it is important to make a distinction between God's Goodness and His Loving Nature. His Goodness is simply whatever He does; His Love and Compassion is His desire to bring us humans towards Himself and His Goodness. This desire of His was most manifest with the Incarnation of Jesus Christ and His suffering on the Cross. He did this out of His own freewill and Compassion. God would've still been All-Good even without the Incarnation and Passion. His Love is an expression of His Goodness and works in harmony with It.
Alex's point about suffering is interesting, but I'm not sure I see why a maximally evil god would create creatures with the express purpose of suffering, but then allow us to successfully move towards lives of less and less suffering (which is something we've successfully done over the arc of human existence). If our arc is allowed to continue without either us or nature ending it, we will presumably reach a point where we experience nearly zero suffering. And this is not to mention that there are plenty of creatures even in the wild who don't experience much suffering actually, though they are more rare and often live in specific environments where they have very few predators and plentiful resources.
Alex's point at the end also falls a bit flat. The idea was that the ones being tortured are able to compare their lives to those who have good lives, and that creates worse suffering. But wild animals are not doing so and are not deriving more suffering from comparing their lives to ours. I think the maximum suffering world would have simulated people who have good lives, not real people having good lives, and those people suffering wouldn't know that those people are fake. Then, to apply this to the real world and take it out of the hypothetical realm, you would then have to accept that some people are just simulations, which I think is a less plausible stance. Which then brings us to the fact that this argument is about whether the two sides are EQUALLY plausible.
This is where debate and rhetoric skills come in handy and hence the reason I appreciate a guy like Michael Jones from Inspiring Philosophy. He may not have all the degrees as Mr. Hytch has or even the iq but he sure can defend his position much better and is likely more clever. I don’t intend to speak negatively of Max, he is likely brighter than Michael and Alex but guys likes Michael and Alex take thoughts from guys like Max and make them better and easier to defend. IP is honestly one of the few guys that I have seen get the better of cosmic skeptic on multiple occasions. Also, I’m speaking mainly of debate skills here; I don’t think Alex’s arguments are all that compelling at all but he is a great debator! I think it would be cool to have Alex and Michael agree to a 5 part debate series where they each get to pick two topics and then the audience gets to pick one. Let homegrown philosophy of religion you tubers duke it out in a comprehensive battle!
Yeah maybe let Mike finish first on Twitter since in the couple of day Mike is getting harrased by muslim, athiest and Even some christian's right now he's chating with paulogia on Twitter and he's soon going to put he's S & G vid on friday
Generally thats all debate is actually about. debate was never meant to be "let the best win" its really just a punching match that builds morale for either side.
Too bad Max wasn’t more into the Ontological arguments because that’s where Alex was least solid. His whole idea that God could have an evil nature & yet decide to be good was meaningless. As Max points out later, goodness is whatever God’s nature is. And God wouldn’t choose to overcome His own nature unless that was also part of His nature. The challenger would have to find another way to work evil into the definition of a MGB.
Goodness is only whatever Gods nature is IF you presuppose that God is good. It could be, in this hypothetical, that evil is whatever gods nature is. The fact that we assume otherwise wouldn't change the objective truth in this hypothetical that evil is gods nature, so, in order to do good, you would need to defy gods nature, or redefine "good" to be the opposite of what you now assume it to be.
If 'goodness' is whatever God's nature is, that's just as arbitrary a starting point than any other, as far as I can tell. Goodness is an inherently relative term that's dependent on a judgement call related to a specific goal. It really makes no sense to me to say that isolated goodness exists, without any context.
You’re all missing the point. What God is like is irrelevant. WHATEVER He is like, is good. For example, Plato wasn’t forced to teach Platonism. Whatever Plato would have taught would have become called Platonism. This is not an assertion, it’s a tautology. To claim that God could be anything other than good is a meaningless concept.
I think a better argument to the last point is simply that “bliss world”, as described by Max, isn’t the true opposite to torture world. In both worlds you are deprived of freedom, choice, and meaning. This is why some people might consider choosing Mixed World over Bliss World. A better conception of Bliss World would be one that gives you pure pleasure, pure love, but also still gives you freedom, meaning, and choice. It think the choice becomes more obvious in this instance, and revives the symmetry. And it might be hard to conceive what this version of Bliss World would actually look like - some might say it’s impossible. But I would argue that a truly omnipotent Being could figure it out and make it happen pretty easily...
I think what you’re asserting here is essentially heaven; once we’re done with earth we will have learned the truth; what truth, the wages of sin is death, no one dies in heaven, how did we end up in this world, we ate from the tree of knowledge, what is knowledge but data derived from experience, here we do experience the reality that sin itself when permitted to exist does lead to pain and suffering and eventually death; this is why in the end we will accept what God said and reconcile ourselves back to him or reject that truth and separate ourselves from him, either way we all may our choice to accept or reject God, it is not God who’s rejected us but we whom have rejected him
@@japexican007 that doesn’t break the symmetry either. Cuz you could just as easily say that god has us in this mixed world so that he can later send us to hell which will be even worse now that we know what goodness and pleasure was like, and know we will never experience it again.
@@japexican007 first of all, we are talking about a hypothetical maximally evil god. Second, it sounds like you are talking about the Christian god. In which case, don’t be ridiculous. Trying to argue that god doesn’t send people to hell is like trying to argue that hitler never sent any Jews to a concentration camp just because he didn’t physically throw them in there himself. God created the entire system. He created hell, and he created the mechanism by which it is possible to transfer human souls to it. An omnipotent, omniscient god is wholly responsible for everything that happens in the universe that it creates. If there is something happening in the universe that he doesn’t like or want, he easily could have created it in some other way. He could have just not created hell in the first place, or he could have made hell only for satan and his fallen angels and impossible for human souls to go there. How do you figure he isn’t responsible for sending souls to hell? He’s the big boss. It’s literally impossible for anything to happen without his go-ahead.
@@Blate1 if I’m a person with asthma, and I cannot be around smokers and you’re an avid smoker and I say you’re free to come into my house but I can’t be around cigarette smoke and you refuse to stop smoking who is sending who away?
Alex raised a really interesting point when he said raised an objection to the idea God is wholly good. He said something along the lines of it being of greater character for God to be able to and actually do evil but for him then to do good. A Christian can wholeheartedly agree when it comes to the redemption of humans. As Augustine said 'God judged it better to bring evil out if good than to suffer no evil to exist'. To bring good out of evil, a wholly good God must exist. Obviously Alex would not get anywhere that far in his logic, but his point was an interesting one and they could have discussed the separateness/otherness of God.
Alex had another problem, when talking about good or bad, if we are assuming there is some kind of god, we get our concept of morality from that god. So, either an evil god had instilled in us this concept of good morals that he himself goes against, or we shouldn't have a concept of good and evil, or God is good and we don't have that weird problem.
« if we are assuming there is some kind of god, we get our concept of morality from that god » ... No ? First of : there could be multiple gods, in which case why should we get our morality from any one of them ? Secondly : it’s entirely possible god would be amoral and our sense of morality just a thing that developed independently Thirdly : it’s not even contradictory to say that there is a god, but that both he and us are taking our moral properties from a third source, like a platonic idea of goodness or whatever. Also, why is it weird that an evil god would put ideas of good inside of us, but not the idea that a good god put evil ideas inside of us ? If we assume that evil ideas can develop in creatures independently from a good god’s wishes, why can’t we assume that good ideas could develop in creatures independently from an evil god’s wishes ?
@@nathanjora7627 sans universe there is no matter, no space, no time. If there's no matter, God can't be made up of individual parts, and would have to be very simplistic, in that sense, as far as beings go, and you have a disembodied mind, or pure thought. Now, without space, good would a separation of such beings be possible? Also, if there's more than one, there's probably a source that brought them about that would be greater and would ultimately be what we actually are referring to when we say God. So claiming that there could be gods doesn't really make logical sense. As to a source of good and evil from which a god would get it's morality from, that would mean that we are once again talking about something to which this so-called good is subject to, which makes it greater and what should be referred to as god. So again we have some logical difficulties. Oddly, the Trinity of Christianity does give us a logical concept of multiple personas but only one being. The personas aren't separate beings, which would make sense as there's no way for them to be separate. Since it makes no sense for morality to be something separate from God, God must Himself be the source of morality. If God weren't purely good or purely evil, then we couldn't have a standard that separates good from evil, and the concepts would be meaningless. As for God being purely evil, this also doesn't make logical sense, as whatever God is would be the standard of what is acceptable, for if God were evil then evil would be acceptable, but evil by definition is not acceptable, therefore this is logically contradictory and therefore impossible. Furthermore, evil involves hate much the same way good involves love. So doing evil for the sake of evil makes no sense as that would entail doing something because you hate it, whereas it's perfectly logical to do good for the sake of doing good as there isn't a problem with doing good because you love it. As for the neutral stance of God being neither good nor evil, and morality not being something that's possibly independent of God, then the only motivation God could have for creating the universe is that He had to, that He didn't have a choice in the matter. Consider our motivations. We do things we enjoy doing. We do things we hate because we know they are good for us or because we feel we deserve it (meaning we don't see ourselves as good, and by punishing ourselves we are therefore don't something good), or we are forced to do it. Boredom could be pointed to as a reason we do things, and while boredom may or may not be evil or good, or is a lack. If you're bored it's because you lack something, even if only for a little bit. So, to say God created the universe and us out of boredom would mean that God had a lack, which would mean that God isn't maximally great, and therefore not actually God, so again, we're left with a logical problem. And looking at the other motivations, the only motive that does make logical sense is a God rather than evil motivation.
satan is evil in the eyes of god, however god is not good nor is he evil, he is the law with which you can judge things as good or evil. you make satan sound like a god when you judge god as good, since if there is a good god there should also be an evil one and that would be satan, and you end up bieliving in two gods, not too monotheistic is it ?
1:20:50 It doesn't seem clear to me that a good god would more likely put us in a mixed world. Not because of any logical reason. It just seems like any world of torture would appear mixed because the beings in it wouldn't know any different. So near maximal torture world, or near maximal bliss world would appear the same to lifetime inhabitants. A pure world might appear different, but that's not the one we live in.
Honestly, I thought this discussion was kinda weak. No Q&A and I felt like Baker-Hytch was a little timid and didn't bring up the strongest responses. I'll confess that I think the "Evil God challenge" is very weak and silly. Crucial to it is the idea that it is meant to be a "symmetry" argument in which the "Evil God" can do much of the same work the "Good God" does, without requiring us to accept or reject very controversial notions. But there IS no symmetry, because an "evil God" actually requires some very heavy costs that a "good God" doesn't. For instance, it requires us to reject what I call "ordinary moral beliefs". This is the idea that there are some moral facts, and that we have a decent enough grasp on moral facts to the point where we can say, for instance, "torturing babies for fun is wrong"; "being kind, loving, courageous and just is good", and so on. Rejecting ordinary moral beliefs would be a huge cost for most people - certainly theists, but also atheists (for instance, Sam Harris accepts ordinary moral beliefs and wants to defend them; whether his secular metaethics ultimately works or not is beside the point). God is meant to be omnipotent and omniscient (or maximally knowledgeable and maximally powerful). This means that, given ordinary moral beliefs, God always perfectly knows what-should-be-done and what-shouldn't-be-done. He always knows, for instance, that torturing people for fun is disgusting, wrong, irrational. But being omnipotent, He also has no weaknesses, and can be under no irrational temptation. In which case, God simply cannot do what is evil, for the simple reason that an omniscient and omnipotent being cannot do evil. A being that has no ignorance and no weakness cannot do evil. An evil God, like any evil being, would have to be either stupid/irrational or weak to some extent. (Or, for those who can't quite see this point, just weaken it a little and it still works: an omniscient and omnipotent being would be *very unlikely* to do any evil, to say the least). This completely demolishes the "Evil God" challenge. This "challenge" would require us to think that a perfectly wise and powerful being (as God is supposed to be) could just choose to do evil, such as torture people for fun (irrational). In which case He isn't really wise and powerful as He is supposed to be. Unless all ordinary moral beliefs are wrong and we have no idea of what a wise person would do. In which case a wise man could be one who despises virtues, doesn't care about justice, and tortures babies for fun (while also being all powerful and under no weaknesses or temptations). It's nonsense. The "Evil God" proposal requires us to abandon beliefs that most of us take to be independently obvious or very plausible. This makes it the very opposite of a "symmetrical argument". Why Baker-Hytch didn't press this point is beyond me.
Well said, however it should be noted that the type of god you're referring to is the monotheistic Creator God. In polytheism there do exist evil deities and they do not need to possess the qualities of infinite wisdom and goodness to conceivably exist.
This is an interesting point, but strikes me as an unjustified jump. I am willing to grant that most of us have deep intuitions about "right and wrong", but those are only based on pain and pleasure by definition (as far as I see), so when we say torturing is "wrong", that's simply an extrapolation of the fact that we wouldn't want to be tortured ourselves. There's no metaphysical morality at play, it's just the definition of pain (what we don't want to experience) and pleasure (what we want to experience). And that's all merely descriptive, not prescriptive (i.e. that is what we prefer, not what we ought to prefer). So our moral intuitions have no transcendental consequences on what God ought to do. Even so, if God were evil, we would still want to avoid pain (by definition), regardless of what specifically caused us pain. But that has no transcendental substance. So if God were evil, He could perfectly choose to cause pain and that would be "rational" for Him. Lastly, I also take issue with the statement that we have moral intuitions, since probably not all humans on Earth do: if any human had fun torturing people, we would call them "insane", but that's circular reasoning. I do believe that most people have this intuitions, but they are most likely the result of wanting to avoid pain and seek pleasure themselves. More complex moral prescriptions are not as universal
On the evil god hypothesis, your "ordinary moral beliefs" were "written on your heart" on purpose by the god in order to deceive you and create more confusion. On the evil god hypothesis, god knows what should be done. However, it turns that bad actions are what actually should be done. Thus, an omnipotent and omniscient being cannot do what is good, "for the simple reason that an omniscient and omnipotent being cannot do" good. You are very. VERY far, from demolishing anything. If the discussion was "weak and silly", I wonder what adjectives are suitable to ascribe to your rebuttal.
Tim Holt suggested that the universe was created by a deity who was 100% malign and 80% efficient. If we accept the existence of the Christian God my view of the universe steeped in corona viruses suggests he is nearer 100 % good and 5% efficient. The good/evil symmetry is very debatable.
I would expect naturally for any argument for the existence of God to be neutral as to whether He is good or evil. I think the assessment of God's motivations and moral alignment is highly subjective if defined in human terms. Honestly, this seems very obvious to me. I was taught that God himself defines good and evil through his existential attributes. Based on my inherited (evangelical) standard of determining good and evil, an evil God is a God that isn't exactly like God. Good is perfectly like God, and evil is deviation from the nature of God in a way that results in either a direct conflict with God or engagement in behavior that offends God.
Problem is that neither Alex nor Max take the notion of an evil god remotely seriously. So the discussion is abstruse and hypothetical. Might be interesting to host a Zoroastrian, who really did believe in an evil god.
The point wasn’t to actually defend the notion of an evil god. The point is primarily to bolster the “argument from evil” for atheists. Theists try to use theodicies to get around the problem of evil by trying to explain in various ways why an all-good god would allow evil on earth. The “evil god” argument is just meant to show that these theodicies don’t actually work because they work just as well if you flip them and use them to prove an evil god instead. With the conclusion being that the notorious “problem of evil” is still alive and well, and has not been defeated by theists.
@@Blate1 In all honesties, I think the problem of evil will never be solved. Bart Ehrman submitted to it and now he's agnostic. He even wrote a book on the matter, _God's Problem_
i think every athiest is pro tsukuyomi , most athiest are nihilist ,so when there is no point to life then why even live in a real world and suffer pain , tskuyomi is the only solution to our pointless world
@@SamrattVerma When you're guaranteed heaven through your faith, why even value the life you have? It really all goes black when we die. We die like fish, like birds, like insects, like other mammals. This is all we've got, says the athiest. You don't seem to be even remotely honest&aware regarding the possible positions your "opposition", so to speak, can hold.
I think he said that backwards. It is more evil to overcome any inclinations you might have to be good and to do evil anyway. It’s the mirror theodicy to overcoming evil inclination with good.
