Omg... you are a fool. The problem of evil. Karl Jung solved it nearly a centuary ago. You lie to yourself then you lue to others. You do and create evil then point a finger at God and demand He cleans it up. Thats like a grown child who sh*ts on himself and expects his daddy to clean and wipe him. When you have been potty trained dozens of times. This is pseudo-intellectual crap.
He straight up didn’t though. I swear you didn’t watch the video. If you did, you would have noticed that I have responded to this argument in it. You being too dense to understand a video doesn’t make it pseudo-intellectual, it makes you a dunce.
@@ethanbenson Your conclusion is egregiously false. So yes. I did not watch the video to see your faulty reasoning. Who the HELL are you to pass judgment on God almighty? Who the hell are you? What humans do is that they create a STRAW MAN GOD and pick Him apart and pat their heads on the back and nod with pride and conceit. You are wasting your time making this crap. You are judging someone and something far beyond your PUNY HUMAN INTELLECTUAL COMPREHENSION. Even the comment below this one from @ericzuniga69 that you LOVED. That is stupid reasoning which betrays your foolishness. It's not true.
It says in the book of Isaiah that God created evil. That God created darkness. Evil was here before Adam and Eve in the garden . There was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Take a long walk off a short pier fool.
How distinguishing between the pre-Babylonian captivity definitions of El (God) and Elohim (sons/beings of El) versus the post-captivity syncretized definitions could resolve contradictions and cast the Yahweh figure of Genesis 2-3 in a very different light from the transcendent Elohim portrayed in Genesis 1. Pre-Captivity Definitions: In this framework, the supreme creator deity is simply referred to as El - the Most High God. The Elohim are understood as a pantheon or "sons of El" - lesser divine beings subordinate to El. This aligns with ancient Canaanite and older Israelite religious conceptions. Under these definitions, the Genesis 1 account would refer to the transcendent El as the prime creator, with the Elohim (plural) potentially being celestial forces/angels enacting aspects of the creation. The Ruach Elohim (Spirit/Breath of the divine beings) hovering over the primordial waters connects to surviving traces of this polytheistic worldview. Crucially, this allows one to separate the Elohim of Genesis 1 from the distinct Yahweh Elohim first appearing in Genesis 2 to form man from the dust. Based on references like Deuteronomy 32:8-9, the pre-captivity perspective viewed Yahweh as one of the sons of El (an Elohim) rather than conflating him with El itself. This de-syncretization casts Yahweh as a separate, lesser, more anthropomorphic deity associated with the ancient Israelites - perhaps retained from their Canaanite heritage. His behavior and commandments in Genesis 2-3 and elsewhere in the Torah would then represent the teachings of this tribal desert deity, not the supreme metaphysical creator El. The Garden Scenario Reframed From this vantage point, the events of Genesis 2-3 can be interpreted not as ordained by the most high El creator, but rather as humanity's initial tragic entrapment by the lesser devolved being Yahweh within his constructed realm of mortality, suffering, and cosmic privation. Yahweh's wrathful conduct, his placing of humans under a yoke of commandments, his expulsion from Eden's paradisiacal environment, and the subsequent violent legacy of his covenants and laws all derive from the subjugating delusions and stunted, anthropocentric conception of this finite Elohim - not the infinite plenitude of the supreme El. Contradictions Resolved Separating El from Yahweh along the pre-captivity definitional lines could resolve contradictions in several important ways: 1) It distinguishes the transcendent, metaphysically profound cosmic creator portrayed in Genesis 1 from the all-too-human tribal deity of the remaining Torah material. 2) It allows for a reframing of the Torah's teachings around blood sacrifice, ethnic conflicts, law codes, etc. as the cultural mythological traditions of ancient Israelite history rather than attributed to the most high El itself. 3) It creates space for the Christ figure of the New Testament to represent a re-emergence of the supreme El's sovereignty and universal spiritual path - overriding the outdated covenants, ethnic segregations, and violent subjugations prescribed by the lesser Yahweh consciousness. 4) Humanity's existential struggling, our proclivity towards violence/evil, and our fundamental state of cosmic imprisonment can be metaphysically associated with the fallout of our ancient reunion from Yahweh's corrupted influence rather than the designs of the supreme El consciousness. 5) Competing depictions of the divine across different books (wrathful/peaceful, loving/cruel, spiritual/legalistic) can be added to different nodes of the El vs. Yahweh consciousness schisms. While still requiring some nuanced interpretation, this delineation allows for a coherent reintegration of Old and New Testament perspectives under a broader metaphysical framework. It preserves the universal spiritual integrity of the highest Creator from the cultural mythological contexts surrounding the more finite tribal deity Yahweh. By embracing the pre-syncretized definitions and recognizing the conflation of El and Yahweh as a later imposition, one can reconnect with deep streams of ancient Hebrew theological diversity. This presents an intellectually robust path for understanding the unified trajectory of the biblical texts as exploring a single universetheological consciousness's reassertion over more contingent, anthropomorphized deviations and exiles.
