3:30 "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." F. Scott Fitzgerald
That is an odd statement. Especially considering that Albert Einstein was fully aware of the Manhattan project(1st atomic bomb) but did nothing to intervene in its development.
@James Henry Smith The magical fruit that Adam and Eve ate which caused all the sin in the world is a myth, the talking snake that temp Adam and Eve to eat the magical fruit is very obvious a myth.
The assumption is that a good God must interfere with the actions and consequences of evil humans immediately. As a father I teach my children to be good and wise. If they choose to ignore me and I continuously correct them they will resent me. Alternatively, I give them time to realise their mistakes and turn back to me. That way they realise I love them and I know what is best for them. Jesus said we can call God our father. If anyone knows the nature of God it's Him. If we reevaluate atheistic philosophy through the "family" principle we can see that He is benevolent and not dominating. If we choose to not turn back to Him then He has no choice but to overthrow us because He has the right to do as He pleases with His workmanship.
+allasar, thanks for your thoughts. But again the assumption is that human beings are innocent before God. If God were to stop evil He would stop all evil, not just our actions but the evil nature that sparks our actions. This means He would have to destroy all people simply because we all have the same tendency toward evil. Ultimately that is the plan, we call it "judgement day ". But God is holding off that day so we have a chance to turn back to Him.
Peter Spencer this is a human analogy, from a human point of view. If I were an all loving and all powerful god, I would remove all evil in the world, so that even the children that don’t obey me, won’t have to suffer, because I’m their father, with an unlimited amount of love, and I care for their well being no matter what
Your argument only works on moral evil (evil committed by humans), but in the case of natural evil (evil that we're not responsible for like hurricanes .....) It falls apart.
Your god is evil. There is never an excuse for evil to happen. Babies raped, innocents starving to death. Pets getting abandoned and starved by those who are supposed to take cate of them. You cannot blame the devil because if god is all powerful then he created the devil and could stop evil. It’s just that simple.
God said, "I love you more than your own mother". I'm pretty sure no matter how much my mother hates me (she doesn't BTW), she would never ever let me be imprisoned in a place of extreme torture and fire, for the rest of eternity, so God can keep that bullshit in his pocket. I believe there is God, but He is no different than Lucifer. We are just their pawns, and those who kisses God's ass enough like king David, then that person gets promoted to a rook or a knight etc.
Pratham Sanghavi well my friend, i burned, i wrecked my own self very recently, now i know what a shameless evil fool i was, a fool despite of the evidence in my hand by Jesus Himself in my childhood, But Jesus rescued me, with His limitless love, care and help, now i am at His feet again, He is true, His mercy saved me and is healing me, all thanks to Him, all PRAISE THANKS and GLORY be to Him forever and forevermore that He rescued me before my death could seal my fate
0:24 isn't this a very bad definition? I'm an atheist and I don't have A BELIEF that gods don't exist necessarily. I'm just not convinced by the theist position
Theists consistently reject #2 "If an OOO Being exists, there would be no evil." That is given short shrift, and therefore the real argument is really swept under the rug. A world in which the OOO Being provides all the good might be worse than a world in which the OOO Being wants to provide others the opportunity to be provides of good themselves. The assumption is that a world of passive recipients is better (more good) than a world of contributors. This argument is kind of like saying that: 1- A parent has the ability to see more obvious sources of pain in advance and help a child avoid them. 2- A good parent would try to do so. Yet 3- Good parents allow their toddlers to fall on their bums when learning to walk -- despite seeing it coming. Therefore, there are no good parents. The answer is -- #2 is false. There are better goods than preventing all pain.
Micha Berger however, if I may add, you are comparing a parent to an OOO god. A parent is not OOO so you cannot use the parent argument. If a parent was all good, all powerful, and all knowing, why would he/she allow the child to still go on with the pain of learning if he/she can just instill all of the knowledge into the child without pain? Is the pain necessary? If so, why is suffering necessary? Isn't pain bad? Why would an all good being allow for the existence for something bad?
Joma Roble You've shifted the conversation from whether the video actually addresses the typical theistic position to actually trying to do so yourself. I see little point to arguing religion on-line. But you are confusing a comparison with an equation. A parent is not an OOO god, nor are the goals for a parent to allow suffering the same as an OOO god's would be. As long as it's possible that an OOO god to consider it a greater good in letting people solve their own problems and indeed having problems to solve than just making sure there is nothing needing fixing (never mind fixing those non-existent problems), it's possible to resolve OOO and the existence of things we would consider evils.
+Micha Berger The assumption that a wholly good thing eliminates evil as best it can is true but a third unspoken assumption is made in the fundamental argument that: the process of destroying evil would be instantaneous or obvious to mortal beings which is not true or cannot be proven to be false. Part of the Christian doctrine is that God is love and that love was the ultimate design of the universe; that is, we were created to love and to be loved (not that He needs someone to need Him but that He desired to share the pure Joy of an existence of love and created us as a kindness) but love must be a choice and is false and is evil ( akin to rape) if forced. He does not force us to love Him but as a result of Him being ultimate good and all good coming from Him, we love evil if we do not love Him. evil is a perversion of His will. thus a choice must be allowed to choose God/good (synonymous) or evil and if we choose evil then He has no choice as an OOO being than to destroy us after all choices are made, but as a result of corruption of this world by sin in the garden of Eden we cannot choose to love God unless He shows us how and purifies our souls. Also as an OOO God evil cannot be unpunished and that is why Christ was a necessity so that our sin is counted to Him Who Was blameless and our eyes are opened by the glory of life which is God i heard this somewhere: we may choose or own path and actions but God chooses the consequences and far reaching impacts. That is, although we may choose to love evil and to do evil but God uses all of it to Good of Himself and to those who love Him Also i am but a man and am fallible so know that, that means that i may have inaccurately represented some truths of Christianity but this is the extent of what i have perceived
Micha Berger But this point of view just refines the definitions necessary. If it were true, we would only see evil that people can actually counteract. So babies dying and nobody can do anything against it would not be a part of our world. Yet it is, hence theism is bonkers. You'll find many more arguments of the kind you made but they can all be parried lazily with one hand tied behind your back once you wield the Problem of Evil. What I repeatedly saw was that theists would refine their arguments to such a ludicrous degree that they themselves are no longer able to intuitively grasp the implications. They then give up and happily go on keeping their preconceived beliefs.
I had a similar case when my father passed away, I blamed God and became an atheist. Later when I became a Christian looking back on my life, realizing the type of relationship I had with my father, I know now would have hindered me from so many experiences. It's hard to say this because in no way do I want my father dead, but I know his death was in some ways best for my situation. It's hard to understand I know, but well thanks anyway, this is my final comment, have a good day.
You are saying that what doesn't kill you makes you stronger. Evil might make you stronger but still it is evil, it also causes destruction. It's like hitting your head to prevent headache, it might be effective but also disastrous. However death also comes among evil which is a problem.
There is another view a on this: God may exist, but maybe our definition of God is not accurate. After all, don't forget that there are many interpretation of God and Gods. For example in ancient Greece, Gods were very much like man; capricious, vain, insecure... We are not using the word "God" correctly.. instead we should say "Christian God", "Hindu Gods", "Roman Gods", etc.
PROTIP atTheDisco I'm curious about what you wrote, could you elaborate a little? For example in ancient Greece Zeus was the god of the sky, and he was married to Hera (goddess of mothers, families, marriages...)
Basically I think every religion was introduced at a different time so like first there were diffrent Gods in one religion and then the most recent religions such as Christianity or Islam have only one god I think it's like how you explain atoms in school like they don't tell you everything when ur young because that's just too complicated for us to believe and then in university we learn what is actually going on I don't think ppl would have believed that there is one "OOO" God that has made everything in the past when this would've been new to them so if different religions all believe that some God is responsible for our creation then all the God's must be one...
PROTIP atTheDisco Yes, I guess you can argue that for example all Greek gods (gods of sea, thunder, sun etc.) are only different aspects of one God.. But there are some differences, since only in a few religions God is seen as "OOO". Like I wrote before, in many religions God are very much like humans, capable of jealousy, envy, selfishness etc.. in other words not OOO.
Doesn't that also mean that anyone who believes that there is no deity is also irrational? And only people who say "there may be a deity" are the only rational people around?
So someone's perception of God could be different from the definition shown in this video. Therefore, you can't say broadly "if you're a theist, you're irrational" because not everyone believes in an OOO God. Also, maybe humans don't have the full story on what exactly "evil" is. Some people believe evil is an act that leads to more misery than happiness for all involved. So if God is all-knowing, and all-good, then he can see the full impact of an action and discern of the net impact is more happy or more misery, and allow or disallow the action on the premise. Also the idea of free-will comes into play; because God loves people so much, he gave them free will to do what they want, and if they want evil, then God morally allows it. Anyway, my point is that saying "all theists are irrational" is invalid because it ignores the complexity of the topic and all the different versions of theism.
Riley Penner Theism, by definition, is belief in the existence of a god or gods. Atheism is the opposite of theism, the belief that there is no god at all. If you are unsure or only find yourself only slightly lacking belief, that is called agnosticism, not atheism. Atheism rejects all god or gods whatsoever. I highly advise you look into Christian theism, the answers truly are there for you, you just have to have an open heart.
Elliot C No sorry, you are wrong. Nosticism and agnosticism are terms that address knowledge, not belief, therefor you could be a nostic theist, someone who claims to know there is a god, or an agnostic theist, someone who believes in god but doesnt know that there is one. The same is true for atheists. As far as your claim that atheists believe there is no god, you are incorrect again. Theists make the claim that god exists. Atheists reject that claim. That is different than making a claim that god does not exist, which would fall under the category of anti-theism. The difference is that if you say "there is a god", and I say, "I dont believe you", I dont have to justify my lack of belief, in the same way that you dont have to have evidence why you dont believe in fairies or unicorns or santa claus.
Riley Penner First off, "nosticism" is not a term. There is such a thing as Gnosticism, but that is irrelevant. Secondly, agnostics believe there is strictly no god or gods. So no, you can't be an "agnostic theist", that makes no sense, and they are separate terms for a reason.
Elliot C A quick google search could have cleared that up for you. You even spelled it correctly. Whether you like it or not, it is a term. Now granted it is not used very often because it is usually fallacious, but all I was trying to demonstrate is that the words agnostic and atheist address two different things. One is not a substitute for the other. And yes, you can be an agnostic atheist. Most of us are actually classified as such. Look up Armored Skeptic. He has an excellent video explaining this exactly, titled "Atheists are a Myth". That video will actually somewhat address some of the flaws in the argument you are currently trying to make.
The whole point of this video heavily relies on the notion of Good and Evil. If there is evil, there is Good, if there is Good and Evil, we assume there is some sort of moral law, therefore a moral law giver must be present. The whole question self-destructs. Next problem with this video - It heavily relies that GOD (OOO) MUST irradiate evil as it occurs because he knows when it happened (first O) , be powerful enough to stop it (Second O) and would stop it (The assumption, Third O). This video makes the assumption that God MUST stop 'evil' if it happened, therefore putting a limitation on God, contradicting the OOO. Follow along, When God made us, he made us in his image (Intrinsic Moral Law, free mind). He did this because he loved us. God created a perfect Earth for us to live on. God did not want us to be robots, to be forced to live where he says and do as he says, so he gave us FREE WILL. He gave the perfect Earth to Adam and Eve and told them that all they had to do to keep it , was to not eat from the Tree of Knowledge. They did eat from the tree and sin entered the world, along with death, hate, EVIL. This separated humankind from God. God could have stepped back, put his hands up, and said "You made your bed, now sleep in it." But he didn't. Instead he came to Earth in the form of JESUS CHRIST, he lived the perfect life. He came to the Earth to be crucified, in a way, taking the punishment for the sins of the world, so that if we believe in him and follow him, we can be forgiven of our sins, have a living relationship with GOD, and be accepted into Heaven. THAT IS HOW MUCH GOD LOVES US. THAT IS THE LOVING GOD. Evil in the world is a product of MANKIND not God. I encourage anyone who reads this, to take a deeper look into Christianity, its historical claims and the proof for the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Seek the truth. Start with the Book Of John. Additionally, I encourage you to search "Ravi Zacharias" on youtube and click on videos that interest you. God Bless. Rev. 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me.
You said that there is evil in this world. That is just your opinion. You do not have a standard to call something evil or good, or you are stealing from the Christian Worldview that tells us what good and evil is in the Bible.
The simple problem here is the assumption that a good all powerful God would not allow evil to exist, except that rules out the gift of free will. Since biblicaly the cause of evil is just that.
The argument presented in this video assumes premise 2 is uncontroversial when it is not. It assumes that if an OOO God exists evil would not exist because he would stop it. However that is taking the motivations of such a being in a limited vacuum apart from other possible motivations for creating the universe. What if the motivation is to create a universe where free moral agents are able to choose to do good or choose to do evil. In such a universe it is inevitable that evil would exist. God could have created humans incapable of doing anything but what he made them do and they would never do any evil but then they would not actually choose to do good since in order for a moral agent to exists that agent needs to be able to choose good or evil.
The fact that people disagree with other people and find out that they are wrong with something, let's say for example they answer a question on a math test wrong, it proves that human to be fallible. We are all fallible because for 1) we are all able to make errors and 2) we have all sinned according to the Bible. Since humans are fallible, we are able to be wrong in our thinking, which includes what I am saying here. But when we think from absolute truth we are able to know the difference between right and wrong. For example, if someone is on a raft in the middle of the ocean, and it is completely pitch black, how are they able to know first, where they are and where they are going. It is impossible with humans. What that person needs is an outside source from beside themself, per se may be a star in the sky. We can not rely on inward thoughts or opinions because they are fallible and can not absolutely prove anything. Some people argue that they can not know anything for certain. What they need to ask themselves is are they certain of that. If they are certain, they are contradicting themself.
Problem №1: as it is expressed quite well in the Micha Berger's comment - being all good doesn't necessarily imply that the creature should prevent you from acting from yourself thus contribute to your own state, rather then just be a passive recipient of the gift (as one could water a plant) Problem №2 Even though that almost everything is given a definition here, something like "evil" is let to be "self-evident". the problem with this is that you base this "self-evidency" of evil on the assumption that there is something good, right or just. However - if you deny theism, i.e. the existence of an omnibenevolent creature, then you would be really challenged to give an ABSOLUTE institution that preserves good to be good all the time. If you lack such an ABSOLUTE institution then you are falling in what is called "moral relativism". And if you have moral relativism, then you don't have a non-changeable definition of "good", "right" or "just" and consequently lack any criteria according to which to say what is "evil".
Except we don't need an "absolute institution" that makes us good and keeps us good. We don't need an "absolute institution" to define evil either. Im sure a lot of people will revolt and feel disgusted when a human being commits torture, murder, or terrorism. This feeling is innate within us. The idea that these are morally wrong and is a capital crime is UNIVERSAL across most cultures and human customs. Yes, some moral statements are relative depending on the culture, but some moral statements are so universal that it is pretty much absolute. Killing is a moral evil and protecting life is a moral good because every culture universally agrees with it. It's called "moral UNIVERSALISM." Not every moral truth is absolute, not every truth is relative either. And some moral truths become morally relativistic or absolute over time. Morality changes as civilisation goes forward, or sometimes even backwards
The problem is that this woman decides "I'm going to set up some rules that God has to conform to and then claim It doesn't live up to my rules so therefore it doesn't exist. By that type of "logic" I can prove that RUclips doesn't exist.
We're going to assume that an All knowing, Purely good, Loving being will twist and control other beings who act in a way that it deems "Evil" to the point of perhaps executing them or at least striking them down with a furious anger. Because if I'm "Good" it means I will force others to also be good, at gun point if need be.
"In order to have evil, you must have good" "evil" and "good" are just words we use to differentiate between actions that harm and actions that don't. A better way of putting it is that if there was no differentiating factor (harm) there would be no use for those concepts in our shared ontology. I think I agree with you aside from that.
@@Darth_RaZa "Good, evil, and morality are all subjective to begin with." And in almost every subjective view, harm is a factor for all three of those.
Actually, evil can both exist and not exist, and here's how: What constitutes "evil" is entirely subjective. Perhaps God doesn't believe in the concept of "evil" - there is nothing humans can do that would be evil. We might think terrorism is evil, but maybe God doesn't think so.
I definitely feel that this subject is very interesting and has much to talk offer, on a side note I just published an e Book named the masks we wear by Illich Perez check it out at pay hip dot com /b/zytx or visit my Facebook page Illich perez have a nice day
i love how the logical conclusion to this argument breaks it down to only "two" solutions instead of recognizing the solution that our concept of Good and Evil is flawed, or the solution that God chooses the greater Good of free will which puts the evil on those who commit it.
well yes, you could claim that the world couldn't be any better than it is right now. but that's a pretty tall claim that you didn't provide any evidence for. what desirable freedom is gained from dying from catastrophe, disease or stupidity?
@Tony Tony no i'm not. it's a general argument that appears to be valid. i hope you watched the video? i am aware that there are plenty of times the Bible describes it's god as ignorant, amoral or lacking in power. this argument doesn't apply to that, is probably older than the bible anyway (though the popular attribution to Epicurus seems to be disputed). so please focus on the argument. it isn't specifically about the Bible.
@Tony Tony moral reference? you probably mean a definition of morality, which misses the point a bit. the argument holds as long as bad things exists, and applies to any god (or other being, really) that would be good and capable enough to avoid them. if you don't believe that moral claims are valid and there is no such thing as good, them you're right, the argument wouldn't apply in your view. but it would in mine. i'm a moral realist. to get a bit of an idea how my moral philosophy works, you may want to look up "instrumental convergence" and "pragmatism" (which has a specific philosophical meaning). but again, the argument doesn't rely on how exactly morality works, only that it is a valid concept.
@Tony Tony the validity of a claim doesn't depend on who claims it. obviously. i'm not some weird reality-denying subjectivist. and no, i'm still specifically talking about the Bible. as i said, i don't think the Bible describes it's god as particularly good, knowledgeable or powerful. it seems you care much more about that god than i do.
The main problem I have with this argument is that all our definitions and theories about an omnipotent being (be it god or anything else), is that these are all man-made. Our definition of evil is man made, because what we define as evil is subjective. One person may believe what he or she is doing is right, while a bystander may believe that what he or she is doing, is evil. We also assume that the god or omnipotent being is what we define as "good" and seeks out to destroy evil, while we have no evidence to back up that case. Frankly, I believe that there is an omnipotent being, but we are irrational to believe it would be bound by any man-made rules and instead follows/creates the laws of our universe. It is however up to us to make it a place we want to live and die in before returning to where we came from. After all if you think about it, we're just a bunch of atoms able to choose where we go and change what we want. When we die we just return to the world until we become what we once were.
She assumes evil as a 1. positive ontological thing and 2. that if evil is a privation of the good this may be necessitated by some higher good and thus a universe where the privation of the good is permitted is superior then one where it is metaphysically impossible. this is a terrible strawman, there are so many ways to demonstrate the logical problem of evil is easy to refute.
The second premise is incorrect. The assumption that an OOO god would not allow evil to exist is completely absurd and is typical of the atheist argument. As an example lets consider a loving parent with their young toddler. When the toddler is learning to walk, does the parent hold them up so that they never fall and experience the pain of falling? Does the parent prevent the toddler from experiencing everything unpleasant? On the contrary, a loving parent would protect their child from serious harm, but the parent knows the child must fall a few times to learn, otherwise the child will never learn the lessons of failure and success. Creating the human race, knowing all the death and suffering the humans will endure may very well be the most loving thin an OOO god could do for us.
You're missing out Omnipotence. A loving parent would only let the child fall if that's necessary. If you had the power to just insert knowledge on your child without putting them in harms way, but you let them suffer without necessity, then you're not Omnibenevolent.
"I love these people so much, I think I'll give them some cancer. Will need rape too because I really love them. I think I'll throw in some tornados and floods, too. They got to learn somehow! Love them so much." The discussion is about the evils in the world and the example you bring up is a toddler falling over when learning to walk??? Nothing more absurd than that. Nothing more morally disgusting than someone trying to present all the evil in the world like it was some kind of sick twisted "gift".