@@Iamwrongbut I think you're wrong, but.... He said it in the sense that a maximally good God has to have some evil inclinations, because overcoming evil inclinations is better than not having them at all.
Yes. Alex really nails it with the theodicies here. I'm puzzled as to why anyone would be surprised that theodicies work both ways. When I argue that God exists, I'm not arguing that he is good. This always trips me up when it comes to atheists' criticism of God's decisions. So your point is that you don't think my God is just? I thought that you don't believe he exists. It is completely irrelevant whether or not he is good if he doesn't exist. It is very relevant to our definition of good if he does.
@@russ4moose No, the point isn't that your God is unjust. The point would be that a just God seems to be self contradictory. This says nothing of whether or not an unjust God exists; all it says is that a just one probably doesn't, whether or not any other gods exist. If you're not talking of a just God, it doesn't hurt your case in any way, but it does render most people's God beliefs unfounded (in the case of this challenge) or seemingly contradictory (in the case of the problem of evil) - as most people do believe in a just God.
Evil cannot exist without Good. That would be like shadows existing without light. If God is not 'good' then he cannot be evil. EDIT: On a completely unrelated note, I think Alex is a very good looking guy
@@terrorist_nousagi8747 Yup. But, then, it is up to the theist to justify which alternative one should choose. (While the atheist can happily reject both).
@@felipedantas2001 I see what you did there. But evil is the absence of good, it cannot be the other way around. For example, murder is evil because it takes away life but life is not good because it takes away murder. Life can exist without the existence of murder but not the other way around.
In a world where a virgin can be a mother.. I'd say yes.. batman can do whatever is comfortable.. (clearly tight pants are a predilection).. Nice you drew a parallel with a more recent fictional character.
God cannot make what is good apart from himself, so even though creation itself has been spoken of has being good in Genesis, it is not the true good, that is, it is not the good of God, so even though helping someone is considered to be a good or giving to the poor, this kind of thing it is not the true good, because the true good is spirit not flesh, it is the spiritual state of your heart, this is where you find the good, those who are born of God are born of the good, and those who are not born of god remain in the evil, as Christ said, if you who are evil know how to give good things to your children, he expresses that you are evil at the same time there is a understanding of the good, but true good is God, and those who possess his light are truly good.
It doesn't seem like Max has put any thought whatsoever into considering the other side of this argument. Each point appears to be given presupposing that Gods nature is good, and that we can't presuppose that God is evil. He says (basically) "We get our morals from a reflection of Gods nature, which is good, so that doesn't align with an evil god" Without even considering that the exact opposite could be the case. If gods nature was evil, than out morals could be based around avoiding gods nature, because we acknowledge god is evil. In this hypothetical, our theology would be based around intentionally going against gods nature. When presented with each objection, he just says "hmm, I haven't even thought of that" I don't understand how he got this far without even considering the other side of the argument.
No amount of philosophy or theory, only one's will (which the intellect is subservient to), can shake the infused knowledge of God's love and goodness that comes from a spiritual experience where one gets a taste of God's character. To such a person, you might as well be trying to convince them that 2+2=banana.
So isn't the conversation over from the start if Alex is saying a greater "God" is someone is tempted to do evil and overcomes it. Isn't that Jesus? I mean... he did that so.... Idk maybe I'm pretty surfaced on this one lol.
He said a greater good. Not a greater god. What he also meant is God in the abrahamic religion CANNOT do bad. Alex then said, a greater good, would be a god that would have the ability to do bad, but chooses not to do bad. Idk something like that.
@@gamehour3468 jesus was never legitimately tempted. The story of Jesus being tempted in the gospels is like believing you own an acre of land, and someone telling you that you can have a square foot of your own property if you accept his offer.
@@uabjf Well he was attempted to be tempted to act outside of his will (God's Will) to accomplish what he was going to do. You right he was attempted to be tempted.
This conversation is so funny to me, going back and forth on a completely human notion. God is the creator, whatever God does is just right and just is, there is no good or evil with God lol, there is nothing God is morally obligated too.
Ok, let's rephrase to get around the God is good by definition. Is belief in a: Lying, hating and sadistic God more reasonable than belief in a truthful, loving and compassionate God. Leave goodness out of it if you think both God-concept would be "good" by definition.
thats true God is beyond good and evil. but people like to judge things all the time they like to play God and they ignoranlty end up judging God himself either as good or evil when none of those judgements are true. only one can judge things and that is God and he is beyond judgement.
@CLIFFORD EDWARDS Well it is very different, people committing acts of evil against each other is evil. But God is the creator, he can do with his creation as he wishes and it is not evil or good, he is not morally obligated to what he creates, just as I am not morally obligated to my computer, I can do with it as I please. People may think I have made a bad decision if I decide to trash, burn, destroy my computer but no one could call me immoral for doing so. God is the God, there is nothing He answers too. We can shake our fist all we want lol. We are clay in His hands, he can mold and create whatever he wishes. All we are is rock, clay, dust to him, that he showers anything good on anyone is what is more shocking. It is just funny hearing rocks, compared to God, debate his actions lol
@@YuGiOhDuelChannel I disagree with your analogy. If I learned that something I created had the capacity to suffer and will I now have obligations to my creation. It's not about a hierarchy where you are allowed to punch down.
Here's my problem with the evil god concept. Would the evil god enjoy the suffering it may cause, or would it hate the suffering it would cause? If it hates the suffering it causes why would it cause it? Loving to do evil is by it's very nature, not entirely evil. So a purely evil god seems to me to be irrational. If it isn't purely evil, and gets some enjoyment or some similar good thing from ding the evil it does, then it poses an internal conflict, which would make it less than maximally great. Also, to create us with the capacity to do good, and give us a moral nature, our conscious as we often call it, to do good, indicates that this evil god would have to have a great deal of knowledge about good while purposefully doing bad, which makes this god no better than us morally speaking. So once again we have a god who isn't maximally great. These are just some initial thoughts from listening while I'm art work, please don't consider these to be properly fleshed out ideas regarding the subject.
I share your view on these intuitions as well. I think these responses you have listed here are much better than anything Max put forward. I was surprising disappointed with his “performance” here considering how well I think he did in their prior discussion. I think Max is a genuinely nice guy and that is not a great making property regarding debate style discussions.
It seems to me you're going about this backwards. You've thought of some objections, that to me don't sound at all plausible to be honest, to an evil god. Presumably because you start with the premise that you want a good god to exist. What you should be attempting is to show how the mirror of those objections doesn't rule out a good god. As to the objections themselves: who said a maximally evil god would 'love' evil, or that such a love would be 'good'? Who said that a maximally evil god would be no more evil than human beings?
« Loving to do evil is by it’s very nature, not entirely evil » ... I’m sorry, what ? Hating to do evil is by definition not entirely evil, or at least prove the being doing the evil isn’t entirely evil, but it seems like by definition someone who knows he is doing evil and does it anyway because it’s what makes him happy would be truest possible form of evil being :| « to create us with the capacity to do good, and give us a moral nature, our conscious as we often call it, to do good, indicates that this evil god would have to have a great deal of knowledge about good » I could be cheeky and say that obviously good is just a privation of evil so an evil god would just have to take all of his attributes and push humans to do the opposite I could be cheekier and say that obviously if an allegedly good god can give humans the capacity to do evil, and many inclinations to do so, then an evil god should be able to do the same in reverse But I’ll go for the simpler route of just wondering why an evil god couldn’t just be able to do that because he is both omnipotent and omniscient.
@@nathanjora7627 I'm saying hating to do evil is logically nonsensical, and loving to do evil isn't maximally great as far as evil goes because love is involved, even if a bit perverted. I'm pointing out that it's impossible to do evil for the sake of doing evil, while it's perfectly possible to do good for the sake of doing good. So good had the possibility of existing without evil, but not the other way around.
@@mattsmith1440 what I'm trying to point out is the evil god bit doesn't actually make sense to talk about in the first place. Let's start sans universe, which means sans time which may make this a bit odd to structure using the English language as we have no proper way to talk about sans universe (saying before the universe exists is technically problematic because without the universe there isn't time, and before and when, and so on are temporal terms). So anyway, sans universe all that exists is God. So let's assume that God is all good. It seems possible that a completely good God can create a universe because it is good to do so. But take the negative of that. Can a completely evil God create a universe because it would be evil to do so? If it were evil to do so, it would be completely wrong or bad for such a god to do so. Could a perfect being be wrong? I mean honestly, the more I think about what it must mean for a god to be completely evil, the more logically absurd the concept gets. So my problem with the whole discussion is that it hasn't done anything to convince me that a purely evil god is even logically possible. If it's not logically possible for a purely evil god to exist, none of the other arguments mean anything as they are based in part or whole on something that's impossible.
I don’t feel like Max viewed this as much of a debate, but rather a relaxed conversation. 1. The two theories are not symmetrical. If we had a maximally malicious God the world would be in a much worse state than it is. One could say that a maximally evil God could bring more evil out of goodness, but I would argue that. We could live in a world where our experience was an existence predominantly ruled by torture and pain and it would be much worse than any evil that you could potentially bring out of good. An omnipotent, maximally malicious God could ensure that we exist purely to suffer to the maximal degree. He could have had women giving birth only to then be tortured alongside their children, he could ensure that everyone felt immense physical and emotional pain at all times. This is not the case in our world. Further, if we have a maximally good God he can bring greater good out of evil, and we do see this happen. He would also give us the freedom to choose to love Him because love, in order to be love, needs to be freely given. This choice would also allow room for us to commit acts that one could deem objectively evil further resulting in a world where evil exists. Edit: I realize that this point was addressed later on so I will add to my argument. Though Alex proposed that mixed world could be worse than torture world, I would disagree. He forgot to add that mixed world would have far less torture than torture world could potentially have (would have, given the concept of a maximally evil God). Mixed world is our world. We can assess simply by looking at statistics, and whatnot, that there are many evil things occurring that could be occurring at much higher rates while still maintaining this “some people are joyful and it makes it worse for others” argument. We are not at max evil. This world is not torture world “and then some”. Even people who are suffering greatly can often still experience the love of others, they can be helped by strangers, they can hold onto those moments and cherish them. The grand majority of our population is not experiencing max pain levels. If this world was torture world then I imagine many more people would be on torture racks being burned alive, or experiencing the most pain one could possibly experience both mentally and physically, and it would not end. This continuous, prolonged torture is so rare that you may as well say that it doesn’t exist. Animals don’t have the same mental capacity that humans do and because of these variables I don’t think that they actually belong in this conversation. I don’t believe that Alex is thinking big enough when he speaks about this hypothetical torture world. 2. There is a false equivalency that Alex draws later on in this conversation when he uses the “good book, bad book” analogy. You simply cannot apply the same standard to an inanimate object as you do to a conscious, moral being. If I say to someone “I really like Sarah, I think she’s a really good person” I am not speaking of her bodily function and it’s ability to do what it should, I am speaking about her morality. This cannot be applied to a book. When speaking in terms of morality evil and bad could very well be considered synonymous, and evil could easily be antonymous to good. This is a false comparison. 3. Present people with two options. Option one: We have an omnipotent God who is, by nature, maximally good. Option two: We have a God who is limited in goodness, has an evil streak, but doesn’t act upon it. Ask people which they would prefer and I can almost guarantee that most people would prefer the maximally good God. Why? Because the God with an evil streak is basically a ticking time bomb. Imagine an all powerful God with an malicious streak, a God that does mostly good but occasionally has a desire to torture people for fun. How is that more morally commendable? If I occasionally have the desire to hurt children, but don’t cave to that desire, does that make me better than a person who never has that desire to do it at all? Of course not. I do understand why Alex is using this point though. Many Christians would use the same argument to defend Gods creation of man, and allowing us to have free will. I want to point out that there is a huge difference between not caving to a desire in the moment, and ridding oneself of the evil desire overall. Not caving to a desire to hurt children in the moment is not so morally commendable if that desire continues to resurface. It seems merely tolerable. However, ridding oneself of the desire entirely is morally commendable, though I would not say that it’s more morally commendable than never having the evil thought in the first place. Regardless, we are speaking in reference to God so this is actually all irrelevant. If God had to rid himself of evil desires than He wouldn’t be God. God is existence, and in being existence (rather than simply existing) God is not lacking in anything. To have to rid oneself of evil desires would be to be lacking in goodness. So, our options are either a maximally good God or a maximally evil god. I have already gone over my points for why the former is a more adequate assumption.
Well thought out. Those are some really good points. Of course, if god were evil, then were would people's natural inclination to love one another come from? Most people all walks of life, whether you are Christian, Muslim, or some other kind of Theist, Atheist, Agnostic, or any kind of person from another spiritual or non spiritual belief, this is the one thing that we are all capable of feeling as human beings, love. It's obviously in grained in us. If our creator were evil, then I don't know how we could have come up with this feeling within ourselves. It makes more sense that we came from love.
@@pault9544 Yes! I agree. I guess that one could argue that if there was an evil god, that the good inside of us exists to make the evil all the more torturous. However, I think an evil god could make things all the worse by allowing us only the capacity to feel loss, pain, etc. With an evil god there is no purpose to awarding us with choice, but with a good God there is.
@@pault9544 there are people who are horribly depressed and not capable of feeling love. I’ve known a person like that and he sadly took his own life. So your assertion that the one thing we are all capable of feeling is love, is false. If anything the one thing everyone feels is suffering. Have you ever met anyone who has never suffered? It makes more sense we come from suffering.
@@urupapado I wasn’t saying every person on this earth feels love. I’m saying this is a common thing most people can feel. Well, you probably will think I’m making this up but, I also happen to be severely depressed, I also have not been able to feel love on and off throughout my life with struggles with anhedonia but recently it just got much worse and my emotions have flatlined. So I know. Not everyone feels love, for me a lot of it comes from being abused growing up, but I understand some people also say that they just never felt much to begin with. I still believe in a higher power though and that’s simply my personal choice to try and get through why I’m going through.
@@pault9544 i’m sorry to hear that. I was just being a bit snarky. Hopefully you’ll work things out. I’m not convinced that believing in god is a choice, more like something that happens to you or it does not. But if you feel like it helps, i’m not objecting.
Dr. Baker-Hytch was not the right person for this, in my opinion. His attitude is a very good one for congenial discussions among colleagues; but this was supposed to be a debate. As a debate, Alex utterly demolished the paper and Dr. Baker-Hytch's position. I'd suggest arranging a round 2 with someone like Dr. Craig, but that seems unlikely.
There are so many better things you could say to demolish the Evil God Challenge. Easy examples, just off the top of my head: 1) Ontological and Moral Arguments, any argument referencing the resurrection of Jesus, and, plausibly, any argument that concludes to a being that is omniscient and perfectly free... are all totally asymmetrical with respect to Evil vs. Good God. 2) Even symmetrical arguments would remove atheism as an option, and limit us to finding reasons and evidence for *which* God exists. So, if the Problem of Evil and the symmetrical Problem of Good leave us at an impasse, then it's at least a theistic impasse; and all of us theists can now work on that further problem together. 3) (This is similar to just running a Moral Argument, but...) If there is such a thing as the way things "ought to be", and this would be true in any possible world, then the very ground of all Being couldn't be otherwise. For God to be Evil means for Him to be as He objectively and necessarily ought not to be. That is meaningless. And that's not just semantics (as in the options that Max brought up). It's a genuine problem for anyone who wants to simultaneously hold "X is the ground of all possible worlds, and is the ultimate reality, and yet it fails to be as it ought to be". We have moral knowledge, and we are aware of at least some of these necessary "oughts". A being which was, for example, sadistic, would not live up to even the oughts that we're aware of as finite, contingent, hugely limited beings.
Precisely what i thought. Even if you disagree with Alex, he certainly came out as stronger - of course this doesn’t mean his arguments were particularly amazing however. A better opposition was needed.