Keep up the good work, fix up the audio tho, it was kinda muffled but excellent video. Epicurus saw the contradiction 2500 years ago but today's theist can't see it
I’ll look into the audio for the next video, thanks for that feedback. I agree, I really find it tough to comprehend how some of these theists can try to square away this problem yet their solutions end up in one of the categories Epicurus set out or they completely redefine God to something beyond this discussion. It seems most if not all of the responses from theists here fall into one or both of these categories as far as I can tell.
Well done video Ethan! Problem of evil, while being a very old objection to the tri-omni god I find works extremely well to this day. I do think there’s better arguments out there but I find problem of evil a really good beginner argument to debating tri-omni gods and introducing people to philosophy
Absolutely agree. Better objections exist, but I think the strength of the problem of evil is in its simplicity and the fact that anybody can understand it even without knowing a lot about philosophy
@@ethanbenson agreed. Though we have different ways of objecting to free will my way is to grant free will exists for the sake of my argument. the objection is more like this: Let’s imagine two possible worlds: World 1: all of gods actions are in this set: {X, Y, Z}. And the total set of all actions in this world is {X, Y, Z, A, B, C} where C is a bad action. World 2: in this world, the set of all of gods actions is {X, Y, Z} but the set of total actions taken in the entire world is {X, Y, Z, A, B, K} where K is good. So the two worlds are different, but not because of something god did. In both worlds god did the same things. It’s different because some human chose to do action K instead of C This means there is a world that logically exists where humans freely can choose to do the good action instead of the bad/evil action. The evil action logically could still be actualized but a human freely chooses not to. So free will is not a relevant objection to the problem of evil.
There’s a distinction between moral evils and natural evils. Moral evils: Evils done by moral agents. Natural evils: Evils done by naturally occurring events. Things that are not an action done by a moral agent. Moral evils are explained by free will. Natural evils are often explained with the character building theodicy. That is to say, natural evils help or can help to improve people’s character. There’s others for the natural evils, but aside from when people just dismiss the problem of evil as an emotional argument, the character building theodicy is the main one I’ve seen defended so far. At least by Cameron Bertuzzi on Capturing Christianity. I don’t remember if I’ve seen it anywhere else. But anyone serious about the problem of evil usually either gives a skepticism view like in this video or the character building theodicy. Although, usually with the skepticism point it’s in the context of the evidential argument from evil. David Wood made the point of, if we’re to ask someone to see if there’s a rhino in the room, they’d be to quite confidently say no. The thing is just massive. If you were to ask whether there’s a fly in the room, it’s a lot harder to tell because so small. So one way to approach the problem of evil with God’s omniscience is to look at it like that, what is this really more like, trying to find rhino in the room you’re in or like trying to find a fly in the room your in? Assuming they’re stationary. So with the evidential argument from evil, this is to put doubt in the idea that we should think it’s likely that there are gratuitous evil.
From an omniscient God's point of view there is no such distinction between natural and moral evil. And regardless they are permitted, despite it being obvious in the Bible that thoughts are judged all the same as deeds. Why then permit the deeds? If it builds virtue in some way then you have a God who is not omnipotent, because he cannot create someone who has that virtue without having experienced the suffering.