Vandré Brunazo To insert knowledge to prevent harm would require the child to have the capacity to accept the knowledge. An OOO parent would have to impart additional knowledge, and maturity, ultimately resulting in the child being just like the parent. So this OOO god can only create perfect OOO gods such as himself, otherwise as you point out, he's not omnibenevolent. However unless we are ourselves omniscient, we can't possibly understand the reasons for an OOO gods actions. So we have to assume an ombibenevolent god would prevent harm unless there were good reason to allow it.
Well. most people who identify as atheists think that the existence of God is unlikely to the point that it's not worth caring about... because there really isn't any strong evidence in support of theism.
If you're seriously looking for evidence, then you should research "الاعجاز العلمي في القران الكريم" which means scientific facts told in quoran that are not yet proven scientifically. and scientists did prove many of them. one of them is that 1st wing of a fly has a sickness and the other has the cure, it sound like bullshit right? unless it's proven scientifically, then you have no other way but to believe in it. that's how it works
One question that I have is, why is it that we must assume that this idea of god must be "OOO"? When you're referring to "god", are you referring to the idea of someone/something creating the universe? If so, I don't necessarily believe that this idea of "OOO" must be applicable.
You really shoehorn in your conclusion. I submit that your incorrect statement might be #2, that if an ooo being exists, then there would be no evil. You added this statement as a given with no rationale behind it. How can you tell what an omniscient and omnibeneficent being will consider to be the greatest good?
Agreed. Many theists believe that there is a purpose in evil to exist. For example to be tempted; or to know what good is you have to experience evil. Thus the purpose of life includes both good and evil. For an OOO God to eradicate evil and thus the purpose of life or the greater good is not good. In such a case statement two falls apart as it is built on the assumption that a good God would not allow evil. One can't just make claims like this and exclude these kinds of possibilities. It is nice that these guys are educating us on these philosophies, but not to include perfectly good counter arguments is totally silly.
+allasar Once again you are assuming that you know what is best for everyone for eternity. Maybe you are the omniscient one? It is horrible that women are trapped and children starve and men go to war. What is the alternative, though? The reason the argument presented in this video has never held water is that every major monotheistic religion teaches that there is a greater purpose in God allowing evil to exist.
Your idea of the "greatest good" implies that God is not omnipotent. "Greatest" implies a limit. If God is limited, that means he is not omnipotent. Out of the numbers 1-100, which one is the highest/largest/greatest? This question only makes sense because there is a limit of 100. If we just ask which number is the highest/largest/greatest, without any limit, the question doesn't make sense. By talking about the "greatest good", you're admitting that God is not omnipotent.
@@beauxq I don't think the term "greatest" excludes the infinite. Since you used the examples of numbers, why don't you tell me what the greatest whole number is.
Evil is a very rudimentary concept. The war waged in life is almost entirely between competing virtues. How to value those, how to choose, how to live the best life and accept the loss of other good choices not taken, and ill of the harm you accept doing in your choices, that unavoidably accompanies the good. That's the work of life, as individuals and communities.
Think about this: "Can a God create a rock so big that even he can't lift?" 1. If he can, than he is not omnipotent for not being able to lift it. 2. If he can't, than he is not omnipotent for not being able to create it.
+Chris Dijkman That is not a valid logical argument: 1. In the first half of your sentence you stated that God can create a rock that he can't lift. If this is true than he is not omnipotent since he failed to lift it. 2. If you meant that he created the rock and at first couldn't lift it (for example at 5PM), but than later he could (6PM), it still means that hi is not omnipotent since he couldn't lift it at 5PM. Statement that "God can allow contradiction" doesn't have any meaning. Try this for additional practice: Can God step on a measuring scale and weight 50kg and 100kg at the same time? Can God create a yellow ball of blue color? Can God create a round square?
The answer: yes. How you say? Because there is no reason God can't do this. Simple. To not be able to lift a rock, if to not be God. Ergo, to make himself incapable would be to make Him non-God. But He could still do it if He wanted. I never saw this to be an actual paradox or contradiction. Nothing disagrees.
Been thinking about this a lot recently, and I think that some of the original "Properties of God" proposed (originating, by the way, not in western thought [5:20], but in Greek philosophy) might be contradictory in themselves. Those specific properties are Omnipotence and Omnibenevolence. You see, the concept that a perfect God must be Omnibenevolent has always bothered me. Today, after watching this video, I think I see why. If God truly is all-powerful, then He need not be Omnibenevolent. He could be "Omnimaleficent" If He so wishes. (perhaps this means we must redefine what it means to be perfect) A perfect God, in my understanding, must be above morality. From a Christian perspective, I think that this is true of the way that God is portrayed. The God of the Bible *defines* morality; He gives laws to mankind and explicitly tells them what is morally right and morally wrong. He then sets Himself up as the Judge of good and evil, providing blessing and honor for good conduct and punishment and destruction for bad conduct. Since He is our Creator, and He defines morality, and indeed has become our Judge, no mortal human being can really accuse Him of being evil (Daniel 4:35, Romans 9:20). And so by default we do consider God to be good, but we must remember that God, in truth, is above both good and evil. I think the part that messes people up is that they attempt to define morality on their own before discussing the subject of whether or not God exists. As a perfect, infinite, omnibenevolent Being I would argue that He is much more qualified than us to define what is right and wrong. He need not be defined by our interpretations of morality.
The nature of a "Perfect God" has been used as a proof of the existence of god as well... Because, a perfect god would have to exist, because existing is preferable to not existing, so by definition, being perfect involves existing. The Omni-God, (OOO in this video) came about much later than the start of Christianity, and was a cause for many schizms and arguments. It's incredibly easy to break the logic of an 'omni' being, but a lot of this could be attributed tofaults of languages and concepts. These same faults in language and concepts is where we get tangled up in paradoxes. The best example is that it is impossible for you to get anywhere you are going, because first you have to get half way there, then you have to get half way between half way there and there, and on and on... because the distance can be cut in half an infinite amount of times, and you must always get to the half way point before getting all the way there, you will be approaching your destination infinitely. Of course, this doesn't happen, people get where they are going literally every day. So we are left with a series of ideas that are all true, but that logically disprove eachother. This is what is called a paradox. So is the question of whether an omnipotent God could create a rock so massive that even it could not move it. The statements are both true, in so far as being within the definitions of 'omnipotent'. But they are mutually exclusive. Our ability to create concepts is probably the closest example we have of what an omnipotent god would entail. Because we can create, and believe contradictory, and impossible things. There are no limits to what we can conceive.
I agree (see my comment). The message of Scripture is that God is GOD, having absolute power and sovereignty, not that "God is good". God is above both good and evil and both serve his purpose, but how you experience that purpose depends on you. Kind of like how you experience sunlight depends on whether or not you are Dracula.
The main problem is the argument if OOO being exist , there would be no evil. This statement lacks the nuance of an Omnibenevolent God willing to give his creation the free will to choose good or evil.
but think about it ? a good "all" good person must be "all" good "all" time, if "all" good person sees act of crime he she or it must try to stop it, so if "all" good god is not stoping the evil, it cannot be OOO.
Unless they can see beyond the action and instead focus on an individual who can receive forgiveness. He is so Omnibenevolent that he can see how others free will has helped shape the "Evil" person and is willing to forgive. Even a wretch like me Romans 3:23
Let me put this to you then. Say you have a puppy. It's in a room. There is a bone in the room. In the next room, there is a puppy with no bone, A small hole exists between the two rooms, just large enough for the bone to fit through. Now, if the puppy decides to chew on the bone, it will be skinned and burned alive. If it decides to push the bone through the hole, it will be rewarded with another bone. If you knew that the puppy was going to chew on the bone itself, and then had the option to take the bone away, all you had to do was think it and it would disappear, before the test even began, would your morality compel you to do so? Please keep in mind, the elimination of a choice is not influencing the choice, thus the test does not effect free will. If you answered yes, then by definition you are morally a better person than god. (Something which we know is not possible given his defining characteristics include omnibenevolence), so the God described in the Bible is not omnibenevolent and therefore does not exist. If you answered no, well then would it not stand to reason that having the opportunity to save a puppy from torture by simply thinking it, and not doing so based on the fact that you didn't have to, is considered evil? Please keep in mind I am well aware this test does not take in other factors for simplification reasons, however the premise still stands.
Shenanigans, Elimination the choice does effect their free will. If I know you are going to kill someone with a hatchet and I refuse you the right to the hatchet you'll call me a tyrant because you needed to chop wood to keep you and your family alive through the winter. God could end this all right now and put everyone where he new their decisions would lead them. I don't know about you, but I would claim that to be unjust.
Jack Cayman " God could end this all right now and put everyone where he new their decisions would lead them" Precisely my point, an omnibenevolent god would spare everyone that suffering. If you take away a choice, it does not effect free will. One could still make the decision, they would just not have the capacity to make said decision happen.
Under "Two Further Assumptions" (8:22), your first assumption is faulty-viz. that "a wholly good thing always eliminates evil as far as it can." This you assume to be part of the definition of omnibenevolence. However, the western theism you are addressing, or at least the Christian theism that once characterized western thought, has clearly not understood omnibenevolence in this way. And so your argument fails at this point. Christian theists have routinely understood omnibenevolence to mean that no moral culpability attaches to God for any evil that exists. Moreover, a distinction is made between present and future evil. God will eliminate evil as a matter of justice (future), but has no moral obligation to prevent evil in the meantime or to eliminate evil within a given time-frame (present). This is common stock in Christian philosophy, at least in the Augustinian stream. You'll find it consistently in Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, etc. Aquinas, for example, replies to the very objection your argument raises by quoting Augustine: "Since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil." (Summa Theo. 1.2.3, quoting Enchiridion 11) Yet both Aquinas and Augustine, in the respective contexts of this statement, affirm what we (not they) call omnibenevolence. Notice that these two thinkers (1) did not understand God's supreme goodness to include by definition the will to prevent evil, but (2) sought to justify the existence of evil teleologically or eschatologically.
Number 2 argument of the existence of an OOO Being in The Problem of Evil slide expresses an "all-good Being would try to prevent evil." This is an assertion spawned from an assumption of what an omnibelevolent God ought to do inherently. However, theism provides an opposing standpoint for this idea. Theism says God gives free will to created beings and is not a tyrant over what they can or cannot choose to do. With this free will is the capacity to sin, causing the emergence of evil. This is clearly expressed in monotheistic writings and cannot be neglected in representing the religion. This is a straw man fallacy, and the argument must be revised here. For an explanation of free will and the existence of evil from the Christian worldview, see: www.gotquestions.org/free-will.html and www.gotquestions.org/did-God-create-evil.html.
+kukis13 So if an omnipotent God can create a world with free will and no evil, can he still be omnibenevolent for doing otherwise and creating a world with both free will and evil?
+MarcheZ Sol I am not sure I understand your question correctly. If he/it/she creates "a world with both free will and evil" then he is not omnibenevolent
“My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such a violent reaction against it?... Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too--for the argument depended on saying the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies. Thus, in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist - in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless - I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality - namely my idea of justice - was full of sense. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never have known it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.” - C.S. Lewis
You lose me in your argument where you assert that if an OOO being exists, evil must, therefore, not exist.The first assertion that if God is all-knowing God must therefore know where Evil would occur, makes sense. Secondly God, as we assert as all-powerful, could prevent evil if God so chose. But you You make a bold statement without any basis of fact or supporting argument. Your claim that as God is good, God must therefore intervene in all Evil that occurs.Thus you cannot draw the conclusion that Evil cannot exist if God is OOO. Assuming God Exists, and that God is OOO, does not follow to the exclusion of the existence of Evil. You incorrectly argue that our only option is to give up the characteristic of Omnibenevolence, or we give up the existence of Evil. Thus you have not adequately framed this argument to demonstrate that it is irrational to be theist.
Omnibenevolent means that God is always good. Omnipotent means that he is capable of doing anything since he is all powerful. If you make the claim that God does not always intervene, you have to justify that the inaction of God is good. If you can't prove that his inaction is good, then you have to give up either Omnipotence or Omnibenevolence. If his inaction leads to evil in any way, he isn't omnipotent or Omnibenevolent, since he either permitted evil to happen or didn't have control over that evil. Can you prove that his inaction is never causes evil?
Devron Pearce We are not debating if God does evil. We are debating that the actions of God are the absolute best in terms of being Good. Not acting on something might not cause any evil, but acting might cause Good. So if he was truely omnibenevolent and omnipotent, he would do something that would cause Good and no Evil instead of simply accept something that is not bad.
What if we have the wrong definition of evil? Maybe this what happens in the world like killing people is evil but there exists something much eviler than that?
I'am atheist, but according to christianity there is evil because of the free will, humans and angels are able to choose "Evil". Humans are demand to do "Good" not because of God Omnipotence but because of their will, God decides that he doesn't want to interfere with his creations will ¿The fact that he es ALL GOOD means that he has to destroy "Evil" just because he is omnipotent? I was expecting a more strong argument "for atheism"
Well, actually it is. You have the freedom of choice, even if you don't have an infinite amount of any options to choose from. And who said that you have to burn for all eternity for your sins? The Bible? 1) The Bible didn't magically fall from the sky, it was written by humans. 2) The Bible is full of metaphors. Maybe the burning refers to the guilt?
***** yeah, because the Bible is the God. All hail the almighty Bible that is never wrong. Because the *people* who wrote it also were all mighty, all knowing beings. And how do you know what is a metaphor and what isn't?
+allasar I have to point out that for example, It is said that Dantes inferno doesn't represent a reality but the "hell" of having "envy", "rage", etc... And I've been Catholic and I know that a lot of things written in the Bible are taken as a Metaphore Christianty and for extension any religion usually have a very consistent system: If the bible is wrong is a methaphore and we, imperfect humans, don't understand God message so any logic you could apply dont get you anywhere. That's the reason why religion can't be proof right or wrong... It's all about faith. (Sorry for my English)
How does free will influence nature? Are you saying that humans want famines and other natural disasters? Are you saying that the freedom of the murderer is more important than the freedom of the victim, to a benevolent god? If God was real and truly didn't want to interfere with his creation, we wouldn't know of him to begin with. And, according to the bible and priests, he constantly interferes with our lives and has done so in the past. If he was all good, he wouldn't have created humans and angels with the capacity of evil, this would result in nothing but meaningless suffering, since he'd strip the "good ones" of their free will when they enter heaven either way and throw the others to hell. But yeah, pointing a gun to someone's head still leaves them with the choice, right? And yes, omnibenevolence and not just the tolerance of evil, but the creation of evil, are mutually exclusive. God would indirectly be responsible for every single crime in human history, since he had the power to stop it and knew it was going to happen. Not to mention that omniscience also means that humans don't have free will, since the future would have to be deterministic in nature for it to be knowable, meaning that humans have no actual choices.
***** If you really thought not having consciousness and free will was a better choice than other people being capable of harming you, you'd take some poison to spend the rest of your life in coma. But you haven't done that.
Whilst i am an atheist , this is a terrible argument for the belief in god being irrational. I'm not sure if you were trying to explain this from the point of someone who believes this way (likely but just thought i would mention the following: You dismiss that the incorrect assumption could be "if an ooo being exists they would prevent evil". A number of reasons why we can not auto-include this theory: - If a being wanted to watch how we dealt with the world we were given, it wouldn't interfere - if we always get what we want, our pleasure and reward chemistry doesn't fire as often so we would actually find life less interesting. It's hard to say where the evil would stop so that our lives were just perfect... but in becoming perfect they loose some/if not all of their appeal. Additionally, evil is in the eye of the beholder. Terrorism, to some is an acceptable way to be heard when faced with the feeling of being ignored. ( Not my view point but it exists, nothing to say this is not the view of an ooo being) Lastly, what if in order to maximise the average happiness of the world, bad things had to happen. If you take , for example the trolley problem (where a runaway trolley on a rail track is going to hit and kill 5 people but you can pull a lever to change it's path so it goes to a different track where only 1 person is present). Perhaps the ooo being is face by variations of this problem all the time and they ARE all knowing, all morally good and all powerful but limited by some properties of physics such that they CAN from the outside influence the lever but CAN'T remove the trolley from existence (still keeping with the hypothetical problem, because i'm sure in this case they would have other options been in more complex scenarios they may not)
No, it is a good argument. Probably because she went to fast, she didn't put enough emphasis on the key aspects. So you say: a being that like to not interfere While this may be true, this actually have nothing to do with the argument. In fact, you should have said, a OOO BEING likes to not interfere However an ooo being, is "all good". Also notice that she didn't use the word "good" alone, but there is "all". So imagine the most good person on earth, the ooo being is without doubt more good. And assuming that the most good people on earth would interfere, then without doubt even the ooo God. To the second point, of necessarily evil. This is not true at all, because God is omnipotent, so evil is not necessary. You are still thinking in the perspective of what a normal being can do, and not what a ooo Being can do. What is the conclusion then? Believing in a god defined as "ooo being" is irrational.
The problem I see with Her argument is with one of her assumptions that she doesn't directly state. This assumption I would say is that we being not all knowing can know what god is thinking and judge him about it. I mean if I have an allknowing God I hope He's a bit smarter than me. What I may think is good in my limited knowledge cannot compare with what God is good in his infinite knowledge. I mean if you look at a kid. He knows candy is good. He thinks when you take candy away from him it's not good. So you are not good. So if we look at this and multiply it alot to the difference between us and an all knowing God. If you realize that we as not all knowing cannot know exactly what is "all good" then you can have a OOO being who allows evil. Maybe this OOO being allows evil to make some good with it in the end. I guess that's where my faith or trust or whatever kicks in. I see this evil in the world and beilive that although it's absolutely terrible I trust that God is using it to do some ultimate good, something that is all good. I have a hope for the future
Lex River, your points are based on your human given and society given assumptions and conclusions. An OOO being that is all good does not have to interfere. It may consider interfering in free will inherently bad for example.This is just one example of difference of opinion on what all good could mean. As i also outlined omnipotent doesn't have to allow for the rules of physics to break for example so perhaps they can't interfere.
+Kealaipaliuli Ahuna So you basically believe there is no (true) evil? (or we jsut jsut see it as evil, but it isnt) This was one of the options. I personally would go with taking away one O. So that he is either not All good or not Omnipotent. But what ever, i dint share this view on god anyways.
if anything,the free will argument seems to be the one based on human assumption. i can agree on the definition part though. the point is if god is ooo, how omnipotent all good and all knowing can be? again, it wasn't cristal clear on this point, however if we take the implicit definition she gave, the argument is good, in the sense that the conclusion follows immediately given the hypothsis
I should point out that this isn't really an argument for atheism. It's just an argument against OOO theism. Dystheism, for example, is still consistent with this argument.
i always thought the same about god, regarding the "OOO" words.. but i thought we were all here to get tested and made better, like when you refine gold ore in fire to make pretty jewelry. thats why evils present
This is the only defense brought up by theists it seems (I'm not assuming that you are one). I can see a purpose for gentle evil. How would we ever know to be aware of our surroundings if we didn't know that not checking the street before crossing greatly increases the chance of death or injury. The death or injury can be blamed on a singular person or event and that's the end of the story. This also in a way clears up the free will argument. I'm okay with this kind of evil. But I'm not okay with Natural Or Serial Evil. Natural evil is naturally occurring instances where people and things are damaged or killed. Let's say a hurricane occurs. No is to blame for the hurricane forming, yet the hurricane kills 50 people and $10 Billion dollars of damage are caused. I see no purpose for people to die. Therefore I see no purpose for a naturally occurring evil. And since Free will only applies to living things (for the sake of the argument), I see no reason that Nature should have the opportunity to create evil Serial Evil are events like mass death caused by people. Say the 9/11 attacks. Like the aforementioned argument, I see no lesson to be learned from such an event. And if having free will means thousands if not more people die every day, then I don't want free will.
That would be an ultimate strangeness if true. Some of us were born kind, and turned evil by humans. And NO we are not all born kind. If you believe that, you've never dealt with children.
@@kevingosselin2277 I see natural evil as God testing humans mainly because the story of job has a similar theme, and verses from the Quran down right stating it, also a person who believing in God during the good times but disbeliefing if something bad happens to them(a dear one's passing for example) is supraiseingly common.
start with the Quran. then move on to the Quran with tafseer (context and commentary), then the sunnah and the Prophet's life. Then see if you have any doubt of the existence of God.