@@Mentat1231 1) On the Evil God hypothesis, maximal evil is a great-making property and it would be the case that god is an objective foundation for "inverse" moral values and duties. Jesus's resurrection would be a hoax created by the evil god so would be the evidence for it. An omniscient evil god would know what is objectively moral evil and would act in accordance with it. A perfectly evil god would be able to perform every possible action; good deeds would be incompatible with his nature and therefore not possible actions. 2) The symmetrical problem shows that theism is unfalsifiable and the price the believer has to pay; it does not provide any reason to prefer one case instead of another completely different. On naturalism, one rejects both and is thereby completely free from this dilemma. Just like that. 3) On the Evil God hypothesis, there are such things as "oughts to be": hate, greed, suffering, and so on. The only justification for thinking that this is meaningless is to assume that the foundation is different - which would simply beg the question (for it would be likewise available for the proponent of the Evil God hypothesis). The good oughts that we "know" of such as charity and patience were deliberately put in our hearts by the evil god to deceive us, thus creating more instances of confusion and falsity.
Well then he has to write a better paper, not find a replacement. The points brought up was literally going off the paper, and none of them really held up that well upon initial inspection.
Why do people get to define an entity who is not fully within their comprehension with subjective labels like Good and Bad. The attribute of God is The benovelant and The Just, which are objective enough. Good and bad are results of human actions that manifest as consequence.
@CLIFFORD EDWARDS I am not even Christian, so if you ask me bible is 100%, then the answer is NO, and you can learn about it academically on blogging theology channel, benovelant does not mean to leave people out on street homeless and foodless either, slavery of ancient was not condoned by God, but initiated by humans, and to integrate homeless into society, laws were later revealed by God, and religion is morally hinged on harm principle so rape and genocide is harming either emotionally or physically. So try to understand the core principle of morality in a religion before you make blanket statements.
@CLIFFORD EDWARDS I will be honest, I am not a biblical scholar, all I know is forced slavery is not allowed in any religion, slavery is defined as different things in different cultures. From your paradigm slavery is what the American white used to treat the black people, but if you go to east like Thailand slavery was a deabt bound or redeeming social obligation and further categorized into seven, in mordern day we have corporate slaves, there is clear distinction between elite, middle and lower classes, so tell me was this distinction made by God or humans? were humans the one who made things as commodity or God? the earth is big enough, there is plenty of food and place to live and feed entire human populations, so who is demarcating the illusory limits on humans? God or humans? Religion laws were revelead to ease this twisted human laws by setting up clear boundaries. Some understand it, some exploit it, some ignore it.
@CLIFFORD EDWARDS I bet this notion [The Bible claims that slaves shall be the Israelites property that’s just immoral, no matter how nice the slave master is and there is plenty of room for the slave master to be cruel under the guidelines of the Bible.] came from corruption of text by Israelites, because they were treated same way by the pharaoh. I do not deny anything that you mention as not being immoral, as I do not follow Bible to begin with.
Alex's first idea fits since there is so much evil in the world. he/she "mostly" does good argument makes them maximally better. Puppies are tortured for fun all over the world, and eaten. Max wants evidence of the likely imaginary person's psyche he will never gain that information. I still think having these arguments smuggles in the supposed existence of some supreme being all this seems like a time waster until you can prove there is actually a god. Good luck finding any defeat of Alex's logic, I haven't seen any here. He's a great one to debate for apologetics since he is truly open to opinion change given proper logic and evidence, I don't think that can be said by any theist (they will give in all arguments as a loss, and still be theists no matter what).
dr max: "we don't have an actual rebuttal, we just think that if some of this bunch of maybes was true we would have a rebuttal" "but... they are maybes and there's the exact opposite maybe you can't just pretend isn't there" There, saved you 2 hours.
@@paskal007r I have no sort of respect for this line of condescension, Alex in this conversation had conceded to much of Max's rebuttals. If you aren't willing to display intellectual humility, and do what other arrogant atheists do by caricaturing atheists as stumbling nobodies, then it shows your level of understanding in this conversation.
@@eternalbyzantium262 what? I'm sorry what conversation did you watch? I've seen plenty of times points end up like I mentioned, with mark, not alex, conceding the point. This is in no sense a caricature, it's what has happened again and again.
@@Qwerty-jy9mj not sure if I'd call him a misanthropist. Maybe anti-sufferist, the only way to prevent and guarantee no suffering is by avoiding the root of the problem, which is coming into existence. I don't see how any other view could be more compassionate than that
If there is a god, I would imagine its either an indifferent god, or some type of mischievous or flawed god. This makes far more sense to me, just judging by the world we live in. To be clear, I'm of the opinion that there is far too much we don't know about the universe we exist in to conclude whether or not a god exists.
Just replace good/evil with the properties normally defined as such. Honorable/loving/caring vs lying/backstabbing/sadistic. Should get around the "good is just an alternate spelling of god"-objection.
@@Oskar1000 it’s difficult to take some good things and flip them, and find equal and opposite versions. Does an evil god prefer coherence or incoherence? Is an evil god maximally patient, or maximally impatient? What is the opposite of kindness? Is it malice, or is it selfishness? Should I ignore my conscience, or do the opposite of what it says? What is the greatest “virtue”, by the standard of an evil god? How does an evil god respond to people who aren’t “virtuous”? Does he reward it, or punish it, or is he perfectly indifferent to it? Does an evil god want to display or hide his “goodness”? Or does he perhaps want people to think he’s the opposite of what he is? Does he want to be loved, or hated, or looked down upon, or ignored?
You are being dishonest because if you were not being dishonest, then you would not have deleted your last set of comments and my questions to you. You got backed into a corner and your only way out was to delete the comments. Now, if God does not exist and someone chopped your fingers and toes off because they did not like you, then would you still be in pain and would you believe that they did something bad and wrong to you ? Yes or No ? Your answer is ….... ?
@@TheMirabillis I didn’t delete the comments, I think RUclips did because I said something homophobic lol. But why is getting our fingers and toes chopped off a bad thing?
@@ethan1268 Answer what I have asked you …. If God does not exist and someone chopped your fingers and toes off because they did not like you, then would you still be in pain and would you believe that they did something bad and wrong to you ? Yes or No ? Your answer is ….... ?
@@TheMirabillis it’s a nonsensical question. I didn’t believe in God but I still thought good and bad existed but I had no basis in which I could justify it, now through the orthodox Christian doctrine I have a justification, as morality is written in our heart since the beginning of our creation. It’s a presuppositional question, it makes sense for an atheist but not for me.
@@ethan1268 So what you are saying then, is that, if human beings are here by random chance, and there is no God, then they could not feel pain and would not believe anything done against them would be bad and wrong. Now, all you have do is give evidence for that. If you can’t do that, then you all you have is a personal belief with no evidence that it is true.
A person who gets to a better place due to their own actions rather than merely being given that goodness is more commendable. The fatal flaw in the reasoning, however, is that Alex assumes God doesn’t merit His own goodness. In other words, God is more given His goodness as a default rather than developing it Himself. But that would make God a created being. God isn’t given His own goodness, but has it due to Himself.
Wouldn't redefining 'good' to be 'fulfilling its purpose' or 'whatever God wishes /does /commands' be an equivocation fallacy? Especially considering for the entire conversation leading up to that, it wasn't the definition used?
@@russ4moose if it is the consistent definition then there is no point discussing if God is good or evil because three terms are irrelevant. A toaster would be good when you buy it but evil when it breaks. Or if the manufacturer designed it to last for a limited amount of time, it would be good when it breaks as well. If God is the most horrible creature to have ever existed that only thought maliciously, it would still be good by that definition. Just as Satan would also be good.
@@alwayslearningtech I think that any meaningful discussion about this requires some operational definition of these terms. How they were able to go so long on this topic without bothering to define good and evil really baffles me.
If you are a Christian, then on William Lane Craig’s Molinist position God has created people who would go to Hell so that you could live for Eternity Future with God. How does that make you feel ? How does it make you feel that one or more people have been created to suffer for all of Eternity Future for you so that you could live with God for all of Eternity Future ?? Here is what Craig says in his book, “The Only Wise God” … “His ( God ) goal, then, is to achieve an optimal balance, to create no more lost than is necessary to actualize a certain number of the saved. But it is possible that the balance in the actual world is such an optimal balance. It is possible that in order to create the number of persons in our world who will be saved, God had to create the number of persons who will be lost.” ----- Craig’s God is surely an evil and malevolent God. To create billions and billions and billions of people who will suffer forever and ever is morally repugnant. Annihilationists don’t do any better because Annihilationists have a God who creates people to suffer in this world ( and some of those people go through extreme suffering ) and whom God knows He will snuff out after he is finished using them. Such a God is surely evil and malevolent. Don’t let Christian Apologists screw you over with their BS.
From the context of the debate, it's irrelevant. Because Alex's point is that you could use the same argument for a good god with an evil god. So however you determine what is good or evil is irrelevant because no matter what you could consider good, it could be argued the opposite of what you consider good(evil) is what god is. The objection of god is "good" no matter what by definition was already brought up in the debate and discussed.
@@davidfrey08 They didn't contend with the view I was taught in theology. Simply put, evil is defined as whatever works against good. It's not a pure opposite of good on many levels. Getting a metal needle rammed into your arm is not itself good, but it may be for the good, or for evil. Christianity does actually have an evil God. He was created by God, but is inferior in nature by virtue of the fact that he is capable of lechery. Maximal evil definitionally requires mostly good, while maximal good is purely good in the presence of evil, therefore the greatest possible god is one that tolerates the existence of evil, which can be defined as that which he does not ultimately desire. You can label such a being "evil" and be absolutely consistent with your logic if "evil" is subjective to your intuitive grasp of ethics.
The irony of an atheist entertaining the question "could gods be evil" is lost on O'Conner, since in order for an entity to be evil it must first be. If gods could exist as evil, then gods must exist. And we do well know that in polytheism evil deities do exist.
The question is said as "If a god does exist can it be evil?" Thinking about hipotheticals is a thing that is used everywhere, be it exact science or phylosophy
You missed the point of this debate entirely. Alex wasn’t trying to prove the existence of an evil god, he was showing that any arguments that can be used to explain why a good god would allow evil on earth could just as easily be used to explain why an evil god would allow good on earth. This therefore renders those arguments useless, which is a big problem for theists, because these are the arguments they use to refute the famous “problem of evil”. If they can no longer use these arguments to refute the problem of evil, this leaves the problem of evil as an outstanding major challenge to theism generally.
@@creatinechris you’re free to accept that delusion; in the end you’re without excuse, we all make our choice to accept or reject God, he will not violate your freedom to willingly depart from him, God bless
@@Blate1 no I didn't miss the point of the "debate", you missed the point of my comment. The so-called "Problem of Evil" doesn't even apply to most theological positions so your assertion that this presents "a big problem for theists" generally, is inaccurate. As a matter of fact, the Problem of Evil can never and has never been used to prove the veracity of atheism. This is typical of atheists; they consistently argue against the doctrines of Christianity to the exclusion of other theologies, as if doing so would in and of itself prove atheism true.
- Heaven no suffering - Earth: suffering and joy - hell : all suffering Pain and suffering is due to sin; the chaos and destruction we see on earth is because this world is a reflection of the sin nature; sin is like a virus, it consumes and destroys until there’s nothing left, this is why There is no sin in heaven because if it were possible for sin to be in the presence of God it would corrupt and consume, take a look at just 1 sin that was committed, Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge and the trickle down effect it has brought about, all this pain and suffering into this fallen world, in the end God will contain and quarantine the virus and will purge it so as not to cause any more damage.
Also, if there is no sin in heaven then we may be free now, but when we die we will be robots in heaven with no ability to sin. So what’s the point of being free now on earth for a millisecond in comparison to the eons of no freedom we will experience in heaven?
@@Iamwrongbut the issue here is either you believe Satan who says sin is you and God is trying to remove what makes you you all those selfish desires that consume and destroy or you believe God and this corrupt flesh is not you and your soul is meant to be whole without these selfish desires that never fulfill; either way God will let you choose, to be with him or to depart from him, we all make our choice
@@Iamwrongbut once again sin replicating consuming and destroying is a direct reflection of the nature of sin; sin for all intents and purposes is in itself a virus I just say it’s like a virus because it is a spiritual dilemma and not a physical one
I think I've heard Dr Law set up this challenge as benevolent vs malevolent in speeches before. Gets around the whole "whatever God does is good" and "god is just an alternate spelling of good" objections.
Alex,I watched this video with my 7 year old Granddaughter. She pointed out that your position was flawed because you don't believe in God because you can't prove the existence. She stated you should look at confidence you can't see it or describe it, but still exist. If you have thought then you believe. With Max she stated that he can't argue for a God he really doesn't understand,and he's not supposed to. I personally thought it was a good exchange of ideas thank you
@@GoldenWolf248 It wouldn't be the opposite if God were evil. It would just be a fact. But if that's so then you supposing God is good would be opposite day.
God isn’t evil. It’s like saying the engineers of cars are bad because they created trouble codes for their vehicles, and with the knowledge of car accident, and defects that have potential therefore, the engineers are evil more evil. It clearly doesn’t follow the engineers are evil.
It’s more like saying that the engineer is evil because after creating the car he then programmed the car to crash itself. Because people are born with an inclination toward sin, all “cars” are pre-programmed to crash from birth. God knew this would happen by creating Adam. Plus, he didn’t need to make sin hereditary. So Adam’s sin didn’t NEED to get passed down so that all cars always crash always from then until the end of time.
If the cars are programmed to crash themselves then it follows that the cars are also programmed to not crash themselves. The desire of sin isn’t a “must have” or “I can’t help myself”. Christ said “go, and sin no more” which indicates that not sinning is possible. But it still doesn’t make God evil. Even the angels sin, and they don’t even ask ridiculous questions as humans do. Thy question is one of “look at me cry.”
The only Maximally Great Thing i saw in this debate is the amount of English Accent I think it's the thing which created the Universe. I think that English Accent IS the Universe, so it's my duty to worship it. Sorry guys, I gotta leave Christianity
In the end this question is a bit like believing that you are the only conscious mind; it’s a interesting thought, but if it were true it would be unprovable, probably even unknowable. A malicious God would have created the universe to select for benevolent & truthful creatures so they in turn would see these as great-making properties, synonymous with omniscience omnipotence etc. This way our logic would demand that He love us & never lie to us. It’s a self defeating idea. But an interesting discussion, as always.
It’s not a self defeating idea, it’s proving that trying to argue that the presence of suffering not being a defeater for an omnipotent omniscient being’s moral perfection is self defeating, because it’d entail that the presence of wellbeing/happiness isn’t a defeater for an omnipotent omniscient perfectly evil being. Or in other words : we know that the idea is dumb, but we have to use it to show theists why their theodicies don’t actually answer the problem of suffering.
I really felt that max was on his back foot the entire time. I can’t name a time that I felt that he answered Alex’s questions sufficiently. Plus, the amount of times he said “like” and repeated half-sentences over and over made it very hard to listen to. Still not sure what he was trying to show.
Christians don't need to defend the goodness of God against atheists. If I convince an atheist that God, should he exist, is good, would that convert any atheist to theism? That concept is insulting. Similarly, if an atheist convinces me that my God is malevolent, would I cease to believe that God exists?
So, in essence, if we redefine good and evil such that they become meaningless to actual human beings, then we can dispense with evil god; otherwise, evil god is here to stay. Sounds familiar. It amazes me that there are people in the world actually inclined to force themselves to pretend they believe such nonsense.
I prefer these open discussion-style talks rather than a formal timed debate. :) thanks for all your content!
I just don't understand how this conversation is possible without defining good and evil!
hmm
we can have an intuitive grasp on it
@@RadicOmega since when does having an "intuitive grasp" provide rigour? he is right. a definition is still required but they don't have one.
@@RadicOmega what good does having an intuitive grasp of good and evil do for this thought experiment? I think the whole thing is absurd without defining those terms.
@@danglingondivineladders3994 people rely on our intuitive understanding of concepts all the time, we don’t have to have precise definitions of goodness in order to know a proper utilization of it or not
Came here for the experts in the comment section...
Exactly
@Jack of all Trades GOD almighty mighty game?
@Jack of all Trades You lost your faith what made you lose it?(if you don’t mind me asking)
Haha me too
Frankly I’m pissed at the RUclips Algorithm for waiting 4 days before putting this debate on my home page.
lol took four months for me
3 years for me boii
While I agree with Max, and I'm sure his scholarly work is great, I feel like he was unprepared for this debate. Alex's objections were very clever but foreseeable, and could have been addressed better with some more prep work on Max's part.