@@PROtoss987 Keep in mind, when talking about things like omniscience and omnipotence are about what's possible, not any idea that comes to mind. Keep that in mind. Now to what you said. That's missing the point. The point is, we have free will, but nothing is going to be perfect. Perfection is about how we perceive something. We can't be as good as God because God is God. God can't make God because God would be creating himself, but himself is his own entity. He can create another being with the exact same abilities and everything and they still won't be God, or at least not the same individual. As less powerful beings, we must accept that we and everything else aren't perfect. That is why our free will is important. Our ideas about what is perfect may be different than one another. If we only have one type of person, then there is effectively one person. There is no reason to create anything if all there is is one person, especially as an omnipotent being. We have to learn because it is impossible to be perfect as another thing with free will. It is our pride that gets in the way of choosing what is good. Yet, you can't really create someone without the capacity for pride since there is value in what we are able to do. Badness, in a way, is taking what is or can be good and taking it too far. Reframing it in favor of what's ultimately destructive or selfish. Bad thoughts are judged because thoughts drive action. Thoughts show what is possible, and to eliminate that possibility, you must acknowledge it as bad and, ideally, never think it again otherwise it may one day become a reality. Another thing to keep in mind is that eternity is much longer than our time alive on Earth. What may feel like ages, might feel like a quick pinch compared to eternity. And when it comes to the afterlife, the truth is we know very little about Hell. We also don't seem to know much about Heaven either. We just know that Heaven is more preferable than Hell. Everything else is up to the imagination.
@@encounteringjack5699 >Nothing is going to be perfect Why not? Christians have this in their eschatology, which is a future without sin and death. If God is perfect why can't his creation be? The inability to speak things into existence is not a flaw or imperfection. Future saints are described as without blemish, and like God. But they aren't like this now because Plan of Salvation something something mystery. Not even deterministic materialists think there is only one kind of person. But that there are many people on their own determined course. Which is the same as that implied by an omniscient God, because if we were free to do something other than that which he has foreknown, then he wouldn't be omniscient. Bad thoughts could be judged without any evil having been brought about It does not matter that finite time is zero when compared to eternity. Well it does with regards to eternal torment in flame being the work of a petty and vindictive god, but not with regards to the absence of evil being better than it's presence, no matter how brief. If you're talking about Christianity, heaven was seldom described but we know a lot about that hell. It was designed for the angels, will be visible from heaven from whom it's inhabitants will be abhorred, it will be a place of eternal fire, those in it will starve and mourn. The NT descriptions are clear whether or not you think it depicts the God responsible as sadistic.
Great video, buddy! As an atheist, I personally don’t find this argument very compelling because I have never seen a theist be convinced by it. They usually bring up free will. Although, of course, free will is a problem itself. New subscriber. :)
@@AtypicalSkeptic cheers! Yes, I don’t think it’s a fantastic argument either, just an iconic one worth exploring. I’m probably going to do another video on why I think it doesn’t work as I’m writing an essay on it at the moment
A being, claimed to be omnibenevolent can not, by definition, create a system of eternal suffering. 1. This concept of Hell is wrong/does not exist. 2. This God is NOT omnibenevolent. 3. This God does not exist.
According to the creation story in Genesis, it’s possible for all animals, including people, to exist by eating plants, only. If, by eating a single fruit they couldn’t have known it was wrong to eat, they doomed themselves to lives of suffering and death, someone explain the suffering other animals must undergo every day simply to allow the continued existence of predators. What was the impetus for taking away their ability to live solely on plants? Capricious malevolence is the best I can summon. See Steve Woodford’s recent video on the subject. If it’s necessary, what caused it to become necessary when it wasn’t?
good is one shade, in adding another shade to this realm, you make an infinite number of possibilities now possible and each has its own beauty and good to it.
Hi Ethan. I generally agree with your points but I do question the idea that things like earthquakes and famines are "evil." Evil exists in the context of moral choice; the earth doesn't have the capacity to make these choices. We tend to think of these calamities as evil only because of the detrimental impact they have on human lives and property. Were they to occur in an unpopulated place where no human harm can come, I doubt if they would still be considered "evil" in any rational sense of the word. Only sentient beings are capable of being evil.
If we claim there is a God who is omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient, then allowing these things to happen becomes a moral action and therefore can be thought of as evil precisely because then that God is either purposely allowing these things to happen and causing suffering, or is not acting to prevent suffering from occurring.
@@ethanbenson I'm not sure how that would work from a theistic perspective. What we call natural disasters are simply natural Earth processes, many of which are actually necessary to maintain Earth's capacity to sustain life. Is God supposed to suspend these processes to prevent anything bad from happening? Does he warn of an impending disaster so people have time to evacuate the area? Clearly both responses are practically unworkable from a sustainability perspective. Obviously the only alternative is to create a completely static planet that lacks earthquakes, tornadoes, volcanoes, floods, bad weather, high winds, etc. Otherwise, I don't see what choice a personal God has, even if allegedly omnipotent. (BTW: I'm a pantheist and don't believe in a personal God, so this is all a moot point to me anyway.)