Here's another interesting point, this time about omniscience (all-knowing God); If God is all-knowing, that means that there is *NO FREE WILL*. Here is why: If God is all knowing, than he would know exactly what I will do at any point in my life, all my thoughts, feelings, decisions, actions etc. He could also write all this in a book before I was born. Now, if I have to do exactly what is written in that book, and I don't have the freedom to change any of my thoughts or actions, if they are determined even before my birth, and I have no influence on them, than I have no free will. If no one has control over their actions, than nobody is responsible for what they're doing, and shouldn't be punished for it.. So hell doesn't make any sense, and it would be unfair to put anybody there. Even more, the ten commandments don't make any sense, because everyone's actions have been determined before they were born. And who determined them? God! So if someone is breaking the ten commandments, it's actually the responsibility of God.. therefore, he should be the one burning in hell. It's pretty much like, if I make a robot that kills someone, it shouldn't be the robot who's put in jail, but me.
In what bible does it say our lives are determined before birth? I believe what you are referring to is a personal, and if I may say, irrational personal belief of some but not of Christianity. According to the bible, God preaches a life of free will and how we will be held accountable for those actions on judgement day.
Well, she explained that this is for that specific religion which is Christianity. If those "representatives of god" say that the scriptures are absolute and the scriptures say about an "OOO" god, then the believer is compelled to accept this, but this is where the logical fallacy comes in...
@@Zekrom569 I assume you are referencing the Aristotelian origins of the OOO theology. But I'm not certain that the original Judaic faith didn't mean to imply the same thing, or that Aristotle wasn't aware of this when he wrote about a model deity. Nor do I think that Jasper's Shakti assertion on the nature of deity would conflict. Were the definition of energy loose enough to fit the definiton, which it has to be at least loosened enough to fit the conversation about God, the implications would better fit a universal construct.
Very clever - However, if God is all knowing then the goodness of that God would be for the greater good and not simply the temporal good at the expense of the greater good. Example - I need surgery in order to continue living. The surgery will be painful, expensive and I will lose my job due to long recovery. All of those things are bad. Yet I will choose to endure the bad pain and the bad loss of income for the greater good of continuing to live.Yeah, that's probably not the best example, but it does illustrate my point. Thanks for reading.
in order for us to know what is good and evil, one would have to be all knowing. But since no one is all knowing, no one knows what is good and evil. Only God knows what is good and evil and all the rest of us are left to conclude that we are not all-knowing. This video assumes that to be all-good, one must only know what partial-good and what partial-evil is. In other words, that all it takes is partial knowledge (what we mortals have), to know what evil is. But it takes all-knowing to know what evil is to begin with.
6:30 God being OOO doesn't necessarily lead to no evil. In your opinion OOO means God _would_ eliminate evil. But you don't make a necessary relationship there. I not arguing for God, I'm arguing for better logic.
Well, the doctors are humans too, and there is nothing anywhere saying that these doctors are superhumans that can prevent any death or sickness instead, about the god, the scriptures say that the word of god is absolute and this includes that the god is "OOO", which in simple words means that he can know everything happening in the word, he can do literally everything to change the world and he has the motivation to act in good will, so with all of three combined, it means that god is some kind of "invisible Superman/Batman/", but from the reality, we can see that god might be more like Thanos...That's why the logic of christianity specifically is flawed, because it includes so many contradictions
@@Zekrom569 If God were to strike everyone dead that committed an evil or to destroy the earth cuz an earthquake occurred, then atheists would still find another argument to say that God is not all Good. I don't get it, the argument sort of contradicts itself. Atheists always bring up the Old Testament and the "extreme" things God did to say that he's evil. But the reason he did that was cuz he hated evil and when a guy raped a woman they were to be immediately stoned. But now that God has given us free will and lets us do as we please because we are not robots and neither is he controlling, we say "how come he's not doing anything," he's evil. It seems that looking at it from any point, God is just evil not matter what he does. And as for natural "evils" and the evils towards innocents... the same reason. God is not controlling and he is not authoritarian cuz if he was, we'd still complain. God is not an obssesive-ex that stalks the world. The world says "God we don't like your law and we don't like you either." So what does God do, bring in his military to exercise a North Korea-type world?...No he doesn't. The Bible says that the world loves the devil and the "devil is the prince of this world." Now why would God push himself into a place where he is not wanted, the Bible says that he knocks at the door. The world has closed the door on Him, so it runs without him. He will not barge in and that's what makes him a good God. Since it isn't run by Him, as the Bible says, and neither does the world want to be run by him, then what do we expect? Of course the innocent, natural disasters, and the such come upon the world. God doesn't stop it cuz he's not a stalker. He's the rejected bodyguard. You rejected him so what do you expect will happen to your home, your children, your elderly, etc.? And one last thing, I thought atheists were materialists and followers of philosophers like Nietzsche who believe there is no such thing as good or evil. Where does that concept come from? The entire concept of evil doesn't even come from materialism so its begging the question. What constitutes evil, and isn't survival of the fittest the way the world should run?
I'm surprised to hear a university professor define atheism as "the belief that no gods exist." I'm pretty sure the conventional use of the word is _the lack of belief in a god _*_or_*_ the belief that no gods exist._ And the adjectives 'weak' or 'strong' are usually used to specify a component of that disjunction respectively.
While judging all this with my logic brain, it all adds up, perfectly explained. But when I go through my gut-feeling, it leaves all the psychological factors out. I would be interested to get an angle on this. Especially the fact that people living in poor conditions or that had to go through rough times are particulary religious.
Well, they dont have the time to think about this stuff, and they believe that faith in god will eventually bring them a brighter tomorrow, that's why they believe
Okay, so this one of the main reasons I do not believe in God. However, the most popular objection to this is the free will defense. It says that if God intervened to stop evil, we would not have free will. Therefore, God maximized the amount of good in the world by making it so that we had free will. Therefore, God can exist. Here is my counter-argument that I developed: If God is OOO, why would he/she/it not just create all humans to be good people? We would still be doing what we wanted, but we wouldn't want to severely hurt other people. Therefore, there would be no evil in the world, and we would still have free will. If God existed, he would have taken this route. This world does not exist, therefore, the logical problem of evil is still a valid argument. Also, that only tackles life being evil. What about natural evil, like natural disasters, lethal illnesses, and mental illnesses? Why would he allow those to exist? The theist might say, bad things must exist in order for us to be happy, because if everything was good, nothing would be good. But if that's the case, why would God not just give us small doses of unhappiness? Does having schizophrenia really help us better appreciate our world? Of course not. If anyone has any other objections to the logical problem of evil, I would love to discuss them with you.
Why can't you throw out number 2? you're only argument for it is "It seems straight forward" How is it irrational to believe that an OOO being exist and evil exists as well? It just seems you make a huge jump and assumption about that.
JBles825 An OOO God, being all knowing could foresee evil and since this being would also be wholly good and all powerful it both could and would eliminate that evil. That, however is not the case, since evil exists. All of this was in the video if you had bothered to listen.
super0banana evil is done through temptation, whether a temptation to steal candy of something demonic like slaughtering people for fun, it is all done through temptation... Fighting against your consience. God loves all of us, but not everyone of us loves God. This is the test made by God. He gave us the ability to know the difference between good and evil. It is our decision to choose as such. It is simply a way of showing our love for God. So to show why I think the argument that "since God is all good there should be no evil," evil is done simply as a test of our love for God.
super0banana I watched the video thoroughly. My point was I agree with everything you said except right when you hit "would" How do you know that that OOO being would eliminate evil? Don't you think that is an assumption? Or just an exaggerated stretch of the word omnipotent. Is it a possibility that the OOO being could eliminate evil but chooses not to?
Kat1lz I don't think if God allows evil, it is sadistic or evil, and I can explain to you why. Suffering isn't as bad as people think it is. Evil and Suffering allows people work through their difficult times to grow and become a better person. This wouldn't be possible in a world with no evil, because there would be no need to grow. And its our choice to do so. A good example would be traveling to a third world country for a week or two. They person most likely going isn't used to this certain life style. It is difficult and the person is essentially suffering. After their experience through this they decide to do more and help the people that need it in this third world country. This is now a good that someone choose to do. I think that's more noble then a God just making someone do it. Another example is someone losing their mother to cancer. Yes, its a tragic event. But it may encourage that person to use all their time to help cancer patients. Give more money to cancer research and volunteer at hospitals to help kids with cancer. So can you see how the Evil (mother dying from cancer) can allow a person to either choose to dwell on it or grow as a person and do so much more good in the world.
Nicolas Wirtz : What choice has a human made against the death of newborn infants who have done no evil? What other evil has caused this? Since this is surely an evil that has been done onto an innocent, it could either be committed only by two things: a god, or another force. If an evil deed was done by god, then god is evil. If it was done by another force, then that force is evil. However, if that evil was done by the other force, then the following is true: God did not know it was going to happen or could not stop it, making that being not omniscient OR not all-powerful. OR God did not want to stop this evil, making god also evil. The argument boils down to an "OOO" god not being able to exist while evil also does.
It does seem odd that this video doesn't offer any of the (many) theistic - or at least non-atheistic - responses to the problem of evil. Theists, after all, have been responding to the problem of evil (or 'theodicy' as theologians tend to call it) for thousands of years. But I think the real problem with this video is actually that most theists would reject every single step of this argument, from the notion of 'evidential theism' to the criteria of 'rationality' that it holds up. Moreover, virtually every kind of theist that I know of thinks that the OOO deity has other qualities as well, and that *these qualities* may help to account for the problems of theodicy. In short, the issue is that the 'problem of evil' delivers a knock-down argument against an abstract philosophical construct that nobody actually believes in, and argues against a sort of 'irrational' belief that virtually nobody would claim to have. Which really makes me wonder what the point of this sort of argument is - if it doesn't really engage with people who disagree, or even take seriously the claims they make, is it all just a pointless exercise to keep philosophers off the streets?
In my thinking the problem is assuming that we know what "all good" is, since we are not all knowing then trying to judge something that is all good and all knowing
1:10 'More likely'. So basing a complete worldview on something being 'more likely' is rational? Some information lending credibility to something does not make that thing true. If you believe in the God, and God resembles goodness to you, you see proof of God all the time. Not proving his existence, but validating your beliefs. Atheists do the same thing, they just use different sets of concepts in relating to the outside world.
Another type of Irrational Theist is someone who, when something miraculous happens, says, "See? God saved that person's life." But at the same time tries to hold the belief that God gave us free will and does not intervene in our lives.
I most certainly love how this video doesn't state even the most common rebuttals to this argument such as the good that can come from suffering which have much merit.
Evil is a purely bad, harmful and unwanted thing. So the 2nd one, more specifically the small brown text below it. Or well, maybe it's better saying that evil is the lesser evil.
Could one argue that evil doesn't exist. It is A) all within the mind. B) It is a matter of perception. And say that one believes there is evil and in an all knowing, ever present God does exist how would that be contradictory? What if both good and bad is the nature of the God, like a ying/yang? What if the God is chaos? Meaning we could never predict its nature whether good/evil. Why is the argument focused on evil, could evil prove the evidence of a God the same way one would argue good proves there is a God? +wireless Philosphy
Maybe God doesn't perceive the same things we perceive as evil to be evil. Why would the book of Job be in the bible if it contradicts it? God's ways are higher then our ways. To try to put God into a box like this is irrational. God allows evil because he want to give us the opportunity to choose good over evil. Do you hold theists with such contempt as to provide such a weak argument as proof?
+Jarin Jove the problem I'm seeing with this argument is that your example is using 2 different endings and arguing they're contradictory. Yes if a Jewish person doesn't believe in Jesus then they wouldn't recurve salvation and wouldn't get to heaven. Yes if a German Nazi truly repented and received salvation they would be admitted to heaven. But the other half of the equation is equally true. A Jewish believer would end up In heaven and an unrepentant nazi in hell. Heaven is just as all inclusive as it is exclusive. Anyone is welcome, you just have to come.
The idea or plea that god's ways are higher than ours is an evasion. Any reasonable, marginally moral being, knows that some actions like killing every first born, general wholesale killing by floods plagues and pestilence, and such like are evil.
perhaps God views us the same way I view Ants... If I kill a whole family of them.. I Still manage to sleep at night..if an ant gets raped by another ant, its not gonna make me feel obliged to intervene,
There's a number of problems here, but the biggest, easiest one to point out, in my humble opinion, is at 8:32. "But these just seem to be the definition of O.O.O." For someone who's trying to be very critical logically, "these just seem to be..." is a pretty blatant weak statement. In fact this area is precisely where most religious scholars would have an issue with this argument. Can all evil be eliminated? If not, why not? It's also *painfully* easy to prove that an all powerful being can't do all things. A classic example is this: Make a married bachelor. Because the definition of bachelor is one who is not married, it is IMPOSSIBLE, by definition, to make a married bachelor. One could argue that this means God isn't all powerful as there are limits, but this seems to be splitting hairs in my opinion. But I don't want to get caught up here so let's just say an all powerful God can do all things that are by definition not impossible. This leads to the obvious question: Can all evil be eliminated? That depends heavily on the definition of evil. We're headed down a theology debate quickly here, but in short: Would it be considered Evil to create beings and given them no free will? Would it be considered Evil to not create beings at all? Those are deep questions that are hard to argue in RUclips comments and those are the real questions here.
We don't blame heat for the cold. Rather cold is the absence of heat. Cold is the standard that we can observe and heat is the exception. Just like evil is the standard that we know and God is the exception. Also we don't blame light for the darkness. Rather darkness is the absence of light. I understand the point trying to be made, but it's out of context. Somewhat of a subtle straw man argument, with slight mocking undertones. Doomed from the beginning. Her mind is already made up before even presenting the argument. This isn't to create critical thought or inspire the viewers, rather it seems to passively poke fun at those that don't share her perception of the issue through fallacies and dumbing down the true depths of the issues. Evidence is there for those willing to see it. For example; I can observe that it takes life to create life, there is life, so if I go back far enough (because the universe isn't eternal) there must be a source of that life. And I can speculate that perhaps it is beyond our universe. Also life cannot come from non life (to say otherwise is to state a personal belief). Now life here is not eternal, in the sense that all life suffers a physical death. So I can reasonably assume that this life source must be beyond our own and perhaps even eternal. Not fading or dying as we do, hence the word 'source.' There's also the precambrian explosion. An abundance of interdependent life appearing suddenly and with no obvious origin. Or perhaps an origin beyond our own (hence this source being beyond us). DNA is an extremely advanced code that writes the specifications and holds the information of all life that we know. This extremely advanced code is a huge sign of intelligence. I wouldn't stumble upon some super advanced computer code and think "This just came from random sequences", but rather "This must be a creation with intelligence behind it". I also wouldn't conclude that a Mona Lisa painting hanging on a tree in the middle of the forest slowly appeared there in the forest just because it was given enough time to do so. Rather its very presence would indicate intelligence. So I feel that the evidence is there. The last 3 paragraphs didn't even contain the word God, they just present interesting evidence (with some speculation) hoping to provide critical thought on the issue. :)
Doomed from the beginning? You don´t seem to acknowledge even that things like morality, thus good and evil are human constructs, there is no norm of good or evil in the universe. Also the evidence you presented is not evidence at all, good sir (or mam respectively) , as you wrote down the word "specualte" you should have noticed that aswell :)
+Gewürzgurke I know I added speculation. I referenced it in my final paragraph. And it is true we lack a universal agreement on what is true, what is good, what is false, and what is evil. However any absolute truth doesn't require our unanimous agreement. Things either are or are not. There is no gray area and good/evil either are or are not. There is no variation or matter of perception. If they exist they must be absolute by their very nature
+Gewürzgurke I know I added speculation. I referenced it in my final paragraph. And it is true we lack a universal agreement on what is true, what is good, what is false, and what is evil. However any absolute truth doesn't require our unanimous agreement. Things either are or are not. There is no gray area and good/evil either are or are not. There is no variation or matter of perception. If they exist they must be absolute by their very nature
Your argument is really weak. First, somehow you assume that life cannot come from non living stuff. It hasn't been proved to be true or false. Second, you tell about a source of life that must be eternal, which is a pretty poetic thought, but makes no sense (for example, diamond comes from worthless coal, not from something more valuable). Third, you talk about how complex is DNA and how it must prove that there's intelligence behind this, but it's just a self replicating artifact, and if you apply the concept of natural selection, there's no need to invoke some spooky explanation for it. So all i can say is that your argument is based on your desire to believe and not on rational arguments.
Jonathan Gamez I can observe that it takes life to make life and that life has never come from non life. If you're saying life may be able to come from non life then that is a leap of faith, because nothing shows us that. Could be true but I can observe the opposite. I also never said that source "must" be eternal. I said 'reasonably assume' and only under the context that since life here dies a physical death, and if there is a source then I can "reasonably assume" it doesn't suffer a physical death. It may not even be physical at all. Hence my speculation "beyond our universe". Also I addressed my speculations in the final paragraph of my first post. Jon, who says coal isn't valuable? The market, people? Saying something has value or not says more about the person placing value then the item they're referring. I feel coal has tremendous value. Maybe not monetarily, but value nonetheless. And finally, I wasn't invoking anything 'spooky' about DNA. I simply stated the fact that it was a very advance code. More advanced than anything we've ever invented (and we've invented a lot). If I found a super advanced code I would, and probably could, safely surmise that it came from something intelligent. That's just me. Maybe some people feel otherwise. I feel that to believe otherwise is asinine, but again that's just me.
This life meant to be a test , so it could be difficult sometimes. But I don’t understand how atheists use the problem of evil to disprove god’s existence.
religion divides people, creates discrimination, terror and large amount of wars.. I could add a lot more but i think this alone classifies Religion as source of evil
@@elvijsbarzdins7993MONEY divides people, creates discrimination, terror and large amounts of war. PEOPLE divides people, creates discrimination, terror and large amounts of war. SEX divides people, creates discrimination, terror and large amounts of war. POWER divides people, creates discrimination, terror and large amounts of war. POLITICS divides people, creates discrimination, terror and large amounts of war. GUNS divides people, creates discrimination, terror and large amounts of war. IDEAS divides people, creates discrimination, terror and large amounts of war. RUMORS divides people, creates discrimination, terror and large amounts of war. GEOGRAPHY divides people, creates discrimination, terror and large amounts of war. HISTORY divides people, creates discrimination, terror and large amounts of war. TRUTH divides people, creates discrimination, terror and large amounts of war. LIES divides people, creates discrimination, terror and large amounts of war. ETC ETC ETC.
@@Noblility more then half of that u said aint true.. Religion is way bigger problem then all that shit.. plus there is no fucking god.. damn we live in 21st century, science keeps proving All religions are pure Fairy tails.. time to wake up..
Evil doesn't exist and neither does an anthropomorphic god. However there is a force driving existence on multiple planes. We can't fathom that force so we use myth to fill in the gaps. There's no objective thing called evil- it's just a human concept.
what he's getting at is that 'evil' is a value judgement. it's a fancy way of saying 'i really don't like this'. what is considered evil is socially constructed, and has no objective truth - there is no universal standard that can be found in the wild and pointed at to resolve disagreements because it's all subjective opinion. saying there is no such thing as objective good or evil doesn’t mean terrible things don't happen or that some people aren't terrible, it means that everyone is the hero of their own story. There's a whole line of thought that religion exists in part because it codifies the values of society, and provides a pseudo-objective basis in the teachings of that religion
+Mr. Boarbaby the victims of boko haram are still giving their subjective view. I'm sure their oppressors don't view what they are doing as evil. then again what is "evil?" is a shark batting and tossing around a baby seal before devouring it evil? it's just as vicious on some level? but does it make it evil? why or why not? regardless the answer one gives...it starts to show the subjectivity of "evil."