NO EXCUSES FOR PEOPLE REJECTING THE FREE GIFT of 💛➕SALVATION ❗ ACTION SPEAKS 🔈 LOUDER 🔈 THAN WORDS ❗JESUS CHRIST IS THE LIVING WORDS OF GOD 👍👌👌 💯 %
Philippians 2: 5 - 8
5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in very nature[a] God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature[b] of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death-
even death on a cross!
ACTION SPEAKS 🔈 LOUDER 🔈 THAN WORDS.
NO EXCUSES FOR PEOPLE REJECTING THE FREE GIFT
Alex is only an expert at creating wild assumptions without substantiating them. Ironically what he himself demands.
That's why it's easy to raise objects but problematic to spell out a comprehensive explanation. Hence, he's aware that skepticism gives him that advantage which is blatantly disingenuous.
@@creatinechris
Easy, so you're an Atheist.
Do you believe good & evil really exist & if so prove it (given we are evolutionary bi-products). Then we will proceed.
Because i have developed immunity against skeptic's unsubstantiated skepticism.
@@appearances9250 Well we don't need to do that though? If good and evil doesn't exist than, fine god also doesnt exist and if he does, he can't be defined as good. So it is not in our interest (atheists) in this particular discussion to prove that. We can grant You that good and evil exist, define them and than argue that god isn't or even can't be good.
@@appearances9250 It is completely irrelevant whether or no an atheist believe or not in good & evil. The point of the "evil god" answer is to show an internal problem with the "good god" argument (which imply that good and evil exist).
Feels like Alex had a sudden glow up
It's called jaundice
the power of facial hair, though he needs more styling
Damn this really is a footnote in femboy physics
thats where i came from
You should add some sort of notification thing that you use that is not shown on stream when you want to talk, so there isn't an awkward interaction around the interruption each time.
Hey Cameron. Hope you're good. I was wondering if you'd consider bringing Jake Brancatella (aka "The Muslim Metaphysician") on for a discussion on the Trinity and/or Incarnation. Jake had some very good, respectful and highly academic dialogues with Dr Josh Sijuwade, Dr Beau Branson, and most recently Eastern Orthodox scholar Dr David Bradshaw (you can check the last two out on the "Orthodox Shahada" channel, and the other on Jake's channel - "The Muslim Metaphysician"). Jake is very respectful, non-polemical, and well-versed in the topics of the trinity and incarnation. I think it would be an awesome discussion and one of the best ways to bridge Christian-Muslim apologetics and pave the way to fruitful interfaith dialogues (which needless to say have been horrible as of late). Please do take this into consideration. Thanks, man ☺️
Love the discussion. I'm always nervous thinking about these topics in depth because I'm tempted to think it's possible God is a mix of good and evil. As a believer I believe in an all loving perfect God. But at the same time it's not simple and easy to always view it that way.
Just looking at jericho and what happened after the walls fell , it's not a big question .
You shouldn't be nervous about dealing with reality.
Excellent exchange. The theist was unable to provide one single instance of symmetry breaking and therefore unable to justify his preferred version of divine entity. A very good way to show the price that one has to pay for defending ad-hoc unfalsifiable views about what is true.
Just because he didn’t have an adequate reply doesn’t mean their isn’t one. If you read the comments you will observe that many theists felt as though the proper counter arguments were not addressed, and some went on to address them individually.
Alex again with this masterpiece. I loved this conversation. This man is like 21. Never seen such smart/intelligent person.
wth
If I was in bliss world it wouldn't feel like torture, I wouldn't feel negativity about the experience. So bliss world for me.
I really didn't think that thought experiment was very fairly presented to begin with. I could set up 3 hypothetical worlds and show you are more likely to chose a certain one also, but that isn't evidence for a good or a bad God.
Feels like Max should have prepared better. Alex had a counter for most point and Max was often left having to concede and agree.
Seems like theists need to go back to the drawing board on this one.
Also, I really liked the format, and for the record this is not about "winning" or "losing". I applaud Max for just admitting he needs time to think, that's how one should act if one values truth and accuracy.
My few takeaways from this...
1. Max seems a bit unprepared. Some of Alex’a objections (such as privation theory of good) have been discussed in literature but Max had very little to say about them.
2. Alex seemed to be assuming that an evil God would make a world where people naturally suffer and are aware of their suffering but then never defended why suffering is not only bad but evil.
The theist seems to be assuming that a good god would make a world where people naturally delight and are aware of their delight but then never defends why delectation is not only comfortable but good.
Isn’t suffering just obviously evil? I mean, if suffering - or maybe more explicitly, causing others to suffer - isn’t evil, then what is?
Also, if you want to claim suffering isn’t evil, you run into the same problem Alex was getting to when going through the 4 arguments near the end. That is - if you try to define suffering as good, then you might win trivially, but you are left with a world view that almost no theist would want to defend.
@@Blate1
On the evil god hypothesis, suffering remains evil. The detail is that god commands precisely what is evil and, then, evil is the moral duty.
@@felipedantas2001 yes but as Alex rightly points out, it’s just a word game at that point. You have just defined “good” as whatever god happens to do, even if he tortures kittens.
Most theists don’t want to just win an argument of definitions, they want to actually claim that god is merciful and loving, not malicious and hateful. So if we say, “fine theists, you can call his actions, ‘good’, but let’s use the same argument and just call it the “hateful and malicious” god argument instead of the “evil” god argument.” Most theists would still be deeply troubled by that argument, if indeed they found it convincing, of course
@@Blate1
This is not a word game. If the evil god exists, it would be an objective moral duty to perform evil actions. Just like that. The theist is troubled by the argument? Of course. Perhaps, the explanation is that the theist holds that one of the hypotheses is true whilst having no way to say which.
The consequence of it? Holding that torture is objectively good or objectively bad, but having no way to say which is correct.
A good reason to be troubled, indeed.
Great conversation, thank you
Great discussion. Really appreciate the intellectual honesty of both Max and Alex.
That was one of the greatest back and forth conversations I'd listened in a while! I love Alex and Max, wish they could have more time
I don't know why, but Alex kind of reminds me of a highly secluded highly intellectual priest that lives in the monastery in the mountains lol. I think Alex would make a great Christian!
He's an apostate, as far as I understand he's baptized
@@Qwerty-jy9mj So am I, does that mean I'm an apostate too? 😯
@@Apanblod
Obviously, I don't even understand what's the intent behind the question
@@Qwerty-jy9mj I don't even remember myself. But 'Anton the apostate' has a rather nice ring to it, I probably just wanted to make sure I could legally use the title.
@@Apanblod
I've pondered whether it's metaphysically possible that midwits might be invincibly ignorant
Cameron always looks so fresh😎
So fresh and so clean CLEAN!
Like someone in the chat said, Alex totally conflates molinism’s possible world scenario with the more general philosophical understanding of possible worlds regarding the ontological argument. So his point about God always choosing to actualize a good world instead of an evil world totally misses the point of trying to attribute a nature to maximally great being.
Great conversation!
Hi, could someone please tell me what the leading journals in this area of study are? Philosophy of religion, philosophical theology, whatever you want to call it. Also, are the journals divided into different confessions, like are there roman catholic journals on this, reformed ones etc.?
The problem with good being viewed as a cessation of evil, in my opinion, becomes apparent when you consider that evil things are not done in a purely negative light, that is to say we don't do evil for the sake of doing evil, we do evil because it benefits is in some way. A benefit is something that is good for us. I would challenge anyone to come up with a situation where someone does something evil when there is no benefit to them or anyone else, or even a perceived benefit where they do evil because they believe there is some benefit. Good I the other hand can be done for the sake of something good. We can do good because we love doing good. Can we do evil because we hate doing evil? So, whether you do good of evil, it is done for some good thing or done perceived good thing. This means that good, and not evil is the base, and that it is good that is perverted rather than evil. Though admittedly, the argument that good is a perversion of evil in that evil is that natural state and good is the cessation of that state is by far the cleverest argument I've heard against good being the thing that must be perverted...but it seems to mean to ultimately be flawed.
It just occurred to me that philosophically speaking, evil trends to include suffering from natural disasters, and my comment is not actually intended to include those. Natural disasters are certainly bad for us as humans in many ways, but it's hard to claim they are evil in the same way as torturing a baby. In fact, it's possible to argue that natural disasters are good for the proper functioning of our planet without which we probably couldn't survive. So I personally wouldn't hold that this are intrinsically bad in and of themselves and should be excluded from the argument against privation that Alex is making.
« The problem with good being viewed as a cessation of evil, in my opinion, becomes apparent when you consider that evil things are not done in a purely negative light »
Yeah, and this observation becomes worthless when you realize that good things can equally be viewed in a non-purely positive light.
« we don’t do evil for the sake of doing evil, we do evil because it benefits us in some way »
I see you aren’t familiar with the theory of evolution otherwise you’d be accustomed with the selfish roots of altruism :|
You can be forced into being altruistic by other people, or you can force yourself to do it because it brings you at least some things, like even just a good feeling.
Nobody does good with zero benefits from it, not even just the continuation of their own life.
« Can we do evil because we have doing evil? »
Can we do evil and hate being evil would be a better question, the answer being yes, and can we do evil because we don’t care about doing evil, the answer is yes.
« it’s hard to claim [natural disasters] are evil in the same way as torturing a baby »
Well, it depends.
If you think there is a person who knows about natural disasters, know how to eliminate them and has enough power to eliminate them, yet does nothing, natural evils are actually just like, or even worse than, torturing a baby.
« it’s possible to argue that natural disasters are good for the proper functioning of the planet »
1) it’s also possible to argue they are bad
2) it’s not taking into account that you theists are defending the idea of an omnipotent omniscient god, meaning a god that could’ve made it such that what’s good for the planet doesn’t cause suffering to its population.
These guys may be smart, but they need to learn how to fix their hair from Cam. Also, it helps that they both have UK accents so they sound equally smart.
Careful, Russel Brand has only ever said something smart on accident.
I enjoyed the discussion, but I think it would have been more productive to have Max put forth his best objection and they just discuss that the entire time. Debates don't have enough time for going through multiple lines of argument I don't think if you want to do more than a surface level breakdown.
@@chrisgreen8803 A month.
@@DryApologist to be honest, it really didn't seem like Max had considered the other side of the argument at all. His objections appeared to still presuppose that God is good, without actually considering what arguments someone would make to rationalise an evil god. It really did surprise me how little he had considered how hypothetical apologetics could be used for this hypothetical evil god.
@@trybunt I wish they had gone more in the theodicies or one of the natural theology arguments more to show a clear symmetry breaker instead it seemed they more just touched on possible avenues. So, it was hard to know what his full perspective was.
@@DryApologist yes, that is true. My opinion was only based on max saying "I hadn't thought of that" or "I'll need to think on that" a surprising amount of times, it certainly surprised me at least.
I think this is an interesting thought experiment which (hopefully) encourages people to think of their own counter apologetics. Its always good to consider the other side of the argument, unfortunately I'm seeing a lot of people in these comments who just seem to dismiss the entire thing as absurd, which really misses the point.
@@trybunt I agree.
Max's way of thinking is way more complicated than Alex's. This is why the confusion that Max was 'unprepared'.
It was probably also that Max took back some stuff and gave consessions to Alex. I actually commend Max for doing it, it's a virtue according to me. But clearly, admitting that you are wrong to your dialectical opponent is a sign that you were at least a bit unprepared.
Both ways of thinking, seems to be complicated as each other. I'm still confused about 3rd theodicy in both sides. But I gotta check out Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz book about theodicies.
Evil, in its nature, leaves a soul in a wanting state. Malevolence is not an enduring attribute. It’s ways are of death, not life. An eternal living God cannot be evil, because evil is death.
If life truly begins in death, (ex.heaven) he is a god of death
@@lee9852 1) Life is more than heaven. Heaven is only a place for the living.
2) Biblically speaking, not all must die if they would pass into the realm of the living. (ex. Enoch)
@@jasensargent6176 that is true, Elijah and Enoch did not die and were sent to heaven anyways, but I think you’re accidentally ignoring the biggest part about this, death is not evil nor good, it simply is. If you go to heaven after you die is it not good? ( assuming you do get to go to heaven) and if you go to hell it would be evil right? Both are wrong. You die, but God supposedly judges you, and supposedly he is completely just. It is your actions he judges, which ultimately lead you to heaven or hell. So using that, we can then see that it is not death that is evil, only you your actions (edit was grammar)
@@lee9852 Well, yes. Death is not a person, and thus cannot be evil.
@@jasensargent6176 so do we agree?
- Would you rather be in Bliss World or Mixed World?
- Probably Bliss World, but I also think there’s some value in the contrast we see between good and evil in Mixed World.
- Would you rather be in Torture World or Mixed World?
- Definitely, definitely, definitely Mixed World. Definitely.
If people think this world is torturous and terrible, I wonder what they would think about hell.
If hell exists then God is evil its that simple if hell doesnt exist but god does hes morely grey at best
Oh, Alex's got a change of look.
Around the 20 minute mark they discussed God having the possibility of doing evil actions, but that's contrary to simple descriptions of God being pure act, with no potential. Disappointed that Max didn't nip this part of the discussion in the bud.
Probably because that is just one definition of God. Maybe Max doesn't even endorse that view.
@@Oskar1000 by necessity, a God possessing all the omni's must be pure act, because, for example, having potential for greater power goes against the logic of omnipotence. They're debating the Omni God, thus the Omni God must be pure act.
@@Carther101 What about a potential to be equally good in another way. Also not sure you cannot be infinitely good and then become greater still. Infinity is tricky
@@Oskar1000 omnibenevolence is perfect goodness, not infinite goodness. He's all goodness. And he has no potential to "be good in another way" because he's good in all ways since he's goodness itself.
@@Carther101 Ok so God is all good, then he gets some more goodness. He is still all good. It's like a wholly orange thing getting bigger. It's still wholly orange.
Or do you mean, God is the totality of goodness. In that case nothing that isn't god has any goodness which seems weird.
I don't really want to be stuck arguing views on the entailments of omni-god, many of the moves made seem speculative for me and it's perfectly plausible that Max just don't share your particular views on what those entailments are, that's all I'm trying to say.
Good dialogue. So many to unpack. One thing though that came to mind is a quote from Os Guinness, 'No argument is unarguable. However, there are some thoughts that can be thought but not lived' or along those lines. It's clear that Alex is a smart and quick thinking critic of theistic arguments (not that I think his arguments hold up all the time, in fact at times i think he simply stretches his point too much to avoid giving up significant grounds (appeal to consequence fallacy) eg, he refuses to concede that existence is good, therefore to eat is good, a primitive reality, as opposed to the opposites eg, hunger, starvation (Alex's argument that this could easilybe reversed is just not credible by any stretch); another stretch for me is that Alex would prefer to get plugged into the pleasure fantasy world as opposed to living in the actual world, good grief! drug addicts choose this in principle-get high all the time to avoid the real world and they'd want to die tripping). Also, at times he misses the central thrust of Max's argument eg, the last point Max raised which was a conceptial construct, but Alex's response was quantitative. And Max had to clarify the point of the argument. Max is fair but perhaps overly generous, I think.
I’ve never seen a theist say God could not be evil because of the amount of good in the world. It’s the metaphysics of God which makes us believe God is good; not the amount of good in the world..
Max “Mhm” Baker-Hytch
Evil is the deprivation of good.
Unless good is the deprivation of evil.
@@geomicpri No, God always existed first, and God is objectively good. There must first be Order before there can be Disorder. Otherwise it wouldn’t be disorder.
@@curiouslykristina
This.
@@creatinechris
This.
@@curiouslykristina But, this is exactly what the evil god challenge is testing. Is the concept of omnimalevolence irrational? If so, how?
Maybe good is the cessation of evil? I mean, pain is not merely a lack of pleasure. It is a mental state, a conscience property and I have direct access to it, which gives it a positive reality.
Also, possibly God is none of these things and it makes most sense to say that he is indifferent?
Great discussion! I don't share Alex's intuition on his last point, that torture world with 1000 people is better than mixed world with 1000 people suffering, and a few people enjoying life. It seems that overall the mixed world would indeed be a better one overall (at least, it's not obvious to me)
bruh did max accept this debate on 2 minutes notice?