@@ethanbenson however he brought up those things for there to be trials. If he didn't do that then everything would be too easy or boring, and then everyone or at least alot of people will be uneducated or not grateful after.
so many people who have experiences of being one with god also claim everything is perfect like jesus did, there is bad but its not evil or at least in brings forward the oppurtunity to not be evil. Maybe it was all evil and god created something else other than evil out of love, in this case he wouldnt want to rid the world of what turned him into the all loving and powerfull being that he is.
Evil exists so we can have contrast to good, duh. God can be good because if we are eternal souls, why should we, or God care if evil needs to happen to us to teach us what good is? And is it evil to do so? We are all interconnected eternal souls that reincarnate for eternity. That's why you can explain away the "problem" of evil, which is really more of a mechanism, that exists within this unity to demonstrate to us the interconnectedness of infinity. Using terms such as good or evil is not the point. The point is that when you realize this unity it will become obvious that to hurt another is to hurt oneself, and vice versa.
This is simply a matter of misusing a metaphysical scalpel, first started by the Greeks around the time of Socrates/Plato/Aristotle (perhaps earlier). It was later employed by writers of different books of the Bible, fully fledged in the New Testament - thus propagating the problem towards the Christian world. The metaphysical scalpel I'm talking about is this very Greek penchant of splitting everything in categories, subject/object, good/bad(evil?), useful/useless etc. (Anyone reading Aristotle wades through a bog of categories.) Now, rather than adopting the minimalistic and elegant approach of the Eastern world of intertwined good and evil (think ying/yang), the Western world, with a typical left hemisphere effort, heaved all good on a pedestal making it 'God', and then had to do another effort to invent something else to explain the evil left after this excision of good. Predictably, this generated the 'problem of evil'. The Greeks themselves were mostly spared of this problem because their pantheon was already full of gods with a healthy mix of good and bad traits. Purely from my own experience, the oldest books of the Old Testament also contain a god that had no problems embodying both good and evil (Amos, Hosea, first Isaiah etc.) because the authors themselves had no qualms with that. The book of Job, on the other hand, is quite unique in that it presents some sort of a recognition of that evil streak in the Abrahamic god. In my mind, I see it as some sort of turning point, a landmark where the Israelites started to get in touch with the Greek philosophy and decided to 'clean up' their god to higher standard (just my opinion, this). This worldview in which good is segregated from evil causes a distorted image of the universe. It promotes all sorts of crutches to correct a problem which shouldn't have existed in the first place. We (as a society) only want the good without the evil, only the the sweet part and not the bitter, only light and no darkness, we want life without death, not understanding that these come as a package deal. Apologies for the wall of text.
Perhaps this explanation will satisfy. The nature of good and evil is that evil is simply the perversion or absence of good. Good can stand on its own but evil must exist in reference to the good it’s opposing. This can be seen from examples: You can speak the truth without there being a lie, but you cannot lie without there being a truth you are perverting. You can be happily married without there being adultery, but you cannot commit adultery without there being a marriage you are forsaking. I speak in a platonic, abstract sense. From a scientific lens, we would say that cold is not of itself but the absence of heat, silence of sound, darkness of light etc. This becomes very interesting when you consider that Satan’s name means “opposer.” He doesn’t actually stand for anything but just opposes God’s will whatever it is. If this is accepted, then the first realization is that evil didn’t have to exist. This world very well could have been completely good and perfect without any evil and in fact when we are asked about the problems of the world, it is precisely in reference to this perfect world our answer is to. We understand evil exists because we have an idea of a perfect world without evil and it is different from the actual world which it is in reference to. As for why God allows evil (don’t get it twisted, if God exists he must be sovereign and absolutely must allow evil), the place way to understand it is probably through the lens of redemption which most simply means “to buy pack,” or “to purchase again.” In the context of gift cards, you buy an amount of store credit which is useless to you outside of the store and then when you want to redeem the card you buy back the money you essentially gave the store in the form of goods you receive for “free” (no cost you haven’t already used). In the religious context, this word refers to Christ “buying back” the souls of his people with his blood from the Devil who before we profess faith own us. The overarching narrative is that we were once God’s possession as his creatures leading to life but forsook that and became the devil’s possession leading to death, but Christ through his death “bought us” and “paid the price” for us to defeat death and bring