I don’t think the whole “evil” thing disproves God’s existence, it just raises some serious problems about theists’ view of God’s existence. For example, most Christians believe that God is omnibenevolent, yet they also believe that God is omnipotent. This means that God is able to prevent evil, but God either doesn’t want to prevent evil or God does want to prevent evil, yet evil exists anyway. Either way, God appears to be quite amoral since it has the ability to prevent evil, yet it chooses not to. That’s why I hate it when people say that God is good. If their understanding of God’s power is in accordance with mine, how could this possibly be true?
5:40 you're sawing the wrong branch here. Ditch the "all good" and you can have a god much easier. Good for who? Good most likely is not an absolute thing that you can have or not have but a behavior relative to goals within a situation or framework. All in all, there's compelling evidence that you philosophers are unable to contact or prove the existence of god(s). Now on the other hand, talk to a shaman...
Hi herald4god, Thanks for commenting! We have a video on the relationship between God and Morality: wi-phi.com/video/god-and-morality-part-1. Hope you enjoy!
First, God is not OOO because he is not Omnipotent. God can't do everything, for example one of the things God can't do is sin. Can God sin? No. God is not Omnipotent. Therefore, once we identify the flaw with premise 1 we must accept that the contradiction found in the Problem of Evil does not necessarily follow. For this reason the logician can accept the existence of God and the existence of evil with no contradictions. THE LOGICIAN CAN ACCEPT THE EXISTENCE OF GOD The person of faith can accept the existence of God and the existence of evil for a different reason, namely premise 2 "An all good being would try to prevent all evil". God does not try to prevent evil. Why? Imagine, every time someone was about to do evil or even if they were merely about to think of considering an evil act God would swoop in and force them to do and think good. This means that no humans would be able to ever consider evil. We would always be forced into doing perfect good all the time. The problem with this is that we would no longer have any FREE WILL. No free will means that we would be mindless robots. Our actions would be predetermined like a basic math problem typed into a computer. Type in 1+1 into your calculator and even before you hit "enter" the result has been predetermined to equal 2, there is NO CHOICE for the answer to be anything else. Robots with no choice but set functions are not humans and thus not alive. If God by force ensured that no evil would exist he would be left with a life-less universe. Let's remember that sin and evil are not God's gift to us. Sin is our gift to ourselves. Humans allowed sin to enter the world when we committed the first sin. Before the first sin, sin didn't exist. Humans wanted to create sin so we did. HUMANS CREATED SIN. This is why we have evil in the world, because we want sin to exist. God gives us free will and everyday we choose evil. Don't blame God for the evil in the world, start by blaming yourself and giving genuine concern for your fellow man, regardless of their race, age, gender, sexual orientation or beliefs, strangers they may be.
Mr152008 How do you know god can't sin? If god can't sin, (and is therefore not omnipotent) how do you know he is capable of any of the other things he is supposed to be able to do? isn't that like saying: "My God is all powerful! Except for the things He can't do." Free will doesn't necessarily rely upon evil existing. I'm giving you a football, would you like a red one or a blue one? even if evil doesn't exist you're still able to choose. Personalities can differ in many ways even if you remove the negative components. Where does having a mind imply you have to have choice? Moral agency is not a requirement for having a mind. In addition to this since our concept of "having a mind" is based on our subjective experiences as humans, if we found out free will didn't exist, why would there be an issue? It would just mean we were mistaken when we identified being human with having free will. "Robots with no choice but set functions are not humans and thus not alive" Why does not being a human entail you aren't alive? Dogs/cats/animals are also not human and alive are they not? Plants have set functions and have no "brains" or central processing units. Are plants not alive? In the last paragraph you're arguing from the assumption that god exists. this is an issue because the conclusion of the problem of evil argument implies He doesn't. So, any argument you make after assuming the existence of God will of course ensure you find a contradiction. Where did sin come from? If Sin came from another world, how did we invite it in and does our method of doing so only work for the concept of sin? If we created Sin by wishing it into existence, aren't we all supernatural beings like God? Can i learn to master this ability and invite unlimited wealth or immortality onto earth for myself? Who is this we? I don't want Sin to exist. Who are you speaking for when you say "we humans"? do you presume to know my mind better than I do? If God created humans, our souls, our minds and our genetic makeup, and god is Omniscient, surely he would've had foreknowledge that our minds would be prone to sinning? Surely as our creator he is ultimately responsible for his creations. If I have children, why am i responsible for their actions, when god isn't responsible for ours? Just a few questions for you.
Mr152008 Your point is easily argued away by the fact that evil exists in the first place. God could simply have created a universe in which evil does not exist. In that case, no one would ever do or think of evil because it's not possible. Free will would not be damaged. If you accept that god created us and our universe, then you accept that he therefore created evil. He could have chosen not to. Everyone would be good, and free will would not be impeded. Problem solved. I can already see your counter. But if you take away the ability for someone to make that choice, then you are stopping their free will! No. If I make it possible to chose, but then restrict your freedom of choice, then that's restricting free will. If the choice simply was never possible, free will is not destroyed. For example, I would LOVE to have psychic powers. However, god created the universe without psychic powers. I don't have the ability to use psychic powers, therefore god is already restricting my free will. Of course not. I just simply don't have those powers. It's the exact same thing.
DrSeanKennedy well u can't know otherwise .. that is out of ur understanding capacity .. now can u ? .. however in Islam we dont say that The Creator is ..All Loving but rather that He's *The Loving* .. and we r only little pieces of reflections of His love ..
Not the same at all, it's more like assuming a good mother would stop her children from getting killed. Your purposefully making an innacurate analogy.
He didn't, but if you would just think for a second you could assume the poster intended to mean that violence can teach us things. Example: The atrocities of both world wars made the west wholly uninterested in war in the west, now of course this example is much more complicated than that because the technological advances made during those wars led to nuclear weapons that could end the world at any initiation of war, but even so our stance on war today is WHOLLY different from what it was before the world wars: now we see it as wholly BAD things, before we used to see them as something glorious filled with honor. Of course again: more complicated - there are still westerners who believe war can be good, but the popular consensus has clearly shifted. I think seeing evil in the eye makes us compelled to be combat it.
I am not trying to justify either side here, but there are two additional assumptions being made here, assumption 1: that morality is not subjective, and that what we believe to be good and evil is actually good and evil; assumption 2: that this OOO being subscribes to our definition of good and evil.
The answer to the "problem of evil" is known once one understands: a) what 'God" is, b) what YOU are, and c) the reason why you are experiencing this world of LIMITATION. And the answer to all of these questions is revealed (in a most compelling fashion, I must say) in my book "The Holy Grail is Found." Yes, the answers are available to those who TRULY desire and seek Truth. But, unfortunately, they are a tiny minority, as most people seek to LIMIT Truth to their desires....which, as it turns, was our Original Error; the error that landed us in this realm of limitation in the first place!
... Think of this situation, the man had the best of intents, but the bear thought the man was trying to hurt it. The man couldn't explain to the bear what he was trying to do because of the gape in intelligence. However, when all was said and done, the bear could come to the realization in its lesser intelligence that it was being helped and shown mercy not hurt by the intelligent man. God does things we don't always understand, but we look back later and find He was doing good all along.
At 7:18 the narrator brings up the assumption that evil exists and gives room to objections to this argument. Any assumption of good/evil in our world automatically carries with it a standard. The question then becomes what is the ultimate standard in determining good from evil? Is that standard dependent on human being's construction of it? If so, then it is a subjective standard therefore based on preference. Of course there are people like Sam Harris, who thinks that standard can be developed through scientific research on on the wellbeing of conscious creatures. He proposes that our primary metrics to determine what is moral is through identifying what is beneficial for conscious creatures (ultimate good), and what produces suffering (ultimate evil). However he is then left with the assumption of value of conscious creatures as something to be desired without any other rational argument other than for us to propagate our DNA as our species continues to try and survive and evolve. Which ultimately is not linked to morality. Especially considering that Harris has conceded that what is beneficial for the rapist/murderer is no different for the "saint" since they aren't people but merely highly evolved apes that seek what is pleasurable. He says this in his book The Moral Landscape. What the argument for the problem of evil doesn't address is whether or not what we believe to be evil is warranted or not. It doesn't address the human race's culpability in evil. The argument holding this god as "omnibenevolent" misses something in that it would be unjust for this god to not hold human beings responsible for the evil they commit. And there is most assuredly a different in knowing if/when something will happen omnisciently vs being the actual direct cause of it.
A short sighted argument that when taken to its logical limits actually proves God exists. to me arguing that good and evil exist, whilst saying God does not. makes no sense. when you try to prove the existence of evil, you end up proving the existence of God. For evil and good to exist, it requires a God figure. Let's define evil first in a manner everyone accepts. For evil to exist, to be true for everyone, people intuitively demand that it be absolute. example murdering babies for fun is absolutely evil. always was, always is, always will be. at no point is this an opinion, or subjective. It is absolutely always true. So for evil to exist, 3 things need to exist. There has to be a source that determines whether something is evil or good. that source needs to be eternal, all powerful, and all knowing. if it isn't eternal, it means what we deem evil today maybe good tomorrow. and people will not accept that definition of evil. If it isn't all powerful, that means the source of all good and evil can be changed, so what is evil now, may forcefully be changed to good by someone. and lastly it needs to be all knowing. Otherwise how can it decide whether something is evil or not, if information can change the judgement. this is why i say epicurus problem of evil actually proves the existence of God when taken to its limits. and why the atheists position that evil proves the non-existence of god actually makes no sense. to me if anyone believes in absolute morality such as slavery is wrong, rape is wrong, killing babies is wrong, genocide is wrong etc. then they absolutely must believe in God. It doesn't have to be a Christian god, or hindu god, it doesn't matter what God. It just means they have to believe in a source for their good and evil, which is basically another word for God. whilst anyone who holds the belief that God does not exist, must hold the belief that good and evil do not either. That rape is ok, slavery is ok, genocide is ok. Nihilism is truth of reality. as otherwise they are not logically consistent with their own beliefs.
You have completely misunderstood the argument. It's not under the view of a morally-subjective godless universe that the widespread existence of human suffering creates contradictions. Under that view we would not expect the intervention of a God to prevent or ameliorate suffering, and so the persistence of suffering meets our expectations. It is under the Christian claims of absolute morality that the complete absence of an all-powerful deity following the standards of which it is the source creates contradictions and demands explanation. Skeptics are not arguing that absolute good and evil exist while God does not. They are arguing that if there were such things, and there were a God with both the power and the desire to see those absolute standards upheld in a certain way, we should see evidence of that God taking action to uphold them. Since we do not, either the standards or the God must be discarded, and if the absolute standards go, then so does the God anyway, at least that particular one.
Your definition of atheism is incorrect. Atheism is not the belief that that no God exists, it's the rejection of unsupported claims that any God does exist. There's a difference, and it's important.
This is far from a completely objective view and simply takes one interpretation of what it is to be ultimately good. That's where its argument completely falls apart. According to the faiths its argument is against, it is "God's" job to let men have free will. That's what Lucifer's fall was about and all of that...so objectively it isn't the task of "God" to eliminate the ability for evil to exist...but weirdly to preserve the ability. Under this notion, it would be Gods faith in us to be good. So while I probably side more with her belief set as a person, the argument presented was irrational and inapplicable to the mentality of the specific faiths she was talking about.
@@Ladraz That's kind of neither here nor there about my point that stopping evil comes at the price of any freedom...but I'll do my best to address your point. All knowing could simply be limited precognition. Seeing every possible path simultaneously would be by definition, "all knowing," and still leaves room for surprises and disappointments. Like I said, my belief set is COMPLETELY different than the belief set being discribed...but the argument presented is easily dismantled.
The key reason why this logic alone is not sufficient to prove God does not exist is because there are certain assumptions that are unstated/glossed over. One assumption, that is stated, but glossed over, is that an (all) good thing always eliminates evil as far as it can. The second assumption lies in our definition of omnipotent. It is true that God is ominpotent, but that doesn't mean there are things he can't do. What it means, is that there is nothing within the set of all things that can be done that God cannot do. For example, God cannot make 1 + 1 = 3. That doesn't make God less than omnipotent, it simply means that making 1 + 1 = 3 is simply not within the set of things that can be done. Going back to the first point, the fact is that God has a plan to eliminate all evil. SO why has he not done it yet? If you read the account of Adam and Eve more carefully, you'll see that when Satan convinced mankind to sin, not only was he inciting rebellion against God, but he was also calling into question God's sovereignty, or right to rule. The saying goes, "might does not make right," and God probably agrees with that. He had the power to eliminate Satan, Adam, and Eve, and start all over again, but that wouldn't actually have solved anything. Any one of the other angels might easily have questioned God's motives in doing so, and ask, if Satan is wrong, then what does God have to hide? So God has allowed creation to rule itself for the past 6,000 years to show us that Satan was indeed wrong, and that human governments are simply incapable of wiping out even things that are theoretically controllable, such as crime and poverty, not to mention sickness, natural disasters and death. Once God's sovereignty has been sufficiently vindicated, God will wipe out all evil. Now, 6,000 years might seem excessive to us to allow evil to go on for so long, but compare that to all of eternity and how much evil would go on in forever if the question wasn't answered with finality once and for all the moment it was brought up, this means that it is necessary for God to allow the demons and humanity to try out every type of human government imaginable, from imperialism and dictatorship, to democracy and socialism, and everything in between. If you want to learn more about God, you can do so here: www.jehovahsword.org/biblical-doctrine/
I'm an atheist, but this entire train of thought hinges on the belief that "good" is something that we understand (at least in the Christian theology) Christianity makes it perfectly clear that we cannot understands God's way, and we can't judge God to be good or evil, because we're just not on his "level". If that statement is true it doesn't really matter what you throw in God's face. Child rape? Starvation? Torture? You name it. You can't say that him causing those things is evil because we don't have the capability. Clearly I think that's bullshit, if God is all powerful then he could obviously create a universe in which whatever "use" child rape has (I just mean use in the way Christians refer to "God's plan") wouldn't be necessary.
***** So what evil choice does that starving African child or cancer baby make? Where does "free will" fit in there? ...And by the way, if "God" is omniscient (all knowing), then you don't really have "free will". That is, if "God" created you with the knowledge that you would live, be evil, then die, you really didn't have a choice.
DrSeanKennedy Omniscient in the sense that God has prepared a path for you to use and its your choice to follow it or not. better yet, Think of it as God is aware of every possible outcome that can occur. This means that anything and everything that could every occur has already been determined. Now, think of these futures as roads. There are signs on the fork of each road, that point you into the right direction (the one which god wants for you). It is your decision to adhere to theses signs and/or warnings. There are an infinite number of roads and an infinite number of forks as well as an infinite number of junctions in which roads other people follow merge or diverge. some roads end prematurely others don't, but there has always been 1 perfect path, without hiccups or obstructions. This is the path god has intended for us. Since there exists an infinite number of forks and roads, it is only feasible that some of these paths merge with the one go has intended for us and it also holds true that many of these paths will never interact with the "perfect path" I could go into more detail, but it has to do with bible stuff that i doubt you will be interested in.
Why can't it be both Monday and not Monday? "Monday" is an arbitrary construct. You can say it is both Monday because English-speaking people call the day Monday, and not Monday because non-English speakers don't consider this point in time to be "Monday". Or, being that calling a particular point in time "Monday" is arbitrary, you could come up with other reasons why it currently both is and is not Monday, being as "Monday" isn't a property of the timeline to begin with. Whereas photosynthesis exists whether you have a name for it or not, Monday does not. Monday only exists because we decide it does.
An atheist does not necessarily believe that a god does not exists. BUT all atheist do not believe that a god exist. Atheism is a response to theism. A theist says "I believe a god exists". An atheist does not share this belief, either by not having the same belief("I don't believe a god exists") or believing the opposite ("I believe no god exists"). BUT lack of a belief in god doesn't necessarily imply a positive belief in the absence of god. Negative atheism has no burden of proof. Positive atheism has. Big difference.
hi, an atheist's pov of criticism to this argument: it could also be that the human idea of evil is different from the universal idea of evil, afterall humans are not the centre of the world and all complaints about evil come from humans or about humans. so then perhap's an ooo god's pov would be that what humans consider evil is not evil but only an inconvenience to human society, which honestly, think about it, you are looking over say a tub of sand and there seems to be minor disturbance in only one grain of sand and only in one of it's electrons is having a negligible problem. does it matter what happens there so long as the tub of sand is fine?
8:55 First you would have to assume we live in paradise where no harm or evil can touch us because God will personally interfere which would then make faith meaningless because it won't longer be faith I'd be fact and free will wouldn't exist 🙄 next humans have been around for only a fraction of a second compared to the span on the universe so how quickly do you want God to work ?
![PHILOSOPHY - Religion: Reason And Faith [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/MTPHXNMi9tA/mqdefault.jpg)
![PHILOSOPHY - Religion: Reason And Faith [HD]](/img/tr.png)
4:00 "It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong." - Voltaire
SCNR
3:30 "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." F. Scott Fitzgerald
"The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who watch and do nothing."
-- Albert Einstein
Both right and wrong. The indifferent can't be held responsible for the scum of the earth.
That is an odd statement. Especially considering that Albert Einstein was fully aware of the Manhattan project(1st atomic bomb) but did nothing to intervene in its development.
"Stop quoting me!"
--Albert Einstein
@@powerchimp 9 months late but your comment make me LOL
@James Henry Smith The magical fruit that Adam and Eve ate which caused all the sin in the world is a myth, the talking snake that temp Adam and Eve to eat the magical fruit is very obvious a myth.
The assumption is that a good God must interfere with the actions and consequences of evil humans immediately. As a father I teach my children to be good and wise. If they choose to ignore me and I continuously correct them they will resent me. Alternatively, I give them time to realise their mistakes and turn back to me. That way they realise I love them and I know what is best for them. Jesus said we can call God our father. If anyone knows the nature of God it's Him. If we reevaluate atheistic philosophy through the "family" principle we can see that He is benevolent and not dominating. If we choose to not turn back to Him then He has no choice but to overthrow us because He has the right to do as He pleases with His workmanship.
+allasar, thanks for your thoughts. But again the assumption is that human beings are innocent before God. If God were to stop evil He would stop all evil, not just our actions but the evil nature that sparks our actions. This means He would have to destroy all people simply because we all have the same tendency toward evil. Ultimately that is the plan, we call it "judgement day ". But God is holding off that day so we have a chance to turn back to Him.
I hear what you are saying. But if we want God to fix the evil in this world He would have to take control. Very few of us are happy with that idea.
Peter Spencer this is a human analogy, from a human point of view. If I were an all loving and all powerful god, I would remove all evil in the world, so that even the children that don’t obey me, won’t have to suffer, because I’m their father, with an unlimited amount of love, and I care for their well being no matter what
Your argument only works on moral evil (evil committed by humans), but in the case of natural evil (evil that we're not responsible for like hurricanes .....) It falls apart.
Your god is evil. There is never an excuse for evil to happen. Babies raped, innocents starving to death. Pets getting abandoned and starved by those who are supposed to take cate of them. You cannot blame the devil because if god is all powerful then he created the devil and could stop evil. It’s just that simple.
God said, "I love you more than your own mother".
I'm pretty sure no matter how much my mother hates me (she doesn't BTW), she would never ever let me be imprisoned in a place of extreme torture and fire, for the rest of eternity, so God can keep that bullshit in his pocket.
I believe there is God, but He is no different than Lucifer. We are just their pawns, and those who kisses God's ass enough like king David, then that person gets promoted to a rook or a knight etc.
Why do you believe in god ?
Pratham Sanghavi
well my friend, i burned, i wrecked my own self very recently,
now i know what a shameless evil fool i was, a fool despite of the evidence in my hand by Jesus Himself in my childhood,
But Jesus rescued me, with His limitless love, care and help, now i am at His feet again, He is true, His mercy saved me and is healing me, all thanks to Him, all PRAISE THANKS and GLORY be to Him forever and forevermore that He rescued me before my death could seal my fate
@@goofball9292 how do you know jesus did it ?
Pratham Sanghavi
Like I knew it was Him when He literally touched the back of my head when I was in 1st grade and it instantly cured my heavy fever
you are thinking in a short term , why do you think if there is a God ( you believe there is ) he MUST make the world a perfect place?