Great debate!
Follow up question, though: are these really the best arguments against this challenge? I wasn't expecting to find something in there that I'd agree with, but I was expecting Max to at least have something to stand on, and it didn't feel like he did.
While this challenge always felt intuitive to me (but also - not surprising, as I never felt that a good God makes sense anyway), I never gave it the same gravity that I do now. If this really does represent some of the best counter arguments, then it seems that there really is no way to claim to know that God is good (or to even consider it the more probable option). Any claims to God's goodness seems to be wishful thinking, at best.
Am I wrong here?
It doesn’t represent the best arguments. I posted a comment, a long one, addressing a few counter arguments that I do not believe were addressed in the debate. Would you like it if I copied and pasted it here? Bearing in mind that I kind of just rattled stuff off the top of my noggin.
@@alwayschasingjesus3452
Yes, I'd very much like that. Thanks.
@@dew_diligence I don’t feel like Max viewed this as much of a debate, but rather a relaxed conversation.
1. The two theories are not symmetrical. If we had a maximally malicious God the world would be in a much worse state than it is. One could say that a maximally evil God could bring more evil out of goodness, but I would argue that. We could live in a world where our experience was an existence predominantly ruled by torture and pain and it would be much worse than any evil that you could potentially bring out of good. An omnipotent, maximally malicious God could ensure that we exist purely to suffer to the maximal degree. He could have had women giving birth only to then be tortured alongside their children, he could ensure that everyone felt immense physical and emotional pain at all times. This is not the case in our world. Further, if we have a maximally good God he can bring greater good out of evil, and we do see this happen. He would also give us the freedom to choose to love Him because love, in order to be love, needs to be freely given. This choice would also allow room for us to commit acts that one could deem objectively evil further resulting in a world where evil exists.
Edit: I realize that this point was addressed later on so I will add to my argument. Though Alex proposed that mixed world could be worse than torture world, I would disagree. He forgot to add that mixed world would have far less torture than torture world could potentially have (would have, given the concept of a maximally evil God). Mixed world is our world. We can assess simply by looking at statistics, and whatnot, that there are many evil things occurring that could be occurring at much higher rates while still maintaining this “some people are joyful and it makes it worse for others” argument. We are not at max evil. This world is not torture world “and then some”. Even people who are suffering greatly can often still experience the love of others, they can be helped by strangers, they can hold onto those moments and cherish them. The grand majority of our population is not experiencing max pain levels. If this world was torture world then I imagine many more people would be on torture racks being burned alive, or experiencing the most pain one could possibly experience both mentally and physically, and it would not end. This continuous, prolonged torture is so rare that you may as well say that it doesn’t exist. Animals don’t have the same mental capacity that humans do and because of these variables I don’t think that they actually fit into this conversation. I don’t believe that Alex is thinking big enough when he thinks about “torture world”. I also think that he’s arguing with exceptions when speaking about those people who want to die, though it’s a low blow because we can’t actually measure that. Most people don’t want to die.
2. There is a false equivalency that Alex draws later on in this conversation when he uses the “good book, bad book” analogy. You simply cannot apply the same standard to an inanimate object as you do to a conscious, moral being. If I say to someone “I really like Sarah, I think she’s a really good person” I am not speaking of her bodily function and it’s ability to do what it should, I am speaking about her morality. This cannot be applied to a book. When speaking in terms of morality evil and bad could very well be considered synonymous, and evil could easily be antonymous to good. This is a false comparison.
3. Present people with two options.
Option one: We have an omnipotent God who is, by nature, maximally good.
Option two: We have a God who is limited in goodness, has an evil streak, but doesn’t act upon it.
Ask people which they would prefer and I can almost guarantee that most people would prefer the maximally good God. Why? Because the God with an evil streak is basically a ticking time bomb. Imagine an all powerful God with an malicious streak, a God that does mostly good but occasionally has a desire to torture people for fun. How is that more morally commendable? If I occasionally have the desire to hurt children, but don’t cave to that desire, does that make me better than a person who never has that desire to do it at all? Of course not. I do understand why Alex is using this point though. Many Christians would use the same argument to defend Gods creation of man, and allowing us to have free will. I want to point out that there is a huge difference between not caving to a desire in the moment, and ridding oneself of the evil desire overall. If God had to rid himself of evil desires than He wouldn’t be God. God is existence, and in being existence (rather than simply existing) God is not lacking in anything. To have to rid oneself of evil desires would be to be lacking in goodness. So, our options are either a maximally good God or a maximally evil god. I have already gone over my points for why the former is a more adequate assumption.
@@dew_diligence
The sheer proposition of an absolutely evil god is absurd to begin with, so no, the so called challenge doesn't have any merit
@@Qwerty-jy9mj
Can you make the case for this claim, or am I expected to just accept it, no questions asked?
for the last objection, the fact that the people living good lives can interact with those living bad means that those living bad lives may have a way out eventually, meaning that world will end up being a better world that pure agony world
The evil god works in mysterious ways. He likes to give people the false hope becuase it ultimately creates more suffering.. just because you can imagine a way that it reduces suffering, that doesn't change the hypothetical. There could be an evil god, and and good could be the result of free will given so people can choose evil, but they reject gods will. This could all be part of the plan, because those who reject gods will may end up suffering even more in some sort of hell chosen by people who freely choose to do good.
@@trybunt are you saying the virtuous people will be sent to hell while the rich and cruel people are sent to heaven? This would fail miserably since the rich and cruel people will compete against themselves and therefore create their own hell while the virtuous people can find common ground in hell and make it more bearable. Also the fact that people can live and embrace suffering in the world with a high degree of happiness by simply understanding that not being attached to material possessions and wordly things brings bliss kind of destroys your argument.
@@trybunt in order to improve on the torture world, it is necessary that those that exist with more privilege than the others need not to have free will lest they end up helping the less fortunate. only in this case can the system be maintained. also why in the world is empathy naturally selected for? Why not have God increase psychopathy and sociopathy by 40 percent?
@@trybunt a great argument for an evil god is if science decides that what is best for human well-being is to commit what we would consider as immoral. Say if we discovered that it would greatly increase a woman's fertility if we were to rape her or that spewing acid on an infants face will grant that infant immunity from cancer. that would be evidence of an evil God
@@christopherlin4078 once again you are trying to imagine a reason why there isn't an evil god without considering the fact that, if there was, its possible he has already factored in your objections, and this is the world with the most suffering. Some happiness might be necessary for the maximum suffering, and this is the worst of all possible worlds. We don't know the mind of this evil god, who are we to judge! (I'm just having a laugh buddy, surely you can imagine hypothetical apologetics for this hypothetical evil god, just reverse any typical argument, and it really does work)
I think we should consider "good" and "bad" like *live* and *die*. You cannot die without ever living. There's no bad without good.
God always does good by nature, meaning God acts. He acts, and that's it. There's no possibility to act bad, if the intrinsic value of the action has only one value.
I think a problem with this while discussion is that in many ways good and evil are somehow these objective things that are not grounded in god which would mean there's something beyond god that god is subject to which means god isn't actually god add he wouldn't be the ultimate thing. Which would make most of this discussion logical nonsense.
Nope. Alex addressed that, and Max pretty much accepted what he said.
Sure, if you define "good" as "god's command"/"god's nature"/anything similar - you can't say that god isn't good, but the statement that god is good is rendered meaningless.
@@dew_diligence just because Max accepted it doesn't mean Alex is right. One, I don't define good as God's command. The problem with that is God would need to issue commands about everything. Two, (this isn't a point you made but it's one I find useful to make here) if God and evil and products of us, it makes no sense to apply them to God, they would have arisen after Him and would only apply to us. If they also applied to God, they must be objective, apart from us. If they are not apart from us, they are subjective, and matters of opinion only, and therefore they do not truly exist. Therefore, three, if good and evil do truly exist objectively, and are apart from God, then God is subject to something outside of Himself, which would make God not actually God, as God by definition is subject only to Himself. Four, since God can't be subject to something outside of Himself, a correct morality must be part of what God is, that is, God is the standard by which all morality is judged. So, either what God is, is good and He is the moral objective standard, or morality not only can't be applied to God such that we can neither call Him good or evil, but that our concept of morality is simply subjective which means there is no good or evil.
Having said all that, an evil god is a logical contradiction. When we consider God sans universe (think before the universe was created except the word before is a temporal term indicative of time which doesn't exist without the universe). We have no problem with the mythical aspects of a good God creating something which may as well be some sort of universe. But consider the motivation of a purely evil god. Hate is to evil much as love is to good. We can talk about ding good because we love to do good, but can we talk about doing evil because we hate to do evil? So, can a completely evil god do evil because he hates doing evil? The concept makes no sense. So could such a god create a universe because he hates the universe? Now, if he created a universe maliciously because he derived some enjoyment or pleasure from it, that's plausible, except then we're not talking about a completely evil god, but one in which resides a mix of good and evil. The problem with that is while you can compare goodness and evilness to something purely evil and purely good to judge how good or bad something is, you can't have a standard that is mixed or it isn't a standard, for if there is a mixture then how do we know how much of the standard of good or evil in order to judge the thing to which we want to know if it is good or evil. So, if god is a mix of good and evil then we can't know what good or evil is to talk about them. So, since as I noted above, if good and evil are real, God must be the standard by which we judge good and evil or He wouldn't be God, and God can't be pure evil as that is actually logically contradictory, and God can't be a mix as that is meaningless, there God must either be good or neither good nor evil. However, the neutral positron doesn't give God a reason to create the universe aside from having to, which means god is subject to something and not God, or boredom, which means God lacks something and is therefore not God as God by definition can't be subject anything external and can't be lacking in any way. This only leaves God being good as a possibility.
For more, consider "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis, in particular book 1 chapter 2, and one of the chapters in book 2. Books 1, 2, and 3 are past of a single volume, much like the "Fellowship of the Ring" contains two books (yes, the Lord of the Rings is technically not a trilogy as it is technically made up of 6 books, which were published individually initially and then grouped into 3 volumes containing 2 books each).
@@dew_diligence ruclips.net/video/zPShtBAFXE8/видео.html
@@miltonwetherbee5489
Thanks for the long reply. I'll read it and respond later (need to start recording a video of my own, so now is not the best time)
I didn’t say that Max’s acceptance means Alex was right, but if you want to say that the discussion is logical nonsense, you can’t ignore the fact that your objection has been addressed (i.e. you need to respond to what was said about it).
Nor did I say that you define good as what god commanded.
The rest of your first paragraph doesn’t change what I’d said - if god is the standard, then “god is good” is a tautology. It doesn’t say anything about god, only that he is what he is.
Alex also answered that - if that’s all you mean, then sure - god is good, but then the challenge can simply be changed to something like “hating”, “malevolent”, etc. i.e. god is good, but that says nothing about his priorities, which may actually still be causing as much suffering as possible (for example).
Your second paragraph seems to be mainly word play. Here’s why: what stems from it is that being evil means “hating evil”, in the same way that being good means “loving good”. But, usually loving good and hating evil or not opposites, right?
So, wouldn’t it make much more sense to say something like “desiring good” and “desiring evil”. Only then, your objection fails.
I don’t accept that we need a standard, but, in the theoretical case where there is a god and there is a standard, and all you’re saying is that god is the standard - you’re saying nothing at all when you say he’s good.
I’m definitely not going to read or listen to five hours of CS Lewis. The bits and pieces that people like to quote from him really doesn’t make me feel like he has anything of substance to add.
That said - I will refer you to my latest video, on the Euthyphro dilemma, as that also gives some answers to what you’re saying here (and it’s just 23 minutes, not 5 hours, and you can always set it to play at x1.5): ruclips.net/video/81KqJDS2HyU/видео.html
The Goodness of God can be defined as whatever He chooses to do, regardless of whether we like it or not. Being the Supreme Being, He is Goodness-in-itself apriori and cannot do anything that goes against His nature (i.e. evil).
I think there are two main contentions against this perspective. One is that God's Goodness does not always align with our sense of pleasure and happiness, and the other is that God seems to be under a different moral standard than us humans.
To the first contention, I would say that our feelings about God's Goodness are completely subjective. Just because we may at times experience God's Goodness as 'opressive' or 'mean' does not mean that His actions are evil. Our feelings are completely irrelevant to the status of God's actions.
To the second contention, I would say that yes, God is subject to a very different moral standard than us humans. As a matter of fact, God isn't subject to any moral law other than His Divine Nature. This 'moral inequality' shouldn't be so controversial. There are many examples of this type of inequality in society which people have no issue with; for example, the difference in authority between a parent and a child.
Thus, we see that God is Goodness-in-itself and everything that He does is Good. I should add that it is important to make a distinction between God's Goodness and His Loving Nature. His Goodness is simply whatever He does; His Love and Compassion is His desire to bring us humans towards Himself and His Goodness. This desire of His was most manifest with the Incarnation of Jesus Christ and His suffering on the Cross. He did this out of His own freewill and Compassion. God would've still been All-Good even without the Incarnation and Passion. His Love is an expression of His Goodness and works in harmony with It.
Alex's point about suffering is interesting, but I'm not sure I see why a maximally evil god would create creatures with the express purpose of suffering, but then allow us to successfully move towards lives of less and less suffering (which is something we've successfully done over the arc of human existence). If our arc is allowed to continue without either us or nature ending it, we will presumably reach a point where we experience nearly zero suffering.
And this is not to mention that there are plenty of creatures even in the wild who don't experience much suffering actually, though they are more rare and often live in specific environments where they have very few predators and plentiful resources.
Alex's point at the end also falls a bit flat. The idea was that the ones being tortured are able to compare their lives to those who have good lives, and that creates worse suffering. But wild animals are not doing so and are not deriving more suffering from comparing their lives to ours.
I think the maximum suffering world would have simulated people who have good lives, not real people having good lives, and those people suffering wouldn't know that those people are fake. Then, to apply this to the real world and take it out of the hypothetical realm, you would then have to accept that some people are just simulations, which I think is a less plausible stance. Which then brings us to the fact that this argument is about whether the two sides are EQUALLY plausible.
This is where debate and rhetoric skills come in handy and hence the reason I appreciate a guy like Michael Jones from Inspiring Philosophy. He may not have all the degrees as Mr. Hytch has or even the iq but he sure can defend his position much better and is likely more clever. I don’t intend to speak negatively of Max, he is likely brighter than Michael and Alex but guys likes Michael and Alex take thoughts from guys like Max and make them better and easier to defend. IP is honestly one of the few guys that I have seen get the better of cosmic skeptic on multiple occasions. Also, I’m speaking mainly of debate skills here; I don’t think Alex’s arguments are all that compelling at all but he is a great debator! I think it would be cool to have Alex and Michael agree to a 5 part debate series where they each get to pick two topics and then the audience gets to pick one. Let homegrown philosophy of religion you tubers duke it out in a comprehensive battle!
Yeah maybe let Mike finish first on Twitter since in the couple of day Mike is getting harrased by muslim, athiest and Even some christian's right now he's chating with paulogia on Twitter and he's soon going to put he's S & G vid on friday
Generally thats all debate is actually about. debate was never meant to be "let the best win" its really just a punching match that builds morale for either side.
For the love of God, get these two some pomade
Evil
Too bad Max wasn’t more into the Ontological arguments because that’s where Alex was least solid. His whole idea that God could have an evil nature & yet decide to be good was meaningless. As Max points out later, goodness is whatever God’s nature is. And God wouldn’t choose to overcome His own nature unless that was also part of His nature. The challenger would have to find another way to work evil into the definition of a MGB.
Goodness is only whatever Gods nature is IF you presuppose that God is good. It could be, in this hypothetical, that evil is whatever gods nature is. The fact that we assume otherwise wouldn't change the objective truth in this hypothetical that evil is gods nature, so, in order to do good, you would need to defy gods nature, or redefine "good" to be the opposite of what you now assume it to be.
If 'goodness' is whatever God's nature is, that's just as arbitrary a starting point than any other, as far as I can tell. Goodness is an inherently relative term that's dependent on a judgement call related to a specific goal. It really makes no sense to me to say that isolated goodness exists, without any context.