us back to life. He redeems us which when we have genuine faith involves us turning from sin and becoming holy and morally upright which is where you get the literary context for the word which describes when a character generally goes from being bad to being good (oversimplification but still). If you ever wondered why that same word is used seemingly in two entirely different ways, that’s why. All this is to say when you apply this to evil itself, you find that God can redeem or “buy back” evil itself. What this looks like is God using evil to bring himself more glory. This does not mean God actively does it or condone it or that evil is good in disguise, but simply that he can use evil for his purposes and bring himself glory by doing so. This is clearest in Genesis when Joseph gets sold into slavery in Egypt by his brothers (which is an evil act) but from that act all of Egypt propers and don’t starve of famine. The ultimate example of this is in the crucifixion of Jesus (the ultimate evil) without which no soul can be saved (the ultimate good). Steering back to pure philosophy, think of how your suffering (an evil) can produce deep closeness with your friends (good) that you wouldn’t have had otherwise if you’re vulnerable with them. This is currently happening to me and though I’m sad, I’m very joyful at how close I’ve become with my best friends in this time. For another example of this, think of Lord of the Rings. After Frodo dismisses Sam’s help after coming all the way to Mordor (a very evil act) Sam still trails him and eventually rescues him and their bond is inarguably strong because of the betrayal and reconnection (a very good act)
@@ethanbenson A Godless worldview might seem simpler with fewer presumptions but I'd be ignoring a couple of key things, mainly that mathematics wouldn't make sense, the world around me wouldn't make sense, science itself wouldn't make sense, the pretty inarguable amount of historical evidence for the New Testament being reliable and trustworthy, and the unbearable weight of my wrongdoings on my conscience and the sense that I will be punished for them if I don't have some sort of payment. If you'd like me to explain any of these in depth I can
@@ethanbenson A Godless worldview might seem simpler with less presumptions but there'd be a few big things I'd be ignoring, mainly that mathematics wouldn't make sense, the world around me wouldn't make sense, science itself wouldn't make sense, the amount of historical evidence for the New Testament, and the unbearable weight of my wrongdoings on my conscience and the sense that I would be punished for them if I didn't have some kind of payment. If you want me to explain any one of these I can.
(sorry, YT won't let me respond directly to your reply) I may think that a godless worldview might be simpler with fewer presuppositions but I'd be ignoring a few big things, mainly that mathematics wouldn't make sense, the world around me wouldn't make sense, science itself wouldn't make sense, the amount of historical evidence for the New Testament, and the unbearable weight of my wrongdoings on my conscience and the sense that I will be punished for them if I don't have some kind of payment. If you want me to explain any one of these, I can
omnipotence that christian(catholic) teach exclude the ability of doing something in a self contradicting way for e.g exist and not exit ..in my opinion from there we can find the key for the explanation of evil..for e.g according to catholic encyclopedia God cannot exhaust his power..for e.g he cannot create the most beautifull world..because it can be infinitely beautifull.IMHO in a cosmos with infinite number of souls there must be some souls feeling pain more than other..however how much suffering is possible?..well let imagine that God want to give each person what he deserves because he is good and dont want to be unfair for anyone..but he dont want any one to experience evil he would lower the standard so that all the soul can be safe..however because they are infinite number of souls he would have always souls below the safe line of salvation...thus hell must exist..and the evil of hell is the foundation of all evil we fear(like death) even if God is omnipotent.so why did God created this evil world?for the sake of the one who will be saved..and why doesnt he just annihilate those below the salvation line? Because they would all have the same fate although some deserve punishment more than others.(for e.g the lowest when is anihilated then the ones above him should have better fate).which is unjust maybe.some questions couldn t be answered easily i am just trying to direct the boat.but I know something for sur that even if humans lived googole number of years..witnout faith they will always be walking in the unknown
lots of questions wont be answered till we die & face are creator if there is one- is one willing to risk going to fire hell satan kingdom damnation down below ? when we might have a choice to heaven everlasting life/light- i would rather be good like i am & not take chances with my soul- I like reading about karma- what do you think of it?
absolutely your moral compass/body soul is yours not gods- I like ignoring fanatical religious god people- like they have some kinda special unique protection-there churches always have big steeples pointing up as if they know & see have been up there to talk to a god
Frankly, I find the thought of eternal life terrifying. Especially if I have to spend the overwhelming majority if it worshipping the monster described in the Bible.