0:24 isn't this a very bad definition? I'm an atheist and I don't have A BELIEF that gods don't exist necessarily. I'm just not convinced by the theist position
Theists consistently reject #2 "If an OOO Being exists, there would be no evil." That is given short shrift, and therefore the real argument is really swept under the rug.
A world in which the OOO Being provides all the good might be worse than a world in which the OOO Being wants to provide others the opportunity to be provides of good themselves. The assumption is that a world of passive recipients is better (more good) than a world of contributors.
This argument is kind of like saying that:
1- A parent has the ability to see more obvious sources of pain in advance and help a child avoid them.
2- A good parent would try to do so.
Yet
3- Good parents allow their toddlers to fall on their bums when learning to walk -- despite seeing it coming.
Therefore, there are no good parents.
The answer is -- #2 is false. There are better goods than preventing all pain.
Well, put.
Micha Berger however, if I may add, you are comparing a parent to an OOO god. A parent is not OOO so you cannot use the parent argument. If a parent was all good, all powerful, and all knowing, why would he/she allow the child to still go on with the pain of learning if he/she can just instill all of the knowledge into the child without pain? Is the pain necessary? If so, why is suffering necessary? Isn't pain bad? Why would an all good being allow for the existence for something bad?
Joma Roble You've shifted the conversation from whether the video actually addresses the typical theistic position to actually trying to do so yourself.
I see little point to arguing religion on-line.
But you are confusing a comparison with an equation. A parent is not an OOO god, nor are the goals for a parent to allow suffering the same as an OOO god's would be.
As long as it's possible that an OOO god to consider it a greater good in letting people solve their own problems and indeed having problems to solve than just making sure there is nothing needing fixing (never mind fixing those non-existent problems), it's possible to resolve OOO and the existence of things we would consider evils.
+Micha Berger The assumption that a wholly good thing eliminates evil as best it can is true but a third unspoken assumption is made in the fundamental argument that: the process of destroying evil would be instantaneous or obvious to mortal beings which is not true or cannot be proven to be false.
Part of the Christian doctrine is that God is love and that love was the ultimate design of the universe; that is, we were created to love and to be loved (not that He needs someone to need Him but that He desired to share the pure Joy of an existence of love and created us as a kindness) but love must be a choice and is false and is evil ( akin to rape) if forced.
He does not force us to love Him but as a result of Him being ultimate good and all good coming from Him, we love evil if we do not love Him. evil is a perversion of His will.
thus a choice must be allowed to choose God/good (synonymous) or evil and if we choose evil then He has no choice as an OOO being than to destroy us after all choices are made, but as a result of corruption of this world by sin in the garden of Eden we cannot choose to love God unless He shows us how and purifies our souls. Also as an OOO God evil cannot be unpunished and that is why Christ was a necessity so that our sin is counted to Him Who Was blameless and our eyes are opened by the glory of life which is God
i heard this somewhere: we may choose or own path and actions but God chooses the consequences and far reaching impacts. That is, although we may choose to love evil and to do evil but God uses all of it to Good of Himself and to those who love Him
Also i am but a man and am fallible so know that, that means that i may have inaccurately represented some truths of Christianity but this is the extent of what i have perceived
Micha Berger But this point of view just refines the definitions necessary. If it were true, we would only see evil that people can actually counteract. So babies dying and nobody can do anything against it would not be a part of our world. Yet it is, hence theism is bonkers.
You'll find many more arguments of the kind you made but they can all be parried lazily with one hand tied behind your back once you wield the Problem of Evil.
What I repeatedly saw was that theists would refine their arguments to such a ludicrous degree that they themselves are no longer able to intuitively grasp the implications. They then give up and happily go on keeping their preconceived beliefs.
The problem of evil is not an argument for atheism, it's only an argument against God's omnibenevolence.
I had a similar case when my father passed away, I blamed God and became an atheist. Later when I became a Christian looking back on my life, realizing the type of relationship I had with my father, I know now would have hindered me from so many experiences. It's hard to say this because in no way do I want my father dead, but I know his death was in some ways best for my situation. It's hard to understand I know, but well thanks anyway, this is my final comment, have a good day.
You are saying that what doesn't kill you makes you stronger. Evil might make you stronger but still it is evil, it also causes destruction. It's like hitting your head to prevent headache, it might be effective but also disastrous. However death also comes among evil which is a problem.
There is another view a on this: God may exist, but maybe our definition of God is not accurate. After all, don't forget that there are many interpretation of God and Gods. For example in ancient Greece, Gods were very much like man; capricious, vain, insecure... We are not using the word "God" correctly.. instead we should say "Christian God", "Hindu Gods", "Roman Gods", etc.
but they're all the same God
PROTIP atTheDisco I'm curious about what you wrote, could you elaborate a little? For example in ancient Greece Zeus was the god of the sky, and he was married to Hera (goddess of mothers, families, marriages...)
Basically I think every religion was introduced at a different time so like first there were diffrent Gods in one religion and then the most recent religions such as Christianity or Islam have only one god I think it's like how you explain atoms in school like they don't tell you everything when ur young because that's just too complicated for us to believe and then in university we learn what is actually going on I don't think ppl would have believed that there is one "OOO" God that has made everything in the past when this would've been new to them so if different religions all believe that some God is responsible for our creation then all the God's must be one...
PROTIP atTheDisco Yes, I guess you can argue that for example all Greek gods (gods of sea, thunder, sun etc.) are only different aspects of one God.. But there are some differences, since only in a few religions God is seen as "OOO". Like I wrote before, in many religions God are very much like humans, capable of jealousy, envy, selfishness etc.. in other words not OOO.
Oh, well I don't rlly know about those religions or how they were formed, sorry I can't debate with you on that
If you're a theist, you're irrational; If you're an atheist, you can be irrational.
Unless you are a theist that has not been given enough evidence to support god being fake.
Doesn't that also mean that anyone who believes that there is no deity is also irrational? And only people who say "there may be a deity" are the only rational people around?
So someone's perception of God could be different from the definition shown in this video. Therefore, you can't say broadly "if you're a theist, you're irrational" because not everyone believes in an OOO God.
Also, maybe humans don't have the full story on what exactly "evil" is. Some people believe evil is an act that leads to more misery than happiness for all involved.
So if God is all-knowing, and all-good, then he can see the full impact of an action and discern of the net impact is more happy or more misery, and allow or disallow the action on the premise.
Also the idea of free-will comes into play; because God loves people so much, he gave them free will to do what they want, and if they want evil, then God morally allows it.
Anyway, my point is that saying "all theists are irrational" is invalid because it ignores the complexity of the topic and all the different versions of theism.
if your a theist you can be rational and the same goes for atheist (or at least agnostics)
RunningRiotRaiden Um... no.
Benevolence and evil are not mutually exclusive.
Omniscience brings the knowledge that evil is necessary.
Atheism is not the belief that god does not exist, it is the lack of belief in god. There is a big difference.
Riley Penner Theism, by definition, is belief in the existence of a god or gods. Atheism is the opposite of theism, the belief that there is no god at all. If you are unsure or only find yourself only slightly lacking belief, that is called agnosticism, not atheism. Atheism rejects all god or gods whatsoever. I highly advise you look into Christian theism, the answers truly are there for you, you just have to have an open heart.
Elliot C No sorry, you are wrong. Nosticism and agnosticism are terms that address knowledge, not belief, therefor you could be a nostic theist, someone who claims to know there is a god, or an agnostic theist, someone who believes in god but doesnt know that there is one. The same is true for atheists. As far as your claim that atheists believe there is no god, you are incorrect again. Theists make the claim that god exists. Atheists reject that claim. That is different than making a claim that god does not exist, which would fall under the category of anti-theism. The difference is that if you say "there is a god", and I say, "I dont believe you", I dont have to justify my lack of belief, in the same way that you dont have to have evidence why you dont believe in fairies or unicorns or santa claus.
Riley Penner First off, "nosticism" is not a term. There is such a thing as Gnosticism, but that is irrelevant. Secondly, agnostics believe there is strictly no god or gods. So no, you can't be an "agnostic theist", that makes no sense, and they are separate terms for a reason.
.
Elliot C A quick google search could have cleared that up for you. You even spelled it correctly. Whether you like it or not, it is a term. Now granted it is not used very often because it is usually fallacious, but all I was trying to demonstrate is that the words agnostic and atheist address two different things. One is not a substitute for the other. And yes, you can be an agnostic atheist. Most of us are actually classified as such. Look up Armored Skeptic. He has an excellent video explaining this exactly, titled "Atheists are a Myth". That video will actually somewhat address some of the flaws in the argument you are currently trying to make.
The whole point of this video heavily relies on the notion of Good and Evil. If there is evil, there is Good, if there is Good and Evil, we assume there is some sort of moral law, therefore a moral law giver must be present. The whole question self-destructs. Next problem with this video - It heavily relies that GOD (OOO) MUST irradiate evil as it occurs because he knows when it happened (first O) , be powerful enough to stop it (Second O) and would stop it (The assumption, Third O). This video makes the assumption that God MUST stop 'evil' if it happened, therefore putting a limitation on God, contradicting the OOO. Follow along, When God made us, he made us in his image (Intrinsic Moral Law, free mind). He did this because he loved us. God created a perfect Earth for us to live on. God did not want us to be robots, to be forced to live where he says and do as he says, so he gave us FREE WILL. He gave the perfect Earth to Adam and Eve and told them that all they had to do to keep it , was to not eat from the Tree of Knowledge. They did eat from the tree and sin entered the world, along with death, hate, EVIL. This separated humankind from God. God could have stepped back, put his hands up, and said "You made your bed, now sleep in it." But he didn't. Instead he came to Earth in the form of JESUS CHRIST, he lived the perfect life. He came to the Earth to be crucified, in a way, taking the punishment for the sins of the world, so that if we believe in him and follow him, we can be forgiven of our sins, have a living relationship with GOD, and be accepted into Heaven. THAT IS HOW MUCH GOD LOVES US. THAT IS THE LOVING GOD. Evil in the world is a product of MANKIND not God. I encourage anyone who reads this, to take a deeper look into Christianity, its historical claims and the proof for the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Seek the truth. Start with the Book Of John. Additionally, I encourage you to search "Ravi Zacharias" on youtube and click on videos that interest you. God Bless. Rev. 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me.
My critical thinking course brought me here. Good to see a knowledgeable Christian!!
You said that there is evil in this world. That is just your opinion. You do not have a standard to call something evil or good, or you are stealing from the Christian Worldview that tells us what good and evil is in the Bible.
The simple problem here is the assumption that a good all powerful God would not allow evil to exist, except that rules out the gift of free will. Since biblicaly the cause of evil is just that.
The argument presented in this video assumes premise 2 is uncontroversial when it is not. It assumes that if an OOO God exists evil would not exist because he would stop it. However that is taking the motivations of such a being in a limited vacuum apart from other possible motivations for creating the universe. What if the motivation is to create a universe where free moral agents are able to choose to do good or choose to do evil. In such a universe it is inevitable that evil would exist. God could have created humans incapable of doing anything but what he made them do and they would never do any evil but then they would not actually choose to do good since in order for a moral agent to exists that agent needs to be able to choose good or evil.
aaaand you completely glossed over the part about natural evil? nice wall of text for nothing
What about an earthquake that kills a bus load of kindergarteners? That’s pure evil, whose choice was that?
@@exxology1 What makes that evil? I dont like it, but what makes it evil?
The fact that people disagree with other people and find out that they are wrong with something, let's say for example they answer a question on a math test wrong, it proves that human to be fallible. We are all fallible because for 1) we are all able to make errors and 2) we have all sinned according to the Bible. Since humans are fallible, we are able to be wrong in our thinking, which includes what I am saying here. But when we think from absolute truth we are able to know the difference between right and wrong. For example, if someone is on a raft in the middle of the ocean, and it is completely pitch black, how are they able to know first, where they are and where they are going. It is impossible with humans. What that person needs is an outside source from beside themself, per se may be a star in the sky. We can not rely on inward thoughts or opinions because they are fallible and can not absolutely prove anything. Some people argue that they can not know anything for certain. What they need to ask themselves is are they certain of that. If they are certain, they are contradicting themself.
Problem №1:
as it is expressed quite well in the Micha Berger's comment - being all good doesn't necessarily imply that the creature should prevent you from acting from yourself thus contribute to your own state, rather then just be a passive recipient of the gift (as one could water a plant)
Problem №2
Even though that almost everything is given a definition here, something like "evil" is let to be "self-evident". the problem with this is that you base this "self-evidency" of evil on the assumption that there is something good, right or just. However - if you deny theism, i.e. the existence of an omnibenevolent creature, then you would be really challenged to give an ABSOLUTE institution that preserves good to be good all the time. If you lack such an ABSOLUTE institution then you are falling in what is called "moral relativism". And if you have moral relativism, then you don't have a non-changeable definition of "good", "right" or "just" and consequently lack any criteria according to which to say what is "evil".
Except we don't need an "absolute institution" that makes us good and keeps us good. We don't need an "absolute institution" to define evil either. Im sure a lot of people will revolt and feel disgusted when a human being commits torture, murder, or terrorism. This feeling is innate within us. The idea that these are morally wrong and is a capital crime is UNIVERSAL across most cultures and human customs. Yes, some moral statements are relative depending on the culture, but some moral statements are so universal that it is pretty much absolute. Killing is a moral evil and protecting life is a moral good because every culture universally agrees with it. It's called "moral UNIVERSALISM."
Not every moral truth is absolute, not every truth is relative either. And some moral truths become morally relativistic or absolute over time. Morality changes as civilisation goes forward, or sometimes even backwards
The problem is that this woman decides "I'm going to set up some rules that God has to conform to and then claim It doesn't live up to my rules so therefore it doesn't exist. By that type of "logic" I can prove that RUclips doesn't exist.
We're going to assume that an All knowing, Purely good, Loving being will twist and control other beings who act in a way that it deems "Evil" to the point of perhaps executing them or at least striking them down with a furious anger.
Because if I'm "Good" it means I will force others to also be good, at gun point if need be.
These are not the only two options. This is a false dilemma. The viewpoint of molinism addresses the problem of evil.
"In order to have evil, you must have good"
"evil" and "good" are just words we use to differentiate between actions that harm and actions that don't. A better way of putting it is that if there was no differentiating factor (harm) there would be no use for those concepts in our shared ontology.
I think I agree with you aside from that.
Harm is not a standard for morality. Good, evil, and morality are all subjective to begin with.
@@Darth_RaZa "Good, evil, and morality are all subjective to begin with." And in almost every subjective view, harm is a factor for all three of those.
@Tony Droid Holy shit you failed abortion, no one is talking to you.
true
Actually, evil can both exist and not exist, and here's how: What constitutes "evil" is entirely subjective. Perhaps God doesn't believe in the concept of "evil" - there is nothing humans can do that would be evil. We might think terrorism is evil, but maybe God doesn't think so.
"All non-blacks things are non-ravens."
I was just thinking about this, thanks :)
I definitely feel that this subject is very interesting and has much to talk offer, on a side note I just published an e Book named the masks we wear by Illich Perez check it out at pay hip dot com /b/zytx or visit my Facebook page Illich perez have a nice day
LMAO
Good, but that's not the case in here
Are albino ravens non-black? YES
If they occur 1 in 1,000,000 ...evidence will be difficult to gather.
observerms
Atheism is NOT a belief there is no god. It is merely the LACK of belief of deity. Wake up!
That’s agnosticism
i love how the logical conclusion to this argument breaks it down to only "two" solutions instead of recognizing the solution that our concept of Good and Evil is flawed, or the solution that God chooses the greater Good of free will which puts the evil on those who commit it.
well yes, you could claim that the world couldn't be any better than it is right now. but that's a pretty tall claim that you didn't provide any evidence for. what desirable freedom is gained from dying from catastrophe, disease or stupidity?
@Tony Tony well the video is about gods that are omnipotent and benevolent, so that's what i'm talking about.
@Tony Tony no i'm not. it's a general argument that appears to be valid. i hope you watched the video?
i am aware that there are plenty of times the Bible describes it's god as ignorant, amoral or lacking in power. this argument doesn't apply to that, is probably older than the bible anyway (though the popular attribution to Epicurus seems to be disputed).
so please focus on the argument. it isn't specifically about the Bible.
@Tony Tony moral reference? you probably mean a definition of morality, which misses the point a bit. the argument holds as long as bad things exists, and applies to any god (or other being, really) that would be good and capable enough to avoid them.
if you don't believe that moral claims are valid and there is no such thing as good, them you're right, the argument wouldn't apply in your view. but it would in mine.
i'm a moral realist. to get a bit of an idea how my moral philosophy works, you may want to look up "instrumental convergence" and "pragmatism" (which has a specific philosophical meaning). but again, the argument doesn't rely on how exactly morality works, only that it is a valid concept.
@Tony Tony the validity of a claim doesn't depend on who claims it. obviously. i'm not some weird reality-denying subjectivist.
and no, i'm still specifically talking about the Bible. as i said, i don't think the Bible describes it's god as particularly good, knowledgeable or powerful. it seems you care much more about that god than i do.
The main problem I have with this argument is that all our definitions and theories about an omnipotent being (be it god or anything else), is that these are all man-made. Our definition of evil is man made, because what we define as evil is subjective. One person may believe what he or she is doing is right, while a bystander may believe that what he or she is doing, is evil. We also assume that the god or omnipotent being is what we define as "good" and seeks out to destroy evil, while we have no evidence to back up that case. Frankly, I believe that there is an omnipotent being, but we are irrational to believe it would be bound by any man-made rules and instead follows/creates the laws of our universe. It is however up to us to make it a place we want to live and die in before returning to where we came from. After all if you think about it, we're just a bunch of atoms able to choose where we go and change what we want. When we die we just return to the world until we become what we once were.
"the belief that god doesnt exist"
welp. lets see where this vid goes from here.
😐
She assumes evil as a 1. positive ontological thing and 2. that if evil is a privation of the good this may be necessitated by some higher good and thus a universe where the privation of the good is permitted is superior then one where it is metaphysically impossible. this is a terrible strawman, there are so many ways to demonstrate the logical problem of evil is easy to refute.
The second premise is incorrect. The assumption that an OOO god would not allow evil to exist is completely absurd and is typical of the atheist argument. As an example lets consider a loving parent with their young toddler. When the toddler is learning to walk, does the parent hold them up so that they never fall and experience the pain of falling? Does the parent prevent the toddler from experiencing everything unpleasant? On the contrary, a loving parent would protect their child from serious harm, but the parent knows the child must fall a few times to learn, otherwise the child will never learn the lessons of failure and success.
Creating the human race, knowing all the death and suffering the humans will endure may very well be the most loving thin an OOO god could do for us.
You're missing out Omnipotence. A loving parent would only let the child fall if that's necessary. If you had the power to just insert knowledge on your child without putting them in harms way, but you let them suffer without necessity, then you're not Omnibenevolent.
"I love these people so much, I think I'll give them some cancer. Will need rape too because I really love them. I think I'll throw in some tornados and floods, too. They got to learn somehow! Love them so much."
The discussion is about the evils in the world and the example you bring up is a toddler falling over when learning to walk???
Nothing more absurd than that. Nothing more morally disgusting than someone trying to present all the evil in the world like it was some kind of sick twisted "gift".
Vandré Brunazo
To insert knowledge to prevent harm would require the child to have the capacity to accept the knowledge. An OOO parent would have to impart additional knowledge, and maturity, ultimately resulting in the child being just like the parent. So this OOO god can only create perfect OOO gods such as himself, otherwise as you point out, he's not omnibenevolent. However unless we are ourselves omniscient, we can't possibly understand the reasons for an OOO gods actions. So we have to assume an ombibenevolent god would prevent harm unless there were good reason to allow it.
Brian Parsons
This is a philosophical discussion for which you will need a high level of abstract thinking and comprehension.
azapps you're still ignoring Omnipotence, if there's a child God cannot fully insert knowledge on, then that god isn't all powerful.
Well. most people who identify as atheists think that the existence of God is unlikely to the point that it's not worth caring about... because there really isn't any strong evidence in support of theism.
substitute "strong evidence" with "evidence".. there is just no single piece of evidence for any god.