@@piage84 I needed your comment so much, bruh
You’re all missing the point. What God is like is irrelevant. WHATEVER He is like, is good. For example, Plato wasn’t forced to teach Platonism. Whatever Plato would have taught would have become called Platonism. This is not an assertion, it’s a tautology. To claim that God could be anything other than good is a meaningless concept.
I've got to say, I've wondered about this myself.
I think a better argument to the last point is simply that “bliss world”, as described by Max, isn’t the true opposite to torture world.
In both worlds you are deprived of freedom, choice, and meaning. This is why some people might consider choosing Mixed World over Bliss World.
A better conception of Bliss World would be one that gives you pure pleasure, pure love, but also still gives you freedom, meaning, and choice. It think the choice becomes more obvious in this instance, and revives the symmetry.
And it might be hard to conceive what this version of Bliss World would actually look like - some might say it’s impossible. But I would argue that a truly omnipotent Being could figure it out and make it happen pretty easily...
I think what you’re asserting here is essentially heaven; once we’re done with earth we will have learned the truth; what truth, the wages of sin is death, no one dies in heaven, how did we end up in this world, we ate from the tree of knowledge, what is knowledge but data derived from experience, here we do experience the reality that sin itself when permitted to exist does lead to pain and suffering and eventually death; this is why in the end we will accept what God said and reconcile ourselves back to him or reject that truth and separate ourselves from him, either way we all may our choice to accept or reject God, it is not God who’s rejected us but we whom have rejected him
@@japexican007 that doesn’t break the symmetry either. Cuz you could just as easily say that god has us in this mixed world so that he can later send us to hell which will be even worse now that we know what goodness and pleasure was like, and know we will never experience it again.
@@Blate1 God doesn’t send anyone to hell; not sure how you came up with that conclusion
@@japexican007 first of all, we are talking about a hypothetical maximally evil god.
Second, it sounds like you are talking about the Christian god. In which case, don’t be ridiculous. Trying to argue that god doesn’t send people to hell is like trying to argue that hitler never sent any Jews to a concentration camp just because he didn’t physically throw them in there himself.
God created the entire system. He created hell, and he created the mechanism by which it is possible to transfer human souls to it. An omnipotent, omniscient god is wholly responsible for everything that happens in the universe that it creates. If there is something happening in the universe that he doesn’t like or want, he easily could have created it in some other way. He could have just not created hell in the first place, or he could have made hell only for satan and his fallen angels and impossible for human souls to go there.
How do you figure he isn’t responsible for sending souls to hell? He’s the big boss. It’s literally impossible for anything to happen without his go-ahead.
@@Blate1 if I’m a person with asthma, and I cannot be around smokers and you’re an avid smoker and I say you’re free to come into my house but I can’t be around cigarette smoke and you refuse to stop smoking who is sending who away?
Alex raised a really interesting point when he said raised an objection to the idea God is wholly good. He said something along the lines of it being of greater character for God to be able to and actually do evil but for him then to do good. A Christian can wholeheartedly agree when it comes to the redemption of humans. As Augustine said 'God judged it better to bring evil out if good than to suffer no evil to exist'. To bring good out of evil, a wholly good God must exist. Obviously Alex would not get anywhere that far in his logic, but his point was an interesting one and they could have discussed the separateness/otherness of God.
I think Alex is going to reason himself out of atheism one day.
@@russ4moose very unlikely
Alex had another problem, when talking about good or bad, if we are assuming there is some kind of god, we get our concept of morality from that god. So, either an evil god had instilled in us this concept of good morals that he himself goes against, or we shouldn't have a concept of good and evil, or God is good and we don't have that weird problem.
« if we are assuming there is some kind of god, we get our concept of morality from that god »
... No ? First of : there could be multiple gods, in which case why should we get our morality from any one of them ?
Secondly : it’s entirely possible god would be amoral and our sense of morality just a thing that developed independently
Thirdly : it’s not even contradictory to say that there is a god, but that both he and us are taking our moral properties from a third source, like a platonic idea of goodness or whatever.
Also, why is it weird that an evil god would put ideas of good inside of us, but not the idea that a good god put evil ideas inside of us ? If we assume that evil ideas can develop in creatures independently from a good god’s wishes, why can’t we assume that good ideas could develop in creatures independently from an evil god’s wishes ?
@@nathanjora7627 sans universe there is no matter, no space, no time. If there's no matter, God can't be made up of individual parts, and would have to be very simplistic, in that sense, as far as beings go, and you have a disembodied mind, or pure thought. Now, without space, good would a separation of such beings be possible? Also, if there's more than one, there's probably a source that brought them about that would be greater and would ultimately be what we actually are referring to when we say God. So claiming that there could be gods doesn't really make logical sense. As to a source of good and evil from which a god would get it's morality from, that would mean that we are once again talking about something to which this so-called good is subject to, which makes it greater and what should be referred to as god. So again we have some logical difficulties. Oddly, the Trinity of Christianity does give us a logical concept of multiple personas but only one being. The personas aren't separate beings, which would make sense as there's no way for them to be separate.
Since it makes no sense for morality to be something separate from God, God must Himself be the source of morality. If God weren't purely good or purely evil, then we couldn't have a standard that separates good from evil, and the concepts would be meaningless. As for God being purely evil, this also doesn't make logical sense, as whatever God is would be the standard of what is acceptable, for if God were evil then evil would be acceptable, but evil by definition is not acceptable, therefore this is logically contradictory and therefore impossible. Furthermore, evil involves hate much the same way good involves love. So doing evil for the sake of evil makes no sense as that would entail doing something because you hate it, whereas it's perfectly logical to do good for the sake of doing good as there isn't a problem with doing good because you love it. As for the neutral stance of God being neither good nor evil, and morality not being something that's possibly independent of God, then the only motivation God could have for creating the universe is that He had to, that He didn't have a choice in the matter.
Consider our motivations. We do things we enjoy doing. We do things we hate because we know they are good for us or because we feel we deserve it (meaning we don't see ourselves as good, and by punishing ourselves we are therefore don't something good), or we are forced to do it. Boredom could be pointed to as a reason we do things, and while boredom may or may not be evil or good, or is a lack. If you're bored it's because you lack something, even if only for a little bit.
So, to say God created the universe and us out of boredom would mean that God had a lack, which would mean that God isn't maximally great, and therefore not actually God, so again, we're left with a logical problem. And looking at the other motivations, the only motive that does make logical sense is a God rather than evil motivation.
God is good not evil. Satan is evil
satan is evil in the eyes of god, however god is not good nor is he evil, he is the law with which you can judge things as good or evil.
you make satan sound like a god when you judge god as good, since if there is a good god there should also be an evil one and that would be satan, and you end up bieliving in two gods, not too monotheistic is it ?
@@hiraql6328 lucifer will never be God
@@memastarful he is if god is "Good"
but thats not what i'm saying, you can't judge god, to judge god either as good or evil is a luciferian trap.
@@hiraql6328 not necessarily my friend
1:20:50 It doesn't seem clear to me that a good god would more likely put us in a mixed world. Not because of any logical reason. It just seems like any world of torture would appear mixed because the beings in it wouldn't know any different. So near maximal torture world, or near maximal bliss world would appear the same to lifetime inhabitants. A pure world might appear different, but that's not the one we live in.
Honestly, I thought this discussion was kinda weak. No Q&A and I felt like Baker-Hytch was a little timid and didn't bring up the strongest responses.
I'll confess that I think the "Evil God challenge" is very weak and silly. Crucial to it is the idea that it is meant to be a "symmetry" argument in which the "Evil God" can do much of the same work the "Good God" does, without requiring us to accept or reject very controversial notions.
But there IS no symmetry, because an "evil God" actually requires some very heavy costs that a "good God" doesn't.
For instance, it requires us to reject what I call "ordinary moral beliefs". This is the idea that there are some moral facts, and that we have a decent enough grasp on moral facts to the point where we can say, for instance, "torturing babies for fun is wrong"; "being kind, loving, courageous and just is good", and so on. Rejecting ordinary moral beliefs would be a huge cost for most people - certainly theists, but also atheists (for instance, Sam Harris accepts ordinary moral beliefs and wants to defend them; whether his secular metaethics ultimately works or not is beside the point).
God is meant to be omnipotent and omniscient (or maximally knowledgeable and maximally powerful). This means that, given ordinary moral beliefs, God always perfectly knows what-should-be-done and what-shouldn't-be-done. He always knows, for instance, that torturing people for fun is disgusting, wrong, irrational. But being omnipotent, He also has no weaknesses, and can be under no irrational temptation. In which case, God simply cannot do what is evil, for the simple reason that an omniscient and omnipotent being cannot do evil. A being that has no ignorance and no weakness cannot do evil. An evil God, like any evil being, would have to be either stupid/irrational or weak to some extent. (Or, for those who can't quite see this point, just weaken it a little and it still works: an omniscient and omnipotent being would be *very unlikely* to do any evil, to say the least).
This completely demolishes the "Evil God" challenge. This "challenge" would require us to think that a perfectly wise and powerful being (as God is supposed to be) could just choose to do evil, such as torture people for fun (irrational). In which case He isn't really wise and powerful as He is supposed to be.
Unless all ordinary moral beliefs are wrong and we have no idea of what a wise person would do. In which case a wise man could be one who despises virtues, doesn't care about justice, and tortures babies for fun (while also being all powerful and under no weaknesses or temptations). It's nonsense.
The "Evil God" proposal requires us to abandon beliefs that most of us take to be independently obvious or very plausible. This makes it the very opposite of a "symmetrical argument".
Why Baker-Hytch didn't press this point is beyond me.
Well said, however it should be noted that the type of god you're referring to is the monotheistic Creator God.
In polytheism there do exist evil deities and they do not need to possess the qualities of infinite wisdom and goodness to conceivably exist.
Exactly. Well said.
Nice comment
This is an interesting point, but strikes me as an unjustified jump. I am willing to grant that most of us have deep intuitions about "right and wrong", but those are only based on pain and pleasure by definition (as far as I see), so when we say torturing is "wrong", that's simply an extrapolation of the fact that we wouldn't want to be tortured ourselves. There's no metaphysical morality at play, it's just the definition of pain (what we don't want to experience) and pleasure (what we want to experience). And that's all merely descriptive, not prescriptive (i.e. that is what we prefer, not what we ought to prefer). So our moral intuitions have no transcendental consequences on what God ought to do.
Even so, if God were evil, we would still want to avoid pain (by definition), regardless of what specifically caused us pain. But that has no transcendental substance. So if God were evil, He could perfectly choose to cause pain and that would be "rational" for Him.
Lastly, I also take issue with the statement that we have moral intuitions, since probably not all humans on Earth do: if any human had fun torturing people, we would call them "insane", but that's circular reasoning. I do believe that most people have this intuitions, but they are most likely the result of wanting to avoid pain and seek pleasure themselves. More complex moral prescriptions are not as universal
On the evil god hypothesis, your "ordinary moral beliefs" were "written on your heart" on purpose by the god in order to deceive you and create more confusion.
On the evil god hypothesis, god knows what should be done. However, it turns that bad actions are what actually should be done. Thus, an omnipotent and omniscient being cannot do what is good, "for the simple reason that an omniscient and omnipotent being cannot do" good.
You are very. VERY far, from demolishing anything.
If the discussion was "weak and silly", I wonder what adjectives are suitable to ascribe to your rebuttal.
Tim Holt suggested that the universe was created by a deity who was 100% malign and 80% efficient. If we accept the existence of the Christian God my view of the universe steeped in corona viruses suggests he is nearer 100 % good and 5% efficient. The good/evil symmetry is very debatable.
I would expect naturally for any argument for the existence of God to be neutral as to whether He is good or evil. I think the assessment of God's motivations and moral alignment is highly subjective if defined in human terms. Honestly, this seems very obvious to me. I was taught that God himself defines good and evil through his existential attributes. Based on my inherited (evangelical) standard of determining good and evil, an evil God is a God that isn't exactly like God. Good is perfectly like God, and evil is deviation from the nature of God in a way that results in either a direct conflict with God or engagement in behavior that offends God.
Problem is that neither Alex nor Max take the notion of an evil god remotely seriously. So the discussion is abstruse and hypothetical. Might be interesting to host a Zoroastrian, who really did believe in an evil god.
The point wasn’t to actually defend the notion of an evil god. The point is primarily to bolster the “argument from evil” for atheists. Theists try to use theodicies to get around the problem of evil by trying to explain in various ways why an all-good god would allow evil on earth. The “evil god” argument is just meant to show that these theodicies don’t actually work because they work just as well if you flip them and use them to prove an evil god instead.
With the conclusion being that the notorious “problem of evil” is still alive and well, and has not been defeated by theists.
@@Blate1 Oh agreed that the problem of evil is still alive and well. Good point made, thanks.
@@Blate1 In all honesties, I think the problem of evil will never be solved. Bart Ehrman submitted to it and now he's agnostic. He even wrote a book on the matter, _God's Problem_
My takeaway: Alex is pro infinite tsukuyomi.
i think every athiest is pro tsukuyomi , most athiest are nihilist ,so when there is no point to life then why even live in a real world and suffer pain , tskuyomi is the only solution to our pointless world
@@SamrattVerma indeed, Madara knew best.
@@SamrattVerma When you're guaranteed heaven through your faith, why even value the life you have? It really all goes black when we die. We die like fish, like birds, like insects, like other mammals. This is all we've got, says the athiest. You don't seem to be even remotely honest&aware regarding the possible positions your "opposition", so to speak, can hold.
When Alex said that “It is better to be evil and overcome your evil and do good” didnt he just offer a theodicy for evil and God?
I think he said that backwards. It is more evil to overcome any inclinations you might have to be good and to do evil anyway. It’s the mirror theodicy to overcoming evil inclination with good.
Nice neck
@@Iamwrongbut
I think you're wrong, but....
He said it in the sense that a maximally good God has to have some evil inclinations, because overcoming evil inclinations is better than not having them at all.
Yes. Alex really nails it with the theodicies here. I'm puzzled as to why anyone would be surprised that theodicies work both ways. When I argue that God exists, I'm not arguing that he is good. This always trips me up when it comes to atheists' criticism of God's decisions. So your point is that you don't think my God is just? I thought that you don't believe he exists. It is completely irrelevant whether or not he is good if he doesn't exist. It is very relevant to our definition of good if he does.
@@russ4moose
No, the point isn't that your God is unjust. The point would be that a just God seems to be self contradictory. This says nothing of whether or not an unjust God exists; all it says is that a just one probably doesn't, whether or not any other gods exist.
If you're not talking of a just God, it doesn't hurt your case in any way, but it does render most people's God beliefs unfounded (in the case of this challenge) or seemingly contradictory (in the case of the problem of evil) - as most people do believe in a just God.
Evil cannot exist without Good. That would be like shadows existing without light. If God is not 'good' then he cannot be evil.
EDIT: On a completely unrelated note, I think Alex is a very good looking guy
Good cannot exist without evil. That would be like shadows existing without light. If god is not 'evil', then he cannot be good.
@@felipedantas2001 Yeah that is the point of the challenge. Almost every objection can be said with a simmetrical
@@terrorist_nousagi8747
Yup. But, then, it is up to the theist to justify which alternative one should choose. (While the atheist can happily reject both).
@@felipedantas2001 I see what you did there. But evil is the absence of good, it cannot be the other way around. For example, murder is evil because it takes away life but life is not good because it takes away murder. Life can exist without the existence of murder but not the other way around.
@@KD-eh3qo Exactly, it is the same with life and death. Death is not a thing by itself, just the privation of life.
Earth is literally Chicken Hell
🔥🐔🔥
Could Batman be a woman?
In a world where a virgin can be a mother.. I'd say yes.. batman can do whatever is comfortable.. (clearly tight pants are a predilection).. Nice you drew a parallel with a more recent fictional character.
@Bronze Spectre exactly! but can spiderman be a mosquito?!
God cannot make what is good apart from himself, so even though creation itself has been spoken of has being good in Genesis, it is not the true good, that is, it is not the good of God, so even though helping someone is considered to be a good or giving to the poor, this kind of thing it is not the true good, because the true good is spirit not flesh, it is the spiritual state of your heart, this is where you find the good, those who are born of God are born of the good, and those who are not born of god remain in the evil, as Christ said, if you who are evil know how to give good things to your children, he expresses that you are evil at the same time there is a understanding of the good, but true good is God, and those who possess his light are truly good.