Even assuming that for God the free will of one madman is more important than the lives of millions of innocent people, free will does not explain natural evil.
It is due to evolution, starting with the billions-old microorganisms and their “fight for survival” (resources). All life forms must limit each other in order to be able to exist (for a limited time). It's about "balance," so to speak; if life were not finite there would be no diversity of life forms but in the long term only a single species (be it plant, microorganism or animal) that displaces all others and thus destroys its own livelihood in the long term. Is that “cruel” or “evil”? Of course not, it is the condition of biological life, including humans. Aggression is not per se "evil", but it become destructive in more anonymous, hierarchical societies as a function of social control and power (be it by social elites or parents/family members etc.). Since the first civilisations started in Sumer/Mesopotamia destructive ("evil") aggressions and hybris become part of mankind, that`s what the ancient bible mythology "the great flood" and later on "Babylon" is all about.
Lost me at 1:15. If God took away evil and "just fixed everything" he would be taking away your free will to believe in him or whatever else u choose to believe in.
Right, but if the desire of God is for a specific outcome, why create free will in the first place if the outcome then isn’t desirable? It’s nonsensical.
There is absolutely no logical way out of the epicurean approach. As far as I see it things just are. There is no such thing as true justice, only just-is disguised as justice. All things are arranged by and for God ultimately. This is an amazing thing for some and inconceivably horrible thing others. Simply put, Satan holds the worst job in the universe, nothing else. Yet he will never once be thanked for it or redeemed in any way. The eternal fall man in a universe that only suits God and those He blesses. It is quite difficult to call this God all good, at least regarding the means He uses to make known his glory. In fact the complete opposite
Theistic philosoohy is honestly getting so boring, it's literally just trying to prove the existance of inexistance. I think its a shame that half of philosophy is just debating about whether or not a god exists which inevitably goes nowhere and in my opinion leads to there not being one but I'm biased soo take that for what you will.
It’s merely one aspect of philosophy, and not really the focus of academic philosophy in a broad sense. In fact, I’d guess philosophy of religion is one of the less focused on areas of philosophy within academia. I think it’s just popular as a discussion online because it’s immediately accessible and everyone has a view. The new atheists also probably have a lot to do with it. My main concern with religion is the undermining of the principles of science and the encouragement of superstition, pseudoscience and conservatism. Hence why I feel it’s pertinent to discuss this topic.
Evil is simply the non-existence of goodness in human beings. God gave us conscious will, it's our choice to act spiritually or not. Moralising events of nature as good or evil is inappropriate, nature has no awareness or will.
I disagree with your definition of evil. I believe actions are good or evil based on their characteristics and consequences, not on the absence of good or evil. The opposite of evil is not goodness. Many evil acts seem to require more than just an absence of good. For example, acts of cruelty or malice involve intentions, desires, and actions that aim to cause harm or suffering, not just a passive lack of benevolence. Evil often manifests through active engagement and decision-making that directly opposes what is considered good. If evil were merely the absence of good, it would be primarily characterized by passivity or non-action. However, many evil actions arise from deliberate choices that contravene moral laws, suggesting an active component to evil. Evil as a necessary possibility in the world if conscious will exists. The capability for evil would be a real and integral aspect of human choice and moral freedom, not just a lack of goodness.
@@tessahammond4963 Very thoughtful reply, thank you Tessa. I'll have a go at rebutting your argument. Given actions stem from a human being, goodness is what we perceive in the praiseworthy qualities of a human, what we'd call virtues. When we see kindness in a human, that is good. To attribute a moral judgment on the characteristics and consequences of actions is not connecting to what it is for something to 'exist'.
@@liquidgoldCN Hello. You said that evil is the non-existence of goodness *_in human beings._* However, it's common for people to predicate evil not just of people, but of actions. We frequently say things like "that was an evil thing he did". Is the theory of evil that you proposed compatible with the notion that actions (and not just people) can be evil?
@@chad969 thought provoking response thank you. In response: every action has a cause, to analyse an action in isolation and label it as good or evil seems to me a judgment without recognition of the influence of its origin. As you suggested people commonly do this, but it’s not wise as it leads to an externalisation of responsibility.