+Juan True lol
If you're seriously looking for evidence, then you should research "الاعجاز العلمي في القران الكريم" which means scientific facts told in quoran that are not yet proven scientifically. and scientists did prove many of them.
one of them is that 1st wing of a fly has a sickness and the other has the cure, it sound like bullshit right? unless it's proven scientifically, then you have no other way but to believe in it. that's how it works
Now I understand why Sheldon mocks Howard for having gone to MIT.....
😂
One question that I have is, why is it that we must assume that this idea of god must be "OOO"? When you're referring to "god", are you referring to the idea of someone/something creating the universe? If so, I don't necessarily believe that this idea of "OOO" must be applicable.
You really shoehorn in your conclusion. I submit that your incorrect statement might be #2, that if an ooo being exists, then there would be no evil. You added this statement as a given with no rationale behind it. How can you tell what an omniscient and omnibeneficent being will consider to be the greatest good?
Agreed. Many theists believe that there is a purpose in evil to exist.
For example to be tempted; or to know what good is you have to experience evil. Thus the purpose of life includes both good and evil.
For an OOO God to eradicate evil and thus the purpose of life or the greater good is not good.
In such a case statement two falls apart as it is built on the assumption that a good God would not allow evil.
One can't just make claims like this and exclude these kinds of possibilities. It is nice that these guys are educating us on these philosophies, but not to include perfectly good counter arguments is totally silly.
+allasar Once again you are assuming that you know what is best for everyone for eternity. Maybe you are the omniscient one? It is horrible that women are trapped and children starve and men go to war. What is the alternative, though? The reason the argument presented in this video has never held water is that every major monotheistic religion teaches that there is a greater purpose in God allowing evil to exist.
Your idea of the "greatest good" implies that God is not omnipotent.
"Greatest" implies a limit. If God is limited, that means he is not omnipotent.
Out of the numbers 1-100, which one is the highest/largest/greatest? This question only makes sense because there is a limit of 100. If we just ask which number is the highest/largest/greatest, without any limit, the question doesn't make sense.
By talking about the "greatest good", you're admitting that God is not omnipotent.
@@beauxq I don't think the term "greatest" excludes the infinite. Since you used the examples of numbers, why don't you tell me what the greatest whole number is.
@@JeshuaJay I already responded to that. Read again.
Evil is a very rudimentary concept. The war waged in life is almost entirely between competing virtues. How to value those, how to choose, how to live the best life and accept the loss of other good choices not taken, and ill of the harm you accept doing in your choices, that unavoidably accompanies the good. That's the work of life, as individuals and communities.
Think about this:
"Can a God create a rock so big that even he can't lift?"
1. If he can, than he is not omnipotent for not being able to lift it.
2. If he can't, than he is not omnipotent for not being able to create it.
He can create the rock he can't lift and then he can lift it anyway. Both are true for God can allow contradictions.
+Chris Dijkman
That is not a valid logical argument:
1. In the first half of your sentence you stated that God can create a rock that he can't lift. If this is true than he is not omnipotent since he failed to lift it.
2. If you meant that he created the rock and at first couldn't lift it (for example at 5PM), but than later he could (6PM), it still means that hi is not omnipotent since he couldn't lift it at 5PM.
Statement that "God can allow contradiction" doesn't have any meaning.
Try this for additional practice:
Can God step on a measuring scale and weight 50kg and 100kg at the same time?
Can God create a yellow ball of blue color?
Can God create a round square?
+Darko Stalevski He can weigh 150. He can get a YELLOW ball and PAINT it BLUE.
+Darko Stalevski Idk about the round square. Maybe round edges?
The answer: yes.
How you say? Because there is no reason God can't do this. Simple. To not be able to lift a rock, if to not be God.
Ergo, to make himself incapable would be to make Him non-God. But He could still do it if He wanted.
I never saw this to be an actual paradox or contradiction. Nothing disagrees.
Been thinking about this a lot recently, and I think that some of the original "Properties of God" proposed (originating, by the way, not in western thought [5:20], but in Greek philosophy) might be contradictory in themselves. Those specific properties are Omnipotence and Omnibenevolence. You see, the concept that a perfect God must be Omnibenevolent has always bothered me. Today, after watching this video, I think I see why. If God truly is all-powerful, then He need not be Omnibenevolent. He could be "Omnimaleficent" If He so wishes. (perhaps this means we must redefine what it means to be perfect)
A perfect God, in my understanding, must be above morality. From a Christian perspective, I think that this is true of the way that God is portrayed. The God of the Bible *defines* morality; He gives laws to mankind and explicitly tells them what is morally right and morally wrong. He then sets Himself up as the Judge of good and evil, providing blessing and honor for good conduct and punishment and destruction for bad conduct. Since He is our Creator, and He defines morality, and indeed has become our Judge, no mortal human being can really accuse Him of being evil (Daniel 4:35, Romans 9:20). And so by default we do consider God to be good, but we must remember that God, in truth, is above both good and evil.
I think the part that messes people up is that they attempt to define morality on their own before discussing the subject of whether or not God exists. As a perfect, infinite, omnibenevolent Being I would argue that He is much more qualified than us to define what is right and wrong. He need not be defined by our interpretations of morality.
The nature of a "Perfect God" has been used as a proof of the existence of god as well... Because, a perfect god would have to exist, because existing is preferable to not existing, so by definition, being perfect involves existing.
The Omni-God, (OOO in this video) came about much later than the start of Christianity, and was a cause for many schizms and arguments. It's incredibly easy to break the logic of an 'omni' being, but a lot of this could be attributed tofaults of languages and concepts.
These same faults in language and concepts is where we get tangled up in paradoxes. The best example is that it is impossible for you to get anywhere you are going, because first you have to get half way there, then you have to get half way between half way there and there, and on and on... because the distance can be cut in half an infinite amount of times, and you must always get to the half way point before getting all the way there, you will be approaching your destination infinitely. Of course, this doesn't happen, people get where they are going literally every day. So we are left with a series of ideas that are all true, but that logically disprove eachother. This is what is called a paradox.
So is the question of whether an omnipotent God could create a rock so massive that even it could not move it. The statements are both true, in so far as being within the definitions of 'omnipotent'. But they are mutually exclusive.
Our ability to create concepts is probably the closest example we have of what an omnipotent god would entail. Because we can create, and believe contradictory, and impossible things. There are no limits to what we can conceive.
I agree (see my comment). The message of Scripture is that God is GOD, having absolute power and sovereignty, not that "God is good". God is above both good and evil and both serve his purpose, but how you experience that purpose depends on you. Kind of like how you experience sunlight depends on whether or not you are Dracula.
The main problem is the argument if OOO being exist , there would be no evil. This statement lacks the nuance of an Omnibenevolent God willing to give his creation the free will to choose good or evil.
but think about it ? a good "all" good person must be "all" good "all" time, if "all" good person sees act of crime he she or it must try to stop it, so if "all" good god is not stoping the evil, it cannot be OOO.
Unless they can see beyond the action and instead focus on an individual who can receive forgiveness. He is so Omnibenevolent that he can see how others free will has helped shape the "Evil" person and is willing to forgive. Even a wretch like me Romans 3:23
Let me put this to you then.
Say you have a puppy.
It's in a room.
There is a bone in the room.
In the next room, there is a puppy with no bone,
A small hole exists between the two rooms, just large enough for the bone to fit through.
Now, if the puppy decides to chew on the bone, it will be skinned and burned alive.
If it decides to push the bone through the hole, it will be rewarded with another bone.
If you knew that the puppy was going to chew on the bone itself, and then had the option to take the bone away, all you had to do was think it and it would disappear, before the test even began, would your morality compel you to do so?
Please keep in mind, the elimination of a choice is not influencing the choice, thus the test does not effect free will.
If you answered yes, then by definition you are morally a better person than god. (Something which we know is not possible given his defining characteristics include omnibenevolence), so the God described in the Bible is not omnibenevolent and therefore does not exist.
If you answered no, well then would it not stand to reason that having the opportunity to save a puppy from torture by simply thinking it, and not doing so based on the fact that you didn't have to, is considered evil?
Please keep in mind I am well aware this test does not take in other factors for simplification reasons, however the premise still stands.
Shenanigans, Elimination the choice does effect their free will. If I know you are going to kill someone with a hatchet and I refuse you the right to the hatchet you'll call me a tyrant because you needed to chop wood to keep you and your family alive through the winter. God could end this all right now and put everyone where he new their decisions would lead them. I don't know about you, but I would claim that to be unjust.
Jack Cayman " God could end this all right now and put everyone where he new their decisions would lead them"
Precisely my point, an omnibenevolent god would spare everyone that suffering.
If you take away a choice, it does not effect free will.
One could still make the decision, they would just not have the capacity to make said decision happen.
Under "Two Further Assumptions" (8:22), your first assumption is faulty-viz. that "a wholly good thing always eliminates evil as far as it can." This you assume to be part of the definition of omnibenevolence. However, the western theism you are addressing, or at least the Christian theism that once characterized western thought, has clearly not understood omnibenevolence in this way. And so your argument fails at this point.
Christian theists have routinely understood omnibenevolence to mean that no moral culpability attaches to God for any evil that exists. Moreover, a distinction is made between present and future evil. God will eliminate evil as a matter of justice (future), but has no moral obligation to prevent evil in the meantime or to eliminate evil within a given time-frame (present). This is common stock in Christian philosophy, at least in the Augustinian stream. You'll find it consistently in Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, etc.
Aquinas, for example, replies to the very objection your argument raises by quoting Augustine: "Since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil." (Summa Theo. 1.2.3, quoting Enchiridion 11)
Yet both Aquinas and Augustine, in the respective contexts of this statement, affirm what we (not they) call omnibenevolence. Notice that these two thinkers (1) did not understand God's supreme goodness to include by definition the will to prevent evil, but (2) sought to justify the existence of evil teleologically or eschatologically.
Number 2 argument of the existence of an OOO Being in The Problem of Evil slide expresses an "all-good Being would try to prevent evil." This is an assertion spawned from an assumption of what an omnibelevolent God ought to do inherently. However, theism provides an opposing standpoint for this idea. Theism says God gives free will to created beings and is not a tyrant over what they can or cannot choose to do. With this free will is the capacity to sin, causing the emergence of evil. This is clearly expressed in monotheistic writings and cannot be neglected in representing the religion. This is a straw man fallacy, and the argument must be revised here.
For an explanation of free will and the existence of evil from the Christian worldview, see: www.gotquestions.org/free-will.html and www.gotquestions.org/did-God-create-evil.html.
+Horacio Lopez Of course he could. He is all powerful.
+kukis13 So if an omnipotent God can create a world with free will and no evil, can he still be omnibenevolent for doing otherwise and creating a world with both free will and evil?
+MarcheZ Sol I am not sure I understand your question correctly. If he/it/she creates "a world with both free will and evil" then he is not omnibenevolent
“My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such a violent reaction against it?... Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too--for the argument depended on saying the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies. Thus, in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist - in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless - I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality - namely my idea of justice - was full of sense. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never have known it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.” - C.S. Lewis
You lose me in your argument where you assert that if an OOO being exists, evil must, therefore, not exist.The first assertion that if God is all-knowing God must therefore know where Evil would occur, makes sense. Secondly God, as we assert as all-powerful, could prevent evil if God so chose.
But you You make a bold statement without any basis of fact or supporting argument. Your claim that as God is good, God must therefore intervene in all Evil that occurs.Thus you cannot draw the conclusion that Evil cannot exist if God is OOO.
Assuming God Exists, and that God is OOO, does not follow to the exclusion of the existence of Evil. You incorrectly argue that our only option is to give up the characteristic of Omnibenevolence, or we give up the existence of Evil.
Thus you have not adequately framed this argument to demonstrate that it is irrational to be theist.
So, what's your idea about goodness? Don't you think that if someone is good then he will intervene if possible? What's not possible for God?
Omnibenevolent means that God is always good. Omnipotent means that he is capable of doing anything since he is all powerful. If you make the claim that God does not always intervene, you have to justify that the inaction of God is good. If you can't prove that his inaction is good, then you have to give up either Omnipotence or Omnibenevolence. If his inaction leads to evil in any way, he isn't omnipotent or Omnibenevolent, since he either permitted evil to happen or didn't have control over that evil. Can you prove that his inaction is never causes evil?
+IrontMesdent one could argue that by NOT doing something good you are not necessarily doing something bad.
Devron Pearce We are not debating if God does evil. We are debating that the actions of God are the absolute best in terms of being Good. Not acting on something might not cause any evil, but acting might cause Good. So if he was truely omnibenevolent and omnipotent, he would do something that would cause Good and no Evil instead of simply accept something that is not bad.
Devron Pearce
Give me an example, please.
What if we have the wrong definition of evil?
Maybe this what happens in the world like killing people is evil but there exists something much eviler than that?
it is irrelevant for the argument if things could be worse. it's about whether things could be better than they are.
I'am atheist, but according to christianity there is evil because of the free will, humans and angels are able to choose "Evil". Humans are demand to do "Good" not because of God Omnipotence but because of their will, God decides that he doesn't want to interfere with his creations will ¿The fact that he es ALL GOOD means that he has to destroy "Evil" just because he is omnipotent?
I was expecting a more strong argument "for atheism"
Well, actually it is. You have the freedom of choice, even if you don't have an infinite amount of any options to choose from. And who said that you have to burn for all eternity for your sins? The Bible?
1) The Bible didn't magically fall from the sky, it was written by humans.
2) The Bible is full of metaphors. Maybe the burning refers to the guilt?
***** yeah, because the Bible is the God. All hail the almighty Bible that is never wrong. Because the *people* who wrote it also were all mighty, all knowing beings.
And how do you know what is a metaphor and what isn't?
+allasar I have to point out that for example, It is said that Dantes inferno doesn't represent a reality but the "hell" of having "envy", "rage", etc... And I've been Catholic and I know that a lot of things written in the Bible are taken as a Metaphore
Christianty and for extension any religion usually have a very consistent system: If the bible is wrong is a methaphore and we, imperfect humans, don't understand God message so any logic you could apply dont get you anywhere. That's the reason why religion can't be proof right or wrong... It's all about faith.
(Sorry for my English)
How does free will influence nature? Are you saying that humans want famines and other natural disasters? Are you saying that the freedom of the murderer is more important than the freedom of the victim, to a benevolent god? If God was real and truly didn't want to interfere with his creation, we wouldn't know of him to begin with. And, according to the bible and priests, he constantly interferes with our lives and has done so in the past. If he was all good, he wouldn't have created humans and angels with the capacity of evil, this would result in nothing but meaningless suffering, since he'd strip the "good ones" of their free will when they enter heaven either way and throw the others to hell. But yeah, pointing a gun to someone's head still leaves them with the choice, right? And yes, omnibenevolence and not just the tolerance of evil, but the creation of evil, are mutually exclusive. God would indirectly be responsible for every single crime in human history, since he had the power to stop it and knew it was going to happen. Not to mention that omniscience also means that humans don't have free will, since the future would have to be deterministic in nature for it to be knowable, meaning that humans have no actual choices.
***** If you really thought not having consciousness and free will was a better choice than other people being capable of harming you, you'd take some poison to spend the rest of your life in coma. But you haven't done that.
The problem is.. Good is very subjective, so ooo is not as stable of a definition for a being who's thoughtprocesses we couldn't hope to understand.
Whilst i am an atheist , this is a terrible argument for the belief in god being irrational.
I'm not sure if you were trying to explain this from the point of someone who believes this way (likely but just thought i would mention the following:
You dismiss that the incorrect assumption could be "if an ooo being exists they would prevent evil".
A number of reasons why we can not auto-include this theory:
- If a being wanted to watch how we dealt with the world we were given, it wouldn't interfere
- if we always get what we want, our pleasure and reward chemistry doesn't fire as often so we would actually find life less interesting. It's hard to say where the evil would stop so that our lives were just perfect... but in becoming perfect they loose some/if not all of their appeal.
Additionally, evil is in the eye of the beholder. Terrorism, to some is an acceptable way to be heard when faced with the feeling of being ignored. ( Not my view point but it exists, nothing to say this is not the view of an ooo being)
Lastly, what if in order to maximise the average happiness of the world, bad things had to happen. If you take , for example the trolley problem (where a runaway trolley on a rail track is going to hit and kill 5 people but you can pull a lever to change it's path so it goes to a different track where only 1 person is present). Perhaps the ooo being is face by variations of this problem all the time and they ARE all knowing, all morally good and all powerful but limited by some properties of physics such that they CAN from the outside influence the lever but CAN'T remove the trolley from existence (still keeping with the hypothetical problem, because i'm sure in this case they would have other options been in more complex scenarios they may not)
No, it is a good argument. Probably because she went to fast, she didn't put enough emphasis on the key aspects.
So you say: a being that like to not interfere
While this may be true, this actually have nothing to do with the argument.
In fact, you should have said, a OOO BEING likes to not interfere
However an ooo being, is "all good". Also notice that she didn't use the word "good" alone, but there is "all". So imagine the most good person on earth, the ooo being is without doubt more good. And assuming that the most good people on earth would interfere, then without doubt even the ooo God.
To the second point, of necessarily evil. This is not true at all, because God is omnipotent, so evil is not necessary. You are still thinking in the perspective of what a normal being can do, and not what a ooo Being can do.
What is the conclusion then? Believing in a god defined as "ooo being" is irrational.
The problem I see with Her argument is with one of her assumptions that she doesn't directly state. This assumption I would say is that we being not all knowing can know what god is thinking and judge him about it. I mean if I have an allknowing God I hope He's a bit smarter than me.
What I may think is good in my limited knowledge cannot compare with what God is good in his infinite knowledge. I mean if you look at a kid. He knows candy is good. He thinks when you take candy away from him it's not good. So you are not good. So if we look at this and multiply it alot to the difference between us and an all knowing God. If you realize that we as not all knowing cannot know exactly what is "all good" then you can have a OOO being who allows evil. Maybe this OOO being allows evil to make some good with it in the end.
I guess that's where my faith or trust or whatever kicks in. I see this evil in the world and beilive that although it's absolutely terrible I trust that God is using it to do some ultimate good, something that is all good. I have a hope for the future
Lex River, your points are based on your human given and society given assumptions and conclusions. An OOO being that is all good does not have to interfere. It may consider interfering in free will inherently bad for example.This is just one example of difference of opinion on what all good could mean.
As i also outlined omnipotent doesn't have to allow for the rules of physics to break for example so perhaps they can't interfere.
+Kealaipaliuli Ahuna
So you basically believe there is no (true) evil? (or we jsut jsut see it as evil, but it isnt)
This was one of the options.
I personally would go with taking away one O. So that he is either not All good or not Omnipotent. But what ever, i dint share this view on god anyways.
if anything,the free will argument seems to be the one based on human assumption.
i can agree on the definition part though. the point is if god is ooo, how omnipotent all good and all knowing can be?
again, it wasn't cristal clear on this point, however if we take the implicit definition she gave, the argument is good, in the sense that the conclusion follows immediately given the hypothsis
I should point out that this isn't really an argument for atheism. It's just an argument against OOO theism. Dystheism, for example, is still consistent with this argument.
i always thought the same about god, regarding the "OOO" words.. but i thought we were all here to get tested and made better, like when you refine gold ore in fire to make pretty jewelry. thats why evils present
This is the only defense brought up by theists it seems (I'm not assuming that you are one). I can see a purpose for gentle evil. How would we ever know to be aware of our surroundings if we didn't know that not checking the street before crossing greatly increases the chance of death or injury. The death or injury can be blamed on a singular person or event and that's the end of the story. This also in a way clears up the free will argument. I'm okay with this kind of evil. But I'm not okay with Natural Or Serial Evil.
Natural evil is naturally occurring instances where people and things are damaged or killed. Let's say a hurricane occurs. No is to blame for the hurricane forming, yet the hurricane kills 50 people and $10 Billion dollars of damage are caused. I see no purpose for people to die. Therefore I see no purpose for a naturally occurring evil. And since Free will only applies to living things (for the sake of the argument), I see no reason that Nature should have the opportunity to create evil
Serial Evil are events like mass death caused by people. Say the 9/11 attacks. Like the aforementioned argument, I see no lesson to be learned from such an event. And if having free will means thousands if not more people die every day, then I don't want free will.