It doesn't seem like Max has put any thought whatsoever into considering the other side of this argument. Each point appears to be given presupposing that Gods nature is good, and that we can't presuppose that God is evil.
He says (basically)
"We get our morals from a reflection of Gods nature, which is good, so that doesn't align with an evil god"
Without even considering that the exact opposite could be the case. If gods nature was evil, than out morals could be based around avoiding gods nature, because we acknowledge god is evil. In this hypothetical, our theology would be based around intentionally going against gods nature.
When presented with each objection, he just says "hmm, I haven't even thought of that"
I don't understand how he got this far without even considering the other side of the argument.
No amount of philosophy or theory, only one's will (which the intellect is subservient to), can shake the infused knowledge of God's love and goodness that comes from a spiritual experience where one gets a taste of God's character. To such a person, you might as well be trying to convince them that 2+2=banana.
People do it anyways, even if it seems illogical.
Look at the qualifications of an ultimate judge.
@Thabani Sikhosana actually Greek philosophers ran that down.
So isn't the conversation over from the start if Alex is saying a greater "God" is someone is tempted to do evil and overcomes it. Isn't that Jesus? I mean... he did that so.... Idk maybe I'm pretty surfaced on this one lol.
He said a greater good. Not a greater god. What he also meant is God in the abrahamic religion CANNOT do bad. Alex then said, a greater good, would be a god that would have the ability to do bad, but chooses not to do bad. Idk something like that.
@@mjordan1117 ok right. So Jesus still that. Thanks for clearing it up MJ. I might’ve misheard but I think that’s still accomplished through Jesus.
@@gamehour3468 jesus was never legitimately tempted. The story of Jesus being tempted in the gospels is like believing you own an acre of land, and someone telling you that you can have a square foot of your own property if you accept his offer.
@@uabjf Well he was attempted to be tempted to act outside of his will (God's Will) to accomplish what he was going to do. You right he was attempted to be tempted.
This conversation is so funny to me, going back and forth on a completely human notion. God is the creator, whatever God does is just right and just is, there is no good or evil with God lol, there is nothing God is morally obligated too.
Ok, let's rephrase to get around the God is good by definition.
Is belief in a:
Lying, hating and sadistic God more reasonable than belief in a truthful, loving and compassionate God.
Leave goodness out of it if you think both God-concept would be "good" by definition.
thats true God is beyond good and evil. but people like to judge things all the time they like to play God and they ignoranlty end up judging God himself either as good or evil when none of those judgements are true.
only one can judge things and that is God and he is beyond judgement.
@CLIFFORD EDWARDS Well it is very different, people committing acts of evil against each other is evil. But God is the creator, he can do with his creation as he wishes and it is not evil or good, he is not morally obligated to what he creates, just as I am not morally obligated to my computer, I can do with it as I please. People may think I have made a bad decision if I decide to trash, burn, destroy my computer but no one could call me immoral for doing so. God is the God, there is nothing He answers too. We can shake our fist all we want lol. We are clay in His hands, he can mold and create whatever he wishes. All we are is rock, clay, dust to him, that he showers anything good on anyone is what is more shocking. It is just funny hearing rocks, compared to God, debate his actions lol
@CLIFFORD EDWARDS No problem, thanks for listening!
@@YuGiOhDuelChannel I disagree with your analogy. If I learned that something I created had the capacity to suffer and will I now have obligations to my creation.
It's not about a hierarchy where you are allowed to punch down.
Here's my problem with the evil god concept. Would the evil god enjoy the suffering it may cause, or would it hate the suffering it would cause? If it hates the suffering it causes why would it cause it? Loving to do evil is by it's very nature, not entirely evil. So a purely evil god seems to me to be irrational. If it isn't purely evil, and gets some enjoyment or some similar good thing from ding the evil it does, then it poses an internal conflict, which would make it less than maximally great.
Also, to create us with the capacity to do good, and give us a moral nature, our conscious as we often call it, to do good, indicates that this evil god would have to have a great deal of knowledge about good while purposefully doing bad, which makes this god no better than us morally speaking. So once again we have a god who isn't maximally great.
These are just some initial thoughts from listening while I'm art work, please don't consider these to be properly fleshed out ideas regarding the subject.
I share your view on these intuitions as well. I think these responses you have listed here are much better than anything Max put forward. I was surprising disappointed with his “performance” here considering how well I think he did in their prior discussion. I think Max is a genuinely nice guy and that is not a great making property regarding debate style discussions.
It seems to me you're going about this backwards. You've thought of some objections, that to me don't sound at all plausible to be honest, to an evil god. Presumably because you start with the premise that you want a good god to exist.
What you should be attempting is to show how the mirror of those objections doesn't rule out a good god.
As to the objections themselves: who said a maximally evil god would 'love' evil, or that such a love would be 'good'? Who said that a maximally evil god would be no more evil than human beings?
« Loving to do evil is by it’s very nature, not entirely evil »
... I’m sorry, what ? Hating to do evil is by definition not entirely evil, or at least prove the being doing the evil isn’t entirely evil, but it seems like by definition someone who knows he is doing evil and does it anyway because it’s what makes him happy would be truest possible form of evil being :|
« to create us with the capacity to do good, and give us a moral nature, our conscious as we often call it, to do good, indicates that this evil god would have to have a great deal of knowledge about good »
I could be cheeky and say that obviously good is just a privation of evil so an evil god would just have to take all of his attributes and push humans to do the opposite
I could be cheekier and say that obviously if an allegedly good god can give humans the capacity to do evil, and many inclinations to do so, then an evil god should be able to do the same in reverse
But I’ll go for the simpler route of just wondering why an evil god couldn’t just be able to do that because he is both omnipotent and omniscient.
@@nathanjora7627 I'm saying hating to do evil is logically nonsensical, and loving to do evil isn't maximally great as far as evil goes because love is involved, even if a bit perverted. I'm pointing out that it's impossible to do evil for the sake of doing evil, while it's perfectly possible to do good for the sake of doing good. So good had the possibility of existing without evil, but not the other way around.
@@mattsmith1440 what I'm trying to point out is the evil god bit doesn't actually make sense to talk about in the first place. Let's start sans universe, which means sans time which may make this a bit odd to structure using the English language as we have no proper way to talk about sans universe (saying before the universe exists is technically problematic because without the universe there isn't time, and before and when, and so on are temporal terms). So anyway, sans universe all that exists is God. So let's assume that God is all good. It seems possible that a completely good God can create a universe because it is good to do so. But take the negative of that. Can a completely evil God create a universe because it would be evil to do so? If it were evil to do so, it would be completely wrong or bad for such a god to do so. Could a perfect being be wrong? I mean honestly, the more I think about what it must mean for a god to be completely evil, the more logically absurd the concept gets. So my problem with the whole discussion is that it hasn't done anything to convince me that a purely evil god is even logically possible. If it's not logically possible for a purely evil god to exist, none of the other arguments mean anything as they are based in part or whole on something that's impossible.
I don’t feel like Max viewed this as much of a debate, but rather a relaxed conversation.
1. The two theories are not symmetrical. If we had a maximally malicious God the world would be in a much worse state than it is. One could say that a maximally evil God could bring more evil out of goodness, but I would argue that. We could live in a world where our experience was an existence predominantly ruled by torture and pain and it would be much worse than any evil that you could potentially bring out of good. An omnipotent, maximally malicious God could ensure that we exist purely to suffer to the maximal degree. He could have had women giving birth only to then be tortured alongside their children, he could ensure that everyone felt immense physical and emotional pain at all times. This is not the case in our world. Further, if we have a maximally good God he can bring greater good out of evil, and we do see this happen. He would also give us the freedom to choose to love Him because love, in order to be love, needs to be freely given. This choice would also allow room for us to commit acts that one could deem objectively evil further resulting in a world where evil exists.
Edit: I realize that this point was addressed later on so I will add to my argument. Though Alex proposed that mixed world could be worse than torture world, I would disagree. He forgot to add that mixed world would have far less torture than torture world could potentially have (would have, given the concept of a maximally evil God). Mixed world is our world. We can assess simply by looking at statistics, and whatnot, that there are many evil things occurring that could be occurring at much higher rates while still maintaining this “some people are joyful and it makes it worse for others” argument. We are not at max evil. This world is not torture world “and then some”. Even people who are suffering greatly can often still experience the love of others, they can be helped by strangers, they can hold onto those moments and cherish them. The grand majority of our population is not experiencing max pain levels. If this world was torture world then I imagine many more people would be on torture racks being burned alive, or experiencing the most pain one could possibly experience both mentally and physically, and it would not end. This continuous, prolonged torture is so rare that you may as well say that it doesn’t exist. Animals don’t have the same mental capacity that humans do and because of these variables I don’t think that they actually belong in this conversation. I don’t believe that Alex is thinking big enough when he speaks about this hypothetical torture world.
2. There is a false equivalency that Alex draws later on in this conversation when he uses the “good book, bad book” analogy. You simply cannot apply the same standard to an inanimate object as you do to a conscious, moral being. If I say to someone “I really like Sarah, I think she’s a really good person” I am not speaking of her bodily function and it’s ability to do what it should, I am speaking about her morality. This cannot be applied to a book. When speaking in terms of morality evil and bad could very well be considered synonymous, and evil could easily be antonymous to good. This is a false comparison.
3. Present people with two options.
Option one: We have an omnipotent God who is, by nature, maximally good.
Option two: We have a God who is limited in goodness, has an evil streak, but doesn’t act upon it.
Ask people which they would prefer and I can almost guarantee that most people would prefer the maximally good God. Why? Because the God with an evil streak is basically a ticking time bomb. Imagine an all powerful God with an malicious streak, a God that does mostly good but occasionally has a desire to torture people for fun. How is that more morally commendable? If I occasionally have the desire to hurt children, but don’t cave to that desire, does that make me better than a person who never has that desire to do it at all? Of course not. I do understand why Alex is using this point though. Many Christians would use the same argument to defend Gods creation of man, and allowing us to have free will. I want to point out that there is a huge difference between not caving to a desire in the moment, and ridding oneself of the evil desire overall. Not caving to a desire to hurt children in the moment is not so morally commendable if that desire continues to resurface. It seems merely tolerable. However, ridding oneself of the desire entirely is morally commendable, though I would not say that it’s more morally commendable than never having the evil thought in the first place. Regardless, we are speaking in reference to God so this is actually all irrelevant. If God had to rid himself of evil desires than He wouldn’t be God. God is existence, and in being existence (rather than simply existing) God is not lacking in anything. To have to rid oneself of evil desires would be to be lacking in goodness. So, our options are either a maximally good God or a maximally evil god. I have already gone over my points for why the former is a more adequate assumption.
Well thought out. Those are some really good points. Of course, if god were evil, then were would people's natural inclination to love one another come from? Most people all walks of life, whether you are Christian, Muslim, or some other kind of Theist, Atheist, Agnostic, or any kind of person from another spiritual or non spiritual belief, this is the one thing that we are all capable of feeling as human beings, love. It's obviously in grained in us. If our creator were evil, then I don't know how we could have come up with this feeling within ourselves. It makes more sense that we came from love.
@@pault9544 Yes! I agree. I guess that one could argue that if there was an evil god, that the good inside of us exists to make the evil all the more torturous. However, I think an evil god could make things all the worse by allowing us only the capacity to feel loss, pain, etc. With an evil god there is no purpose to awarding us with choice, but with a good God there is.
@@pault9544 there are people who are horribly depressed and not capable of feeling love. I’ve known a person like that and he sadly took his own life. So your assertion that the one thing we are all capable of feeling is love, is false. If anything the one thing everyone feels is suffering. Have you ever met anyone who has never suffered? It makes more sense we come from suffering.
@@urupapado I wasn’t saying every person on this earth feels love. I’m saying this is a common thing most people can feel. Well, you probably will think I’m making this up but, I also happen to be severely depressed, I also have not been able to feel love on and off throughout my life with struggles with anhedonia but recently it just got much worse and my emotions have flatlined. So I know. Not everyone feels love, for me a lot of it comes from being abused growing up, but I understand some people also say that they just never felt much to begin with. I still believe in a higher power though and that’s simply my personal choice to try and get through why I’m going through.
@@pault9544 i’m sorry to hear that. I was just being a bit snarky. Hopefully you’ll work things out. I’m not convinced that believing in god is a choice, more like something that happens to you or it does not. But if you feel like it helps, i’m not objecting.
Dr. Baker-Hytch was not the right person for this, in my opinion. His attitude is a very good one for congenial discussions among colleagues; but this was supposed to be a debate. As a debate, Alex utterly demolished the paper and Dr. Baker-Hytch's position. I'd suggest arranging a round 2 with someone like Dr. Craig, but that seems unlikely.
There are so many better things you could say to demolish the Evil God Challenge. Easy examples, just off the top of my head:
1) Ontological and Moral Arguments, any argument referencing the resurrection of Jesus, and, plausibly, any argument that concludes to a being that is omniscient and perfectly free... are all totally asymmetrical with respect to Evil vs. Good God.
2) Even symmetrical arguments would remove atheism as an option, and limit us to finding reasons and evidence for *which* God exists. So, if the Problem of Evil and the symmetrical Problem of Good leave us at an impasse, then it's at least a theistic impasse; and all of us theists can now work on that further problem together.
3) (This is similar to just running a Moral Argument, but...) If there is such a thing as the way things "ought to be", and this would be true in any possible world, then the very ground of all Being couldn't be otherwise. For God to be Evil means for Him to be as He objectively and necessarily ought not to be. That is meaningless. And that's not just semantics (as in the options that Max brought up). It's a genuine problem for anyone who wants to simultaneously hold "X is the ground of all possible worlds, and is the ultimate reality, and yet it fails to be as it ought to be". We have moral knowledge, and we are aware of at least some of these necessary "oughts". A being which was, for example, sadistic, would not live up to even the oughts that we're aware of as finite, contingent, hugely limited beings.
Precisely what i thought. Even if you disagree with Alex, he certainly came out as stronger - of course this doesn’t mean his arguments were particularly amazing however. A better opposition was needed.
@@Mentat1231
1) On the Evil God hypothesis, maximal evil is a great-making property and it would be the case that god is an objective foundation for "inverse" moral values and duties. Jesus's resurrection would be a hoax created by the evil god so would be the evidence for it. An omniscient evil god would know what is objectively moral evil and would act in accordance with it. A perfectly evil god would be able to perform every possible action; good deeds would be incompatible with his nature and therefore not possible actions.
2) The symmetrical problem shows that theism is unfalsifiable and the price the believer has to pay; it does not provide any reason to prefer one case instead of another completely different. On naturalism, one rejects both and is thereby completely free from this dilemma. Just like that.
3) On the Evil God hypothesis, there are such things as "oughts to be": hate, greed, suffering, and so on. The only justification for thinking that this is meaningless is to assume that the foundation is different - which would simply beg the question (for it would be likewise available for the proponent of the Evil God hypothesis). The good oughts that we "know" of such as charity and patience were deliberately put in our hearts by the evil god to deceive us, thus creating more instances of confusion and falsity.
Well then he has to write a better paper, not find a replacement.
The points brought up was literally going off the paper, and none of them really held up that well upon initial inspection.
@@nulliusinverba5703 i don’t think he elaborated his points to the best extent
Why do people get to define an entity who is not fully within their comprehension with subjective labels like Good and Bad. The attribute of God is The benovelant and The Just, which are objective enough. Good and bad are results of human actions that manifest as consequence.
@CLIFFORD EDWARDS I am not even Christian, so if you ask me bible is 100%, then the answer is NO, and you can learn about it academically on blogging theology channel, benovelant does not mean to leave people out on street homeless and foodless either, slavery of ancient was not condoned by God, but initiated by humans, and to integrate homeless into society, laws were later revealed by God, and religion is morally hinged on harm principle so rape and genocide is harming either emotionally or physically. So try to understand the core principle of morality in a religion before you make blanket statements.