That would be an ultimate strangeness if true. Some of us were born kind, and turned evil by humans. And NO we are not all born kind. If you believe that, you've never dealt with children.
@@Darth_RaZa lol
@@kevingosselin2277 and mybad i never responded, bt suppose evil and good are both relative too.
@@kevingosselin2277 I see natural evil as God testing humans mainly because the story of job has a similar theme, and verses from the Quran down right stating it, also a person who believing in God during the good times but disbeliefing if something bad happens to them(a dear one's passing for example) is supraiseingly common.
start with the Quran. then move on to the Quran with tafseer (context and commentary), then the sunnah and the Prophet's life. Then see if you have any doubt of the existence of God.
This was an unbiased analysis of this topic. I look forward to seeing more and/or discussing this.
Here's another interesting point, this time about omniscience (all-knowing God);
If God is all-knowing, that means that there is *NO FREE WILL*. Here is why:
If God is all knowing, than he would know exactly what I will do at any point in my life, all my thoughts, feelings, decisions, actions etc. He could also write all this in a book before I was born. Now, if I have to do exactly what is written in that book, and I don't have the freedom to change any of my thoughts or actions, if they are determined even before my birth, and I have no influence on them, than I have no free will.
If no one has control over their actions, than nobody is responsible for what they're doing, and shouldn't be punished for it.. So hell doesn't make any sense, and it would be unfair to put anybody there. Even more, the ten commandments don't make any sense, because everyone's actions have been determined before they were born. And who determined them? God! So if someone is breaking the ten commandments, it's actually the responsibility of God.. therefore, he should be the one burning in hell. It's pretty much like, if I make a robot that kills someone, it shouldn't be the robot who's put in jail, but me.
research the many-worlds interpretation
In what bible does it say our lives are determined before birth? I believe what you are referring to is a personal, and if I may say, irrational personal belief of some but not of Christianity. According to the bible, God preaches a life of free will and how we will be held accountable for those actions on judgement day.
PROTIP:
Omnipotence =/= Omniscience
Omniscience =/= Omnipotence.
ForeKnowledge =/= ForeWarning.
ForeKnowledge =/= ForeSight.
ForeWarning =/= ForeAction and/or ForeSaying.
ForeAction =/= ForeSaying.
Doing =/= Saying.
Saying =/= Doing.
Actions =/= Words.
Words =/= Actions.
The "OOO God" is an extremely western view.
I was brought up to believe that God is simply Shakti, energy.
Well, she explained that this is for that specific religion which is Christianity. If those "representatives of god" say that the scriptures are absolute and the scriptures say about an "OOO" god, then the believer is compelled to accept this, but this is where the logical fallacy comes in...
@@Zekrom569 I assume you are referencing the Aristotelian origins of the OOO theology. But I'm not certain that the original Judaic faith didn't mean to imply the same thing, or that Aristotle wasn't aware of this when he wrote about a model deity.
Nor do I think that Jasper's Shakti assertion on the nature of deity would conflict. Were the definition of energy loose enough to fit the definiton, which it has to be at least loosened enough to fit the conversation about God, the implications would better fit a universal construct.
Very clever - However, if God is all knowing then the goodness of that God would be for the greater good and not simply the temporal good at the expense of the greater good. Example - I need surgery in order to continue living. The surgery will be painful, expensive and I will lose my job due to long recovery. All of those things are bad. Yet I will choose to endure the bad pain and the bad loss of income for the greater good of continuing to live.Yeah, that's probably not the best example, but it does illustrate my point. Thanks for reading.
in order for us to know what is good and evil, one would have to be all knowing. But since no one is all knowing, no one knows what is good and evil. Only God knows what is good and evil and all the rest of us are left to conclude that we are not all-knowing. This video assumes that to be all-good, one must only know what partial-good and what partial-evil is. In other words, that all it takes is partial knowledge (what we mortals have), to know what evil is. But it takes all-knowing to know what evil is to begin with.
+Nelson Galvan "Created in his own image"
Name calling, a cheap ad hominen, is not the way a reasonable and mature adult engages in discussion. Your post is grade school quality.
6:30 God being OOO doesn't necessarily lead to no evil. In your opinion OOO means God _would_ eliminate evil. But you don't make a necessary relationship there. I not arguing for God, I'm arguing for better logic.
The logic behind this video is soooooooo flawed, its like saying "because doctors exists, there should be no sickness"
Well, the doctors are humans too, and there is nothing anywhere saying that these doctors are superhumans that can prevent any death or sickness instead, about the god, the scriptures say that the word of god is absolute and this includes that the god is "OOO", which in simple words means that he can know everything happening in the word, he can do literally everything to change the world and he has the motivation to act in good will, so with all of three combined, it means that god is some kind of "invisible Superman/Batman/", but from the reality, we can see that god might be more like Thanos...That's why the logic of christianity specifically is flawed, because it includes so many contradictions
@@Zekrom569 If God were to strike everyone dead that committed an evil or to destroy the earth cuz an earthquake occurred, then atheists would still find another argument to say that God is not all Good. I don't get it, the argument sort of contradicts itself. Atheists always bring up the Old Testament and the "extreme" things God did to say that he's evil. But the reason he did that was cuz he hated evil and when a guy raped a woman they were to be immediately stoned. But now that God has given us free will and lets us do as we please because we are not robots and neither is he controlling, we say "how come he's not doing anything," he's evil. It seems that looking at it from any point, God is just evil not matter what he does. And as for natural "evils" and the evils towards innocents... the same reason. God is not controlling and he is not authoritarian cuz if he was, we'd still complain. God is not an obssesive-ex that stalks the world. The world says "God we don't like your law and we don't like you either." So what does God do, bring in his military to exercise a North Korea-type world?...No he doesn't. The Bible says that the world loves the devil and the "devil is the prince of this world." Now why would God push himself into a place where he is not wanted, the Bible says that he knocks at the door. The world has closed the door on Him, so it runs without him. He will not barge in and that's what makes him a good God. Since it isn't run by Him, as the Bible says, and neither does the world want to be run by him, then what do we expect? Of course the innocent, natural disasters, and the such come upon the world. God doesn't stop it cuz he's not a stalker. He's the rejected bodyguard. You rejected him so what do you expect will happen to your home, your children, your elderly, etc.?
And one last thing, I thought atheists were materialists and followers of philosophers like Nietzsche who believe there is no such thing as good or evil. Where does that concept come from? The entire concept of evil doesn't even come from materialism so its begging the question. What constitutes evil, and isn't survival of the fittest the way the world should run?
I'm surprised to hear a university professor define atheism as "the belief that no gods exist."
I'm pretty sure the conventional use of the word is _the lack of belief in a god _*_or_*_ the belief that no gods exist._ And the adjectives 'weak' or 'strong' are usually used to specify a component of that disjunction respectively.
While judging all this with my logic brain, it all adds up, perfectly explained. But when I go through my gut-feeling, it leaves all the psychological factors out. I would be interested to get an angle on this. Especially the fact that people living in poor conditions or that had to go through rough times are particulary religious.
Well, they dont have the time to think about this stuff, and they believe that faith in god will eventually bring them a brighter tomorrow, that's why they believe
She said god is OOO. But just for argument sake god is only OO then the contradiction of evil would not exist.
Poor people also buy the majority of lottery tickets. Hope has power even when unlikely.
Gut-feelings aren't an argument. If anything, they are an indication that you're believing in irrational bs.
Okay, so this one of the main reasons I do not believe in God. However, the most popular objection to this is the free will defense. It says that if God intervened to stop evil, we would not have free will. Therefore, God maximized the amount of good in the world by making it so that we had free will. Therefore, God can exist.
Here is my counter-argument that I developed: If God is OOO, why would he/she/it not just create all humans to be good people? We would still be doing what we wanted, but we wouldn't want to severely hurt other people. Therefore, there would be no evil in the world, and we would still have free will. If God existed, he would have taken this route. This world does not exist, therefore, the logical problem of evil is still a valid argument.
Also, that only tackles life being evil. What about natural evil, like natural disasters, lethal illnesses, and mental illnesses? Why would he allow those to exist? The theist might say, bad things must exist in order for us to be happy, because if everything was good, nothing would be good. But if that's the case, why would God not just give us small doses of unhappiness? Does having schizophrenia really help us better appreciate our world? Of course not.
If anyone has any other objections to the logical problem of evil, I would love to discuss them with you.
Why can't you throw out number 2? you're only argument for it is "It seems straight forward"
How is it irrational to believe that an OOO being exist and evil exists as well?
It just seems you make a huge jump and assumption about that.
JBles825 An OOO God, being all knowing could foresee evil and since this being would also be wholly good and all powerful it both could and would eliminate that evil.
That, however is not the case, since evil exists.
All of this was in the video if you had bothered to listen.
super0banana evil is done through temptation, whether a temptation to steal candy of something demonic like slaughtering people for fun, it is all done through temptation... Fighting against your consience. God loves all of us, but not everyone of us loves God. This is the test made by God. He gave us the ability to know the difference between good and evil. It is our decision to choose as such. It is simply a way of showing our love for God. So to show why I think the argument that "since God is all good there should be no evil," evil is done simply as a test of our love for God.
super0banana I watched the video thoroughly. My point was I agree with everything you said except right when you hit "would" How do you know that that OOO being would eliminate evil? Don't you think that is an assumption? Or just an exaggerated stretch of the word omnipotent.
Is it a possibility that the OOO being could eliminate evil but chooses not to?
Kat1lz I don't think if God allows evil, it is sadistic or evil, and I can explain to you why. Suffering isn't as bad as people think it is. Evil and Suffering allows people work through their difficult times to grow and become a better person. This wouldn't be possible in a world with no evil, because there would be no need to grow. And its our choice to do so.
A good example would be traveling to a third world country for a week or two. They person most likely going isn't used to this certain life style. It is difficult and the person is essentially suffering. After their experience through this they decide to do more and help the people that need it in this third world country. This is now a good that someone choose to do. I think that's more noble then a God just making someone do it.
Another example is someone losing their mother to cancer. Yes, its a tragic event. But it may encourage that person to use all their time to help cancer patients. Give more money to cancer research and volunteer at hospitals to help kids with cancer. So can you see how the Evil (mother dying from cancer) can allow a person to either choose to dwell on it or grow as a person and do so much more good in the world.
Nicolas Wirtz : What choice has a human made against the death of newborn infants who have done no evil? What other evil has caused this? Since this is surely an evil that has been done onto an innocent, it could either be committed only by two things: a god, or another force.
If an evil deed was done by god, then god is evil.
If it was done by another force, then that force is evil.
However, if that evil was done by the other force, then the following is true:
God did not know it was going to happen or could not stop it, making that being not omniscient OR not all-powerful.
OR
God did not want to stop this evil, making god also evil.
The argument boils down to an "OOO" god not being able to exist while evil also does.
It does seem odd that this video doesn't offer any of the (many) theistic - or at least non-atheistic - responses to the problem of evil. Theists, after all, have been responding to the problem of evil (or 'theodicy' as theologians tend to call it) for thousands of years.
But I think the real problem with this video is actually that most theists would reject every single step of this argument, from the notion of 'evidential theism' to the criteria of 'rationality' that it holds up. Moreover, virtually every kind of theist that I know of thinks that the OOO deity has other qualities as well, and that *these qualities* may help to account for the problems of theodicy. In short, the issue is that the 'problem of evil' delivers a knock-down argument against an abstract philosophical construct that nobody actually believes in, and argues against a sort of 'irrational' belief that virtually nobody would claim to have.
Which really makes me wonder what the point of this sort of argument is - if it doesn't really engage with people who disagree, or even take seriously the claims they make, is it all just a pointless exercise to keep philosophers off the streets?
Big problem here is your assuming that God is OOO.
Defined by christian scriptures. That's why OOO. Other (non-abrahamic) have a better shot at a god because they aren't OOO.
Well she did specify it was arguing the western lopular idea of a god.
In my thinking the problem is assuming that we know what "all good" is, since we are not all knowing then trying to judge something that is all good and all knowing
The definition of God is a being that is OOO. If you're envisioning something that's not OOO, you're envisioning a creator, not a God.
Noah Fence What about things like the old Greek Pantheon or Ahura Mazda, they're gods, but not OOO.
1:10 'More likely'. So basing a complete worldview on something being 'more likely' is rational? Some information lending credibility to something does not make that thing true. If you believe in the God, and God resembles goodness to you, you see proof of God all the time. Not proving his existence, but validating your beliefs. Atheists do the same thing, they just use different sets of concepts in relating to the outside world.
It can be Monday and not Monday on different parts of the world
Another type of Irrational Theist is someone who, when something miraculous happens, says, "See? God saved that person's life." But at the same time tries to hold the belief that God gave us free will and does not intervene in our lives.
I most certainly love how this video doesn't state even the most common rebuttals to this argument such as the good that can come from suffering which have much merit.
You love it, but you think it has merit?
most of the comments in favor of god here do not understand the definitions the professor is using in this example.
Far too many leaps and assumptions to offer value for me
Cite them.
+Girrawaa Smith it's assumption 2 or 5 that would be wrong
+Girrawaa Smith no I believe assumption 2 or 5 is wrong.. lol
Evil is a purely bad, harmful and unwanted thing. So the 2nd one, more specifically the small brown text below it.
Or well, maybe it's better saying that evil is the lesser evil.
Could one argue that evil doesn't exist. It is A) all within the mind. B) It is a matter of perception.
And say that one believes there is evil and in an all knowing, ever present God does exist how would that be contradictory? What if both good and bad is the nature of the God, like a ying/yang? What if the God is chaos? Meaning we could never predict its nature whether good/evil. Why is the argument focused on evil, could evil prove the evidence of a God the same way one would argue good proves there is a God? +wireless Philosphy
Maybe God doesn't perceive the same things we perceive as evil to be evil. Why would the book of Job be in the bible if it contradicts it? God's ways are higher then our ways. To try to put God into a box like this is irrational. God allows evil because he want to give us the opportunity to choose good over evil. Do you hold theists with such contempt as to provide such a weak argument as proof?
+Jarin Jove the problem I'm seeing with this argument is that your example is using 2 different endings and arguing they're contradictory. Yes if a Jewish person doesn't believe in Jesus then they wouldn't recurve salvation and wouldn't get to heaven. Yes if a German Nazi truly repented and received salvation they would be admitted to heaven. But the other half of the equation is equally true. A Jewish believer would end up In heaven and an unrepentant nazi in hell. Heaven is just as all inclusive as it is exclusive. Anyone is welcome, you just have to come.
The idea or plea that god's ways are higher than ours is an evasion. Any reasonable, marginally moral being, knows that some actions like killing every first born, general wholesale killing by floods plagues and pestilence, and such like are evil.
perhaps God views us the same way I view Ants... If I kill a whole family of them.. I Still manage to sleep at night..if an ant gets raped by another ant, its not gonna make me feel obliged to intervene,
I found this out natural and tried to explain it to my religion teacher. Still the exact same teacher.
Without imperfection there is no such thing as perfection so statement two is false.
If there were only perfection then imperfection would not exist.
There's a number of problems here, but the biggest, easiest one to point out, in my humble opinion, is at 8:32. "But these just seem to be the definition of O.O.O."
For someone who's trying to be very critical logically, "these just seem to be..." is a pretty blatant weak statement.
In fact this area is precisely where most religious scholars would have an issue with this argument. Can all evil be eliminated? If not, why not?
It's also *painfully* easy to prove that an all powerful being can't do all things. A classic example is this: Make a married bachelor. Because the definition of bachelor is one who is not married, it is IMPOSSIBLE, by definition, to make a married bachelor.
One could argue that this means God isn't all powerful as there are limits, but this seems to be splitting hairs in my opinion. But I don't want to get caught up here so let's just say an all powerful God can do all things that are by definition not impossible.
This leads to the obvious question: Can all evil be eliminated? That depends heavily on the definition of evil. We're headed down a theology debate quickly here, but in short: Would it be considered Evil to create beings and given them no free will? Would it be considered Evil to not create beings at all? Those are deep questions that are hard to argue in RUclips comments and those are the real questions here.
We don't blame heat for the cold. Rather cold is the absence of heat. Cold is the standard that we can observe and heat is the exception. Just like evil is the standard that we know and God is the exception. Also we don't blame light for the darkness. Rather darkness is the absence of light.
I understand the point trying to be made, but it's out of context. Somewhat of a subtle straw man argument, with slight mocking undertones. Doomed from the beginning. Her mind is already made up before even presenting the argument. This isn't to create critical thought or inspire the viewers, rather it seems to passively poke fun at those that don't share her perception of the issue through fallacies and dumbing down the true depths of the issues.
Evidence is there for those willing to see it. For example; I can observe that it takes life to create life, there is life, so if I go back far enough (because the universe isn't eternal) there must be a source of that life. And I can speculate that perhaps it is beyond our universe. Also life cannot come from non life (to say otherwise is to state a personal belief). Now life here is not eternal, in the sense that all life suffers a physical death. So I can reasonably assume that this life source must be beyond our own and perhaps even eternal. Not fading or dying as we do, hence the word 'source.'
There's also the precambrian explosion. An abundance of interdependent life appearing suddenly and with no obvious origin. Or perhaps an origin beyond our own (hence this source being beyond us).
DNA is an extremely advanced code that writes the specifications and holds the information of all life that we know. This extremely advanced code is a huge sign of intelligence. I wouldn't stumble upon some super advanced computer code and think "This just came from random sequences", but rather "This must be a creation with intelligence behind it". I also wouldn't conclude that a Mona Lisa painting hanging on a tree in the middle of the forest slowly appeared there in the forest just because it was given enough time to do so. Rather its very presence would indicate intelligence. So I feel that the evidence is there.
The last 3 paragraphs didn't even contain the word God, they just present interesting evidence (with some speculation) hoping to provide critical thought on the issue. :)
Doomed from the beginning?
You don´t seem to acknowledge even that things like morality, thus good and evil are human constructs, there is no norm of good or evil in the universe.
Also the evidence you presented is not evidence at all, good sir (or mam respectively) , as you wrote down the word "specualte" you should have noticed that aswell :)
+Gewürzgurke I know I added speculation. I referenced it in my final paragraph. And it is true we lack a universal agreement on what is true, what is good, what is false, and what is evil. However any absolute truth doesn't require our unanimous agreement. Things either are or are not. There is no gray area and good/evil either are or are not. There is no variation or matter of perception. If they exist they must be absolute by their very nature
+Gewürzgurke I know I added speculation. I referenced it in my final paragraph. And it is true we lack a universal agreement on what is true, what is good, what is false, and what is evil. However any absolute truth doesn't require our unanimous agreement. Things either are or are not. There is no gray area and good/evil either are or are not. There is no variation or matter of perception. If they exist they must be absolute by their very nature
Your argument is really weak. First, somehow you assume that life cannot come from non living stuff. It hasn't been proved to be true or false. Second, you tell about a source of life that must be eternal, which is a pretty poetic thought, but makes no sense (for example, diamond comes from worthless coal, not from something more valuable). Third, you talk about how complex is DNA and how it must prove that there's intelligence behind this, but it's just a self replicating artifact, and if you apply the concept of natural selection, there's no need to invoke some spooky explanation for it. So all i can say is that your argument is based on your desire to believe and not on rational arguments.
Jonathan Gamez I can observe that it takes life to make life and that life has never come from non life. If you're saying life may be able to come from non life then that is a leap of faith, because nothing shows us that. Could be true but I can observe the opposite.
I also never said that source "must" be eternal. I said 'reasonably assume' and only under the context that since life here dies a physical death, and if there is a source then I can "reasonably assume" it doesn't suffer a physical death. It may not even be physical at all. Hence my speculation "beyond our universe". Also I addressed my speculations in the final paragraph of my first post.
Jon, who says coal isn't valuable? The market, people? Saying something has value or not says more about the person placing value then the item they're referring. I feel coal has tremendous value. Maybe not monetarily, but value nonetheless.
And finally, I wasn't invoking anything 'spooky' about DNA. I simply stated the fact that it was a very advance code. More advanced than anything we've ever invented (and we've invented a lot). If I found a super advanced code I would, and probably could, safely surmise that it came from something intelligent. That's just me. Maybe some people feel otherwise. I feel that to believe otherwise is asinine, but again that's just me.