@CLIFFORD EDWARDS I will be honest, I am not a biblical scholar, all I know is forced slavery is not allowed in any religion, slavery is defined as different things in different cultures. From your paradigm slavery is what the American white used to treat the black people, but if you go to east like Thailand slavery was a deabt bound or redeeming social obligation and further categorized into seven, in mordern day we have corporate slaves, there is clear distinction between elite, middle and lower classes, so tell me was this distinction made by God or humans? were humans the one who made things as commodity or God? the earth is big enough, there is plenty of food and place to live and feed entire human populations, so who is demarcating the illusory limits on humans? God or humans? Religion laws were revelead to ease this twisted human laws by setting up clear boundaries. Some understand it, some exploit it, some ignore it.
@CLIFFORD EDWARDS why follow paul? is paul a prophet?
@CLIFFORD EDWARDS I bet this notion [The Bible claims that slaves shall be the Israelites property that’s just immoral, no matter how nice the slave master is and there is plenty of room for the slave master to be cruel under the guidelines of the Bible.] came from corruption of text by Israelites, because they were treated same way by the pharaoh. I do not deny anything that you mention as not being immoral, as I do not follow Bible to begin with.
Alex's first idea fits since there is so much evil in the world. he/she "mostly" does good argument makes them maximally better. Puppies are tortured for fun all over the world, and eaten. Max wants evidence of the likely imaginary person's psyche he will never gain that information. I still think having these arguments smuggles in the supposed existence of some supreme being all this seems like a time waster until you can prove there is actually a god. Good luck finding any defeat of Alex's logic, I haven't seen any here. He's a great one to debate for apologetics since he is truly open to opinion change given proper logic and evidence, I don't think that can be said by any theist (they will give in all arguments as a loss, and still be theists no matter what).
dr max: "we don't have an actual rebuttal, we just think that if some of this bunch of maybes was true we would have a rebuttal"
"but... they are maybes and there's the exact opposite maybe you can't just pretend isn't there"
There, saved you 2 hours.
What a stupid, reductionist and uninformed comment.
@@eternalbyzantium262 really? what argument was there that wasn't in this line of thought?
@@paskal007r I have no sort of respect for this line of condescension, Alex in this conversation had conceded to much of Max's rebuttals. If you aren't willing to display intellectual humility, and do what other arrogant atheists do by caricaturing atheists as stumbling nobodies, then it shows your level of understanding in this conversation.
@@eternalbyzantium262 what? I'm sorry what conversation did you watch? I've seen plenty of times points end up like I mentioned, with mark, not alex, conceding the point.
This is in no sense a caricature, it's what has happened again and again.
Good to see Alex learnt something about existence from David benatars chat!
The antinatalist?
@@Qwerty-jy9mj yep
@@jezah8142
kek, why would anyone listen to a formal misanthropist? It does put many things into place though
@@Qwerty-jy9mj not sure if I'd call him a misanthropist. Maybe anti-sufferist, the only way to prevent and guarantee no suffering is by avoiding the root of the problem, which is coming into existence. I don't see how any other view could be more compassionate than that
@@jezah8142
Sure.
If there is a god, I would imagine its either an indifferent god, or some type of mischievous or flawed god.
This makes far more sense to me, just judging by the world we live in.
To be clear, I'm of the opinion that there is far too much we don't know about the universe we exist in to conclude whether or not a god exists.
But can an "evil god" really be considered as God?
Just replace good/evil with the properties normally defined as such. Honorable/loving/caring vs lying/backstabbing/sadistic.
Should get around the "good is just an alternate spelling of god"-objection.
You’re only thinking of something worthy of worship. But there are people who would worship an evil god. Go play Skyrim
Well according to thiests evil god is still a good god since goodness is whatever in god's nature.
@@baleriontheblackdread4491 Only some theists though. Some theist think morality is absolute or necessary.
@@Oskar1000 it’s difficult to take some good things and flip them, and find equal and opposite versions.
Does an evil god prefer coherence or incoherence?
Is an evil god maximally patient, or maximally impatient?
What is the opposite of kindness? Is it malice, or is it selfishness?
Should I ignore my conscience, or do the opposite of what it says?
What is the greatest “virtue”, by the standard of an evil god?
How does an evil god respond to people who aren’t “virtuous”? Does he reward it, or punish it, or is he perfectly indifferent to it?
Does an evil god want to display or hide his “goodness”? Or does he perhaps want people to think he’s the opposite of what he is?
Does he want to be loved, or hated, or looked down upon, or ignored?
Alex has no justification for what evil is, he is literally a moral relativist who doesn’t believe in objective evil.
You are being dishonest because if you were not being dishonest, then you would not have deleted your last set of comments and my questions to you. You got backed into a corner and your only way out was to delete the comments.
Now, if God does not exist and someone chopped your fingers and toes off because they did not like you, then would you still be in pain and would you believe that they did something bad and wrong to you ?
Yes or No ?
Your answer is ….... ?
@@TheMirabillis I didn’t delete the comments, I think RUclips did because I said something homophobic lol. But why is getting our fingers and toes chopped off a bad thing?
@@ethan1268 Answer what I have asked you ….
If God does not exist and someone chopped your fingers and toes off because they did not like you, then would you still be in pain and would you believe that they did something bad and wrong to you ?
Yes or No ?
Your answer is ….... ?
@@TheMirabillis it’s a nonsensical question. I didn’t believe in God but I still thought good and bad existed but I had no basis in which I could justify it, now through the orthodox Christian doctrine I have a justification, as morality is written in our heart since the beginning of our creation. It’s a presuppositional question, it makes sense for an atheist but not for me.
@@ethan1268 So what you are saying then, is that, if human beings are here by random chance, and there is no God, then they could not feel pain and would not believe anything done against them would be bad and wrong.
Now, all you have do is give evidence for that. If you can’t do that, then you all you have is a personal belief with no evidence that it is true.
A person who gets to a better place due to their own actions rather than merely being given that goodness is more commendable. The fatal flaw in the reasoning, however, is that Alex assumes God doesn’t merit His own goodness. In other words, God is more given His goodness as a default rather than developing it Himself. But that would make God a created being. God isn’t given His own goodness, but has it due to Himself.
May I ask, how did you come to conclude that this god you've mentioned exists?
@@theoskeptomai2535
Refute the third way of St Thomas Aquinas. If you can't, then you would know how he got there.
Wouldn't redefining 'good' to be 'fulfilling its purpose' or 'whatever God wishes /does /commands' be an equivocation fallacy? Especially considering for the entire conversation leading up to that, it wasn't the definition used?
It would indeed if that was a redefinition. It would not if that is your consistent definition of good.
@@russ4moose if it is the consistent definition then there is no point discussing if God is good or evil because three terms are irrelevant. A toaster would be good when you buy it but evil when it breaks. Or if the manufacturer designed it to last for a limited amount of time, it would be good when it breaks as well.
If God is the most horrible creature to have ever existed that only thought maliciously, it would still be good by that definition. Just as Satan would also be good.
@@alwayslearningtech Do you think that a toaster that is designed to only last for a certain amount of time is objectively evil?
@@alwayslearningtech I think that any meaningful discussion about this requires some operational definition of these terms. How they were able to go so long on this topic without bothering to define good and evil really baffles me.
@@russ4moose if it only lasted that short amount of time, it would be objectively good.
If you are a Christian, then on William Lane Craig’s Molinist position God has created people who would go to Hell so that you could live for Eternity Future with God. How does that make you feel ? How does it make you feel that one or more people have been created to suffer for all of Eternity Future for you so that you could live with God for all of Eternity Future ??
Here is what Craig says in his book, “The Only Wise God” …
“His ( God ) goal, then, is to achieve an optimal balance, to create no more lost than is necessary to actualize a certain number of the saved. But it is possible that the balance in the actual world is such an optimal balance. It is possible that in order to create the number of persons in our world who will be saved, God had to create the number of persons who will be lost.”
-----
Craig’s God is surely an evil and malevolent God. To create billions and billions and billions of people who will suffer forever and ever is morally repugnant.
Annihilationists don’t do any better because Annihilationists have a God who creates people to suffer in this world ( and some of those people go through extreme suffering ) and whom God knows He will snuff out after he is finished using them. Such a God is surely evil and malevolent.
Don’t let Christian Apologists screw you over with their BS.
I'm wondering how the evil God hypothesis defines good and evil.
From the context of the debate, it's irrelevant. Because Alex's point is that you could use the same argument for a good god with an evil god. So however you determine what is good or evil is irrelevant because no matter what you could consider good, it could be argued the opposite of what you consider good(evil) is what god is. The objection of god is "good" no matter what by definition was already brought up in the debate and discussed.
@@davidfrey08 They didn't contend with the view I was taught in theology. Simply put, evil is defined as whatever works against good. It's not a pure opposite of good on many levels. Getting a metal needle rammed into your arm is not itself good, but it may be for the good, or for evil. Christianity does actually have an evil God. He was created by God, but is inferior in nature by virtue of the fact that he is capable of lechery. Maximal evil definitionally requires mostly good, while maximal good is purely good in the presence of evil, therefore the greatest possible god is one that tolerates the existence of evil, which can be defined as that which he does not ultimately desire. You can label such a being "evil" and be absolutely consistent with your logic if "evil" is subjective to your intuitive grasp of ethics.
The irony of an atheist entertaining the question "could gods be evil" is lost on O'Conner, since in order for an entity to be evil it must first be. If gods could exist as evil, then gods must exist. And we do well know that in polytheism evil deities do exist.
All atheists know God exists; they just suppress it
The question is said as "If a god does exist can it be evil?" Thinking about hipotheticals is a thing that is used everywhere, be it exact science or phylosophy
You missed the point of this debate entirely. Alex wasn’t trying to prove the existence of an evil god, he was showing that any arguments that can be used to explain why a good god would allow evil on earth could just as easily be used to explain why an evil god would allow good on earth. This therefore renders those arguments useless, which is a big problem for theists, because these are the arguments they use to refute the famous “problem of evil”. If they can no longer use these arguments to refute the problem of evil, this leaves the problem of evil as an outstanding major challenge to theism generally.
@@creatinechris you’re free to accept that delusion; in the end you’re without excuse, we all make our choice to accept or reject God, he will not violate your freedom to willingly depart from him, God bless
@@Blate1 no I didn't miss the point of the "debate", you missed the point of my comment. The so-called "Problem of Evil" doesn't even apply to most theological positions so your assertion that this presents "a big problem for theists" generally, is inaccurate. As a matter of fact, the Problem of Evil can never and has never been used to prove the veracity of atheism. This is typical of atheists; they consistently argue against the doctrines of Christianity to the exclusion of other theologies, as if doing so would in and of itself prove atheism true.
- Heaven no suffering
- Earth: suffering and joy
- hell : all suffering
Pain and suffering is due to sin; the chaos and destruction we see on earth is because this world is a reflection of the sin nature; sin is like a virus, it consumes and destroys until there’s nothing left, this is why There is no sin in heaven because if it were possible for sin to be in the presence of God it would corrupt and consume, take a look at just 1 sin that was committed, Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge and the trickle down effect it has brought about, all this pain and suffering into this fallen world, in the end God will contain and quarantine the virus and will purge it so as not to cause any more damage.
Why did God allow Adam’s sin to be passed down to all of his children? Couldn’t he have prevented the hereditary nature of sin?
Also, if there is no sin in heaven then we may be free now, but when we die we will be robots in heaven with no ability to sin. So what’s the point of being free now on earth for a millisecond in comparison to the eons of no freedom we will experience in heaven?
@@Iamwrongbut what does this have to do with your current state of affairs with God?
@@Iamwrongbut the issue here is either you believe Satan who says sin is you and God is trying to remove what makes you you all those selfish desires that consume and destroy or you believe God and this corrupt flesh is not you and your soul is meant to be whole without these selfish desires that never fulfill; either way God will let you choose, to be with him or to depart from him, we all make our choice
@@Iamwrongbut once again sin replicating consuming and destroying is a direct reflection of the nature of sin; sin for all intents and purposes is in itself a virus I just say it’s like a virus because it is a spiritual dilemma and not a physical one
#MuseNotAmuse
On why God allows evil, and suffering.
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
H. L. Mencken
@Thabani Sikhosana That. The problem of sufferings is not simply sourced to one cause.
I can't wait til alex gets his silver tongue
I think I've heard Dr Law set up this challenge as benevolent vs malevolent in speeches before. Gets around the whole "whatever God does is good" and "god is just an alternate spelling of good" objections.
Alex,I watched this video with my 7 year old Granddaughter. She pointed out that your position was flawed because you don't believe in God because you can't prove the existence. She stated you should look at confidence you can't see it or describe it, but still exist. If you have thought then you believe. With Max she stated that he can't argue for a God he really doesn't understand,and he's not supposed to. I personally thought it was a good exchange of ideas thank you
Could God be evil? Sounds like a conspiracy theory, unless this is about the god of this world, Satan, then it would be accurate that he is evil.
No one would be conspiring though. It would just be a fact that God is evil. Satan on the other hand could be good.
@@spacedoohicky Is it Opposite Day? I didn’t get the memo.
@@GoldenWolf248 It wouldn't be the opposite if God were evil. It would just be a fact. But if that's so then you supposing God is good would be opposite day.
Isn’t Satan a God creation?
I hope that Max offers the privation theory of evil, that certainly changes the dynamic
No - God's Not EVIL - WE Are 🙏🤗🙏
God isn’t evil. It’s like saying the engineers of cars are bad because they created trouble codes for their vehicles, and with the knowledge of car accident, and defects that have potential therefore, the engineers are evil more evil.
It clearly doesn’t follow the engineers are evil.
It’s more like saying that the engineer is evil because after creating the car he then programmed the car to crash itself.
Because people are born with an inclination toward sin, all “cars” are pre-programmed to crash from birth. God knew this would happen by creating Adam. Plus, he didn’t need to make sin hereditary. So Adam’s sin didn’t NEED to get passed down so that all cars always crash always from then until the end of time.
@@Iamwrongbut no, it’s not like saying that.
@@EndOfNumberz please explain my good sir.
If the cars are programmed to crash themselves then it follows that the cars are also programmed to not crash themselves. The desire of sin isn’t a “must have” or “I can’t help myself”. Christ said “go, and sin no more” which indicates that not sinning is possible.
But it still doesn’t make God evil. Even the angels sin, and they don’t even ask ridiculous questions as humans do. Thy question is one of “look at me cry.”
Alex won in my opinion because he maintained that words like "good" and "evil" should have continuity of meaning when applied to both God and humans.
The only Maximally Great Thing i saw in this debate is the amount of English Accent
I think it's the thing which created the Universe. I think that English Accent IS the Universe, so it's my duty to worship it.
Sorry guys, I gotta leave Christianity
GOD CREATED EVIL SO THAT YOU CAN HAVE A CHOICE TO BECOME EVIL OR BECOME GODS...
How do you know?
@@garyboulton2302 how? dont ask me ask yourself, i have my own choice...
In the end this question is a bit like believing that you are the only conscious mind; it’s a interesting thought, but if it were true it would be unprovable, probably even unknowable. A malicious God would have created the universe to select for benevolent & truthful creatures so they in turn would see these as great-making properties, synonymous with omniscience omnipotence etc. This way our logic would demand that He love us & never lie to us. It’s a self defeating idea. But an interesting discussion, as always.
It’s not a self defeating idea, it’s proving that trying to argue that the presence of suffering not being a defeater for an omnipotent omniscient being’s moral perfection is self defeating, because it’d entail that the presence of wellbeing/happiness isn’t a defeater for an omnipotent omniscient perfectly evil being.
Or in other words : we know that the idea is dumb, but we have to use it to show theists why their theodicies don’t actually answer the problem of suffering.
Flying spaghetti monster god vs biblical Jesus christ.
I really felt that max was on his back foot the entire time. I can’t name a time that I felt that he answered Alex’s questions sufficiently.
Plus, the amount of times he said “like” and repeated half-sentences over and over made it very hard to listen to.
Still not sure what he was trying to show.
Christians don't need to defend the goodness of God against atheists. If I convince an atheist that God, should he exist, is good, would that convert any atheist to theism? That concept is insulting. Similarly, if an atheist convinces me that my God is malevolent, would I cease to believe that God exists?
So, in essence, if we redefine good and evil such that they become meaningless to actual human beings, then we can dispense with evil god; otherwise, evil god is here to stay. Sounds familiar.
It amazes me that there are people in the world actually inclined to force themselves to pretend they believe such nonsense.