This life meant to be a test , so it could be difficult sometimes. But I don’t understand how atheists use the problem of evil to disprove god’s existence.
religion divides people, creates discrimination, terror and large amount of wars.. I could add a lot more but i think this alone classifies Religion as source of evil
@@elvijsbarzdins7993MONEY divides people, creates discrimination, terror and large amounts of war.
PEOPLE divides people, creates discrimination, terror and large amounts of war.
SEX divides people, creates discrimination, terror and large amounts of war.
POWER divides people, creates discrimination, terror and large amounts of war.
POLITICS divides people, creates discrimination, terror and large amounts of war.
GUNS divides people, creates discrimination, terror and large amounts of war.
IDEAS divides people, creates discrimination, terror and large amounts of war.
RUMORS divides people, creates discrimination, terror and large amounts of war.
GEOGRAPHY divides people, creates discrimination, terror and large amounts of war.
HISTORY divides people, creates discrimination, terror and large amounts of war.
TRUTH divides people, creates discrimination, terror and large amounts of war.
LIES divides people, creates discrimination, terror and large amounts of war.
ETC ETC ETC.
@@Noblility more then half of that u said aint true.. Religion is way bigger problem then all that shit.. plus there is no fucking god.. damn we live in 21st century, science keeps proving All religions are pure Fairy tails.. time to wake up..
Evil doesn't exist and neither does an anthropomorphic god. However there is a force driving existence on multiple planes. We can't fathom that force so we use myth to fill in the gaps. There's no objective thing called evil- it's just a human concept.
I think like you but neither of us can prove it. I do see a lot of correlation in some subjects.
I'm pretty sure the boko haram victims would disagree there's no evil.
what he's getting at is that 'evil' is a value judgement. it's a fancy way of saying 'i really don't like this'. what is considered evil is socially constructed, and has no objective truth - there is no universal standard that can be found in the wild and pointed at to resolve disagreements because it's all subjective opinion.
saying there is no such thing as objective good or evil doesn’t mean terrible things don't happen or that some people aren't terrible, it means that everyone is the hero of their own story.
There's a whole line of thought that religion exists in part because it codifies the values of society, and provides a pseudo-objective basis in the teachings of that religion
+Daemonworks only to an atheist. It's both refreshingly honest and scary as he'll you can recognize that.
+Mr. Boarbaby the victims of boko haram are still giving their subjective view. I'm sure their oppressors don't view what they are doing as evil. then again what is "evil?" is a shark batting and tossing around a baby seal before devouring it evil? it's just as vicious on some level? but does it make it evil? why or why not? regardless the answer one gives...it starts to show the subjectivity of "evil."
I don’t think the whole “evil” thing disproves God’s existence, it just raises some serious problems about theists’ view of God’s existence.
For example, most Christians believe that God is omnibenevolent, yet they also believe that God is omnipotent. This means that God is able to prevent evil, but God either doesn’t want to prevent evil or God does want to prevent evil, yet evil exists anyway. Either way, God appears to be quite amoral since it has the ability to prevent evil, yet it chooses not to. That’s why I hate it when people say that God is good. If their understanding of God’s power is in accordance with mine, how could this possibly be true?
Great exposition! Thank you, Professor.
5:40 you're sawing the wrong branch here. Ditch the "all good" and you can have a god much easier. Good for who? Good most likely is not an absolute thing that you can have or not have but a behavior relative to goals within a situation or framework.
All in all, there's compelling evidence that you philosophers are unable to contact or prove the existence of god(s). Now on the other hand, talk to a shaman...
omnipresent as well (just make it even easier to debunk)
Hi herald4god,
Thanks for commenting! We have a video on the relationship between God and Morality:
wi-phi.com/video/god-and-morality-part-1.
Hope you enjoy!
No Plantinga? Either you are ignorant or trying to mislead.
Great Video ! I love that Epicurus Argument, it's satirically genius...
First, God is not OOO because he is not Omnipotent. God can't do everything, for example one of the things God can't do is sin. Can God sin? No. God is not Omnipotent. Therefore, once we identify the flaw with premise 1 we must accept that the contradiction found in the Problem of Evil does not necessarily follow. For this reason the logician can accept the existence of God and the existence of evil with no contradictions. THE LOGICIAN CAN ACCEPT THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
The person of faith can accept the existence of God and the existence of evil for a different reason, namely premise 2 "An all good being would try to prevent all evil". God does not try to prevent evil. Why? Imagine, every time someone was about to do evil or even if they were merely about to think of considering an evil act God would swoop in and force them to do and think good. This means that no humans would be able to ever consider evil. We would always be forced into doing perfect good all the time. The problem with this is that we would no longer have any FREE WILL. No free will means that we would be mindless robots. Our actions would be predetermined like a basic math problem typed into a computer. Type in 1+1 into your calculator and even before you hit "enter" the result has been predetermined to equal 2, there is NO CHOICE for the answer to be anything else. Robots with no choice but set functions are not humans and thus not alive. If God by force ensured that no evil would exist he would be left with a life-less universe.
Let's remember that sin and evil are not God's gift to us. Sin is our gift to ourselves. Humans allowed sin to enter the world when we committed the first sin. Before the first sin, sin didn't exist. Humans wanted to create sin so we did. HUMANS CREATED SIN. This is why we have evil in the world, because we want sin to exist. God gives us free will and everyday we choose evil. Don't blame God for the evil in the world, start by blaming yourself and giving genuine concern for your fellow man, regardless of their race, age, gender, sexual orientation or beliefs, strangers they may be.
Mr152008 shut up please
I agree with all the points you make. Well said
Mr152008
How do you know god can't sin?
If god can't sin, (and is therefore not omnipotent) how do you know he is capable of any of the other things he is supposed to be able to do? isn't that like saying: "My God is all powerful! Except for the things He can't do."
Free will doesn't necessarily rely upon evil existing. I'm giving you a football, would you like a red one or a blue one? even if evil doesn't exist you're still able to choose. Personalities can differ in many ways even if you remove the negative components.
Where does having a mind imply you have to have choice? Moral agency is not a requirement for having a mind. In addition to this since our concept of "having a mind" is based on our subjective experiences as humans, if we found out free will didn't exist, why would there be an issue? It would just mean we were mistaken when we identified being human with having free will.
"Robots with no choice but set functions are not humans and thus not alive"
Why does not being a human entail you aren't alive? Dogs/cats/animals are also not human and alive are they not?
Plants have set functions and have no "brains" or central processing units. Are plants not alive?
In the last paragraph you're arguing from the assumption that god exists. this is an issue because the conclusion of the problem of evil argument implies He doesn't.
So, any argument you make after assuming the existence of God will of course ensure you find a contradiction.
Where did sin come from?
If Sin came from another world, how did we invite it in and does our method of doing so only work for the concept of sin?
If we created Sin by wishing it into existence, aren't we all supernatural beings like God? Can i learn to master this ability and invite unlimited wealth or immortality onto earth for myself?
Who is this we? I don't want Sin to exist. Who are you speaking for when you say "we humans"? do you presume to know my mind better than I do?
If God created humans, our souls, our minds and our genetic makeup, and god is Omniscient, surely he would've had foreknowledge that our minds would be prone to sinning? Surely as our creator he is ultimately responsible for his creations. If I have children, why am i responsible for their actions, when god isn't responsible for ours?
Just a few questions for you.
Mr152008 Your point is easily argued away by the fact that evil exists in the first place. God could simply have created a universe in which evil does not exist. In that case, no one would ever do or think of evil because it's not possible. Free will would not be damaged. If you accept that god created us and our universe, then you accept that he therefore created evil. He could have chosen not to. Everyone would be good, and free will would not be impeded. Problem solved.
I can already see your counter. But if you take away the ability for someone to make that choice, then you are stopping their free will!
No. If I make it possible to chose, but then restrict your freedom of choice, then that's restricting free will. If the choice simply was never possible, free will is not destroyed. For example, I would LOVE to have psychic powers. However, god created the universe without psychic powers. I don't have the ability to use psychic powers, therefore god is already restricting my free will. Of course not. I just simply don't have those powers. It's the exact same thing.
Assuming that an benevolent God prevents all violence is like assuming that a good mother should do her children's homework.
Stefan Faridani Because both violence and homework are good for you? You can't be serious.
DrSeanKennedy well u can't know otherwise .. that is out of ur understanding capacity .. now can u ? .. however in Islam we dont say that The Creator is ..All Loving but rather that He's *The Loving* .. and we r only little pieces of reflections of His love ..
Not the same at all, it's more like assuming a good mother would stop her children from getting killed. Your purposefully making an innacurate analogy.
You did not even attempt to justify your position.
He didn't, but if you would just think for a second you could assume the poster intended to mean that violence can teach us things. Example: The atrocities of both world wars made the west wholly uninterested in war in the west, now of course this example is much more complicated than that because the technological advances made during those wars led to nuclear weapons that could end the world at any initiation of war, but even so our stance on war today is WHOLLY different from what it was before the world wars: now we see it as wholly BAD things, before we used to see them as something glorious filled with honor. Of course again: more complicated - there are still westerners who believe war can be good, but the popular consensus has clearly shifted.
I think seeing evil in the eye makes us compelled to be combat it.
I am not trying to justify either side here, but there are two additional assumptions being made here, assumption 1: that morality is not subjective, and that what we believe to be good and evil is actually good and evil; assumption 2: that this OOO being subscribes to our definition of good and evil.
The answer to the "problem of evil" is known once one understands: a) what 'God" is, b) what YOU are, and c) the reason why you are experiencing this world of LIMITATION. And the answer to all of these questions is revealed (in a most compelling fashion, I must say) in my book "The Holy Grail is Found." Yes, the answers are available to those who TRULY desire and seek Truth. But, unfortunately, they are a tiny minority, as most people seek to LIMIT Truth to their desires....which, as it turns, was our Original Error; the error that landed us in this realm of limitation in the first place!
... Think of this situation, the man had the best of intents, but the bear thought the man was trying to hurt it. The man couldn't explain to the bear what he was trying to do because of the gape in intelligence. However, when all was said and done, the bear could come to the realization in its lesser intelligence that it was being helped and shown mercy not hurt by the intelligent man. God does things we don't always understand, but we look back later and find He was doing good all along.
At 7:18 the narrator brings up the assumption that evil exists and gives room to objections to this argument.
Any assumption of good/evil in our world automatically carries with it a standard. The question then becomes
what is the ultimate standard in determining good from evil? Is that standard dependent on human being's
construction of it? If so, then it is a subjective standard therefore based on preference. Of course there
are people like Sam Harris, who thinks that standard can be developed through scientific research on
on the wellbeing of conscious creatures. He proposes that our primary metrics to determine what is
moral is through identifying what is beneficial for conscious creatures (ultimate good), and what
produces suffering (ultimate evil).
However he is then left with the assumption of value of conscious creatures as something to be desired
without any other rational argument other than for us to propagate our DNA as our species continues
to try and survive and evolve. Which ultimately is not linked to morality. Especially considering that
Harris has conceded that what is beneficial for the rapist/murderer is no different for the "saint"
since they aren't people but merely highly evolved apes that seek what is pleasurable. He says
this in his book The Moral Landscape.
What the argument for the problem of evil doesn't address is whether or not what we believe to be evil
is warranted or not. It doesn't address the human race's culpability in evil. The argument holding this
god as "omnibenevolent" misses something in that it would be unjust for this god to not hold human
beings responsible for the evil they commit. And there is most assuredly a different in knowing
if/when something will happen omnisciently vs being the actual direct cause of it.
A short sighted argument that when taken to its logical limits actually proves God exists.
to me arguing that good and evil exist, whilst saying God does not. makes no sense.
when you try to prove the existence of evil, you end up proving the existence of God. For evil and good to exist, it requires a God figure.
Let's define evil first in a manner everyone accepts.
For evil to exist, to be true for everyone, people intuitively demand that it be absolute.
example murdering babies for fun is absolutely evil. always was, always is, always will be. at no point is this an opinion, or subjective. It is absolutely always true.
So for evil to exist, 3 things need to exist.
There has to be a source that determines whether something is evil or good. that source needs to be eternal, all powerful, and all knowing.
if it isn't eternal, it means what we deem evil today maybe good tomorrow. and people will not accept that definition of evil.
If it isn't all powerful, that means the source of all good and evil can be changed, so what is evil now, may forcefully be changed to good by someone.
and lastly it needs to be all knowing. Otherwise how can it decide whether something is evil or not, if information can change the judgement.
this is why i say epicurus problem of evil actually proves the existence of God when taken to its limits.
and why the atheists position that evil proves the non-existence of god actually makes no sense.
to me if anyone believes in absolute morality such as slavery is wrong, rape is wrong, killing babies is wrong, genocide is wrong etc.
then they absolutely must believe in God.
It doesn't have to be a Christian god, or hindu god, it doesn't matter what God. It just means they have to believe in a source for their good and evil, which is basically another word for God.
whilst anyone who holds the belief that God does not exist, must hold the belief that good and evil do not either. That rape is ok, slavery is ok, genocide is ok. Nihilism is truth of reality.
as otherwise they are not logically consistent with their own beliefs.
You have completely misunderstood the argument. It's not under the view of a morally-subjective godless universe that the widespread existence of human suffering creates contradictions. Under that view we would not expect the intervention of a God to prevent or ameliorate suffering, and so the persistence of suffering meets our expectations.
It is under the Christian claims of absolute morality that the complete absence of an all-powerful deity following the standards of which it is the source creates contradictions and demands explanation.
Skeptics are not arguing that absolute good and evil exist while God does not. They are arguing that if there were such things, and there were a God with both the power and the desire to see those absolute standards upheld in a certain way, we should see evidence of that God taking action to uphold them. Since we do not, either the standards or the God must be discarded, and if the absolute standards go, then so does the God anyway, at least that particular one.
Your definition of atheism is incorrect.
Atheism is not the belief that that no God exists, it's the rejection of unsupported claims that any God does exist.
There's a difference, and it's important.
This is far from a completely objective view and simply takes one interpretation of what it is to be ultimately good. That's where its argument completely falls apart. According to the faiths its argument is against, it is "God's" job to let men have free will. That's what Lucifer's fall was about and all of that...so objectively it isn't the task of "God" to eliminate the ability for evil to exist...but weirdly to preserve the ability. Under this notion, it would be Gods faith in us to be good.
So while I probably side more with her belief set as a person, the argument presented was irrational and inapplicable to the mentality of the specific faiths she was talking about.
Genesis 6:6 "And the LORD was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart."
@@Ladraz That's kind of neither here nor there about my point that stopping evil comes at the price of any freedom...but I'll do my best to address your point.
All knowing could simply be limited precognition. Seeing every possible path simultaneously would be by definition, "all knowing," and still leaves room for surprises and disappointments.
Like I said, my belief set is COMPLETELY different than the belief set being discribed...but the argument presented is easily dismantled.
Why there isn’t a problem of good 🧐.
This argument is soooooo bad. Especially that 2nd premise is not true
The key reason why this logic alone is not sufficient to prove God does not exist is because there are certain assumptions that are unstated/glossed over. One assumption, that is stated, but glossed over, is that an (all) good thing always eliminates evil as far as it can. The second assumption lies in our definition of omnipotent. It is true that God is ominpotent, but that doesn't mean there are things he can't do. What it means, is that there is nothing within the set of all things that can be done that God cannot do. For example, God cannot make 1 + 1 = 3. That doesn't make God less than omnipotent, it simply means that making 1 + 1 = 3 is simply not within the set of things that can be done. Going back to the first point, the fact is that God has a plan to eliminate all evil. SO why has he not done it yet?
If you read the account of Adam and Eve more carefully, you'll see that when Satan convinced mankind to sin, not only was he inciting rebellion against God, but he was also calling into question God's sovereignty, or right to rule. The saying goes, "might does not make right," and God probably agrees with that. He had the power to eliminate Satan, Adam, and Eve, and start all over again, but that wouldn't actually have solved anything. Any one of the other angels might easily have questioned God's motives in doing so, and ask, if Satan is wrong, then what does God have to hide? So God has allowed creation to rule itself for the past 6,000 years to show us that Satan was indeed wrong, and that human governments are simply incapable of wiping out even things that are theoretically controllable, such as crime and poverty, not to mention sickness, natural disasters and death. Once God's sovereignty has been sufficiently vindicated, God will wipe out all evil. Now, 6,000 years might seem excessive to us to allow evil to go on for so long, but compare that to all of eternity and how much evil would go on in forever if the question wasn't answered with finality once and for all the moment it was brought up, this means that it is necessary for God to allow the demons and humanity to try out every type of human government imaginable, from imperialism and dictatorship, to democracy and socialism, and everything in between.
If you want to learn more about God, you can do so here: www.jehovahsword.org/biblical-doctrine/
I'm an atheist, but this entire train of thought hinges on the belief that "good" is something that we understand (at least in the Christian theology)
Christianity makes it perfectly clear that we cannot understands God's way, and we can't judge God to be good or evil, because we're just not on his "level".
If that statement is true it doesn't really matter what you throw in God's face. Child rape? Starvation? Torture? You name it. You can't say that him causing those things is evil because we don't have the capability.
Clearly I think that's bullshit, if God is all powerful then he could obviously create a universe in which whatever "use" child rape has (I just mean use in the way Christians refer to "God's plan") wouldn't be necessary.
***** So what evil choice does that starving African child or cancer baby make? Where does "free will" fit in there?
...And by the way, if "God" is omniscient (all knowing), then you don't really have "free will". That is, if "God" created you with the knowledge that you would live, be evil, then die, you really didn't have a choice.
DrSeanKennedy Omniscient in the sense that God has prepared a path for you to use and its your choice to follow it or not.
better yet, Think of it as God is aware of every possible outcome that can occur. This means that anything and everything that could every occur has already been determined. Now, think of these futures as roads. There are signs on the fork of each road, that point you into the right direction (the one which god wants for you). It is your decision to adhere to theses signs and/or warnings. There are an infinite number of roads and an infinite number of forks as well as an infinite number of junctions in which roads other people follow merge or diverge. some roads end prematurely others don't, but there has always been 1 perfect path, without hiccups or obstructions. This is the path god has intended for us. Since there exists an infinite number of forks and roads, it is only feasible that some of these paths merge with the one go has intended for us and it also holds true that many of these paths will never interact with the "perfect path"
I could go into more detail, but it has to do with bible stuff that i doubt you will be interested in.
Why can't it be both Monday and not Monday? "Monday" is an arbitrary construct. You can say it is both Monday because English-speaking people call the day Monday, and not Monday because non-English speakers don't consider this point in time to be "Monday". Or, being that calling a particular point in time "Monday" is arbitrary, you could come up with other reasons why it currently both is and is not Monday, being as "Monday" isn't a property of the timeline to begin with. Whereas photosynthesis exists whether you have a name for it or not, Monday does not. Monday only exists because we decide it does.
An atheist does not necessarily believe that a god does not exists.
BUT all atheist do not believe that a god exist.
Atheism is a response to theism.
A theist says "I believe a god exists".
An atheist does not share this belief, either by not having the same belief("I don't believe a god exists") or believing the opposite ("I believe no god exists").
BUT lack of a belief in god doesn't necessarily imply a positive belief in the absence of god.
Negative atheism has no burden of proof. Positive atheism has.
Big difference.
hi, an atheist's pov of criticism to this argument: it could also be that the human idea of evil is different from the universal idea of evil, afterall humans are not the centre of the world and all complaints about evil come from humans or about humans. so then perhap's an ooo god's pov would be that what humans consider evil is not evil but only an inconvenience to human society, which honestly, think about it, you are looking over say a tub of sand and there seems to be minor disturbance in only one grain of sand and only in one of it's electrons is having a negligible problem. does it matter what happens there so long as the tub of sand is fine?
8:55 First you would have to assume we live in paradise where no harm or evil can touch us because God will personally interfere which would then make faith meaningless because it won't longer be faith I'd be fact and free will wouldn't exist 🙄 next humans have been around for only a fraction of a second compared to the span on the universe so how quickly do you want God to work ?