God is good. And ive heared very often people say that cause there is evil he is not all powerful but not all goos. Point 1. God did not create evil or sin he created beings with free will will do creat and do what they please and we humans corrupted the good God created. Point 2. If God is all powerful than why do bad things happen? God created us not cause he was lonely but cause he wanted to he wanted to love us so when he created us we rejected him and created a fallen world he tried to get us to stop he gave us more and more opportunities to stop doing what we are doing he gave us so many chances to change on our on cause if God forced hs to change and stop than we are not longer beings with free will which than leads to God coming to human for as Jesus Christ to save the world from OUR evil he took the sins from past, president, and future so that the evil actions are paid for. God loves us and wants us to be free creatures and cause we sin we aee evil so God gave is a chance to change. I really hope people see this cause I am strong follower of the bible and am chossinf to deduct my life to God.
Point 1: God gave us free will so that humans can either choose to be good or bad. God just didn't create good but also created bad for a reason. He did that to show us that there can be bad things and bad itself is important as so good is. If there only is good, in life there will possibly be no trials wich is boring and bad. So that point still doesn't truly debunk the fact that God is good. Because you are ignoring and just saying that God only created good but also created bad and free will too. And for a good reason, because not everything that seems good or bad is always good or bad. Point 2: Bad things happen to us or other people or generally in the world so that life can have trials. In this life there will be trials and difficulty. For example: if you achieve a hard level on a video game, then you will have something called satisfaction after finsihing it. But if difficulty or trials never existed themselves in life. You would infact never feel any good or satisfaction, and start to realize that life without absolutely any difficulties or trials is bad and boring.
The glaring fallacy that both most theists and atheists are unwilling to accept is the fact that both don't understand the rationale of why something is evil. Most definitions rely on the concept of "suffering" or "pain" or unnecessary suffering" as if they can provide an actual explanation. But this fails to give an actual objective and reasonable explanation for it. For example: "Killing babies is bad." Almost everyone would agree with this. But why is it evil?? I'm not saying it isn't, but do you know why?? "Because they suffer", well we could put them to sleep before killing them. Is it okay now? This inablilty to properly rationalize good and evil is the thing that leads society to degenerate as much of it is seen from the lens of "Pain vs Pleasure". One for which we have no evidence for. People haven't even rationalized what is the proportion of Good and Evil that is best. What is more "Good"? Having Lv.1 Good always, or having Lv. 1 Evil and Lv. 3 Good? People often forget that most of the greatest to ever exist that produced the most Good for humanity had to endure the most suffering, and their contributions more than paid for it. Have you ever considered that maybe a little Evil creates greater Good? It's a clear possibility. I, for one, see the issue of God and "evil" quite easy to resolve. For starters, the proper meaning of "evil" has to be discussed. Saving you the long thought process I went through, I can confidently assert that the meaning of "good" and "evil" is subordinate to the concept of *Free Will.* *Good is that which lets us make better use of, and honor, our Free Will and Evil is that which impedes or somehow compromises our Free Will* With this definition, even the most contentious moral problems are easily solved. Case in point: Abortion. Massive controversial issue. If evil depends on your ability to express your free will, we have two scenarios. 1. Someone enforced their free will on a woman, stripping her of their free will. Therefore we should ask you for your Grace if it is not a heavy burden so we dont infringe in the baby's Free Will. If you cannot, it is sad but you are not evil. 2. Woman makes use of her free will to get herself in a situation where they get pregnant. Therefore it is of paramount importance to keep the baby alive and hold the person responsible. If they get an abortion, they are *evil.* Because you infringe on the Free Will of the child while already having made use of your Free Will and not honoring your choices. "But the child suffers without a proper family." So what?? Suffering makes a small minority of people yield, but makes most people stronger. Back to the problem of God and evil: If Free Will is a priority to God, He will let evil happen, even though He can stop it, without being malevolent. This is because it will help the people with strong enough wills to come out the other side stronger and helping them make better use of Will. And because God is All-powerful, He can tie the loose ends and soothe the people left behind in the wake of what we consider evil. And then you can say that "Evil, then, doesn't really exist", but we would just be arguing semantics that have no actual bearing on the reality of the issue. There, I solved the God and Evil problem and abortion in a single RUclips comment, and what did it take? 30 minutes??
Thanks for the response! I think this is a very interesting take, although I think it’s somewhat flawed. I think rather than respond through a comment, this deserves a video response because this is a really interesting argument you’ve made which is a more complete version of the free will argument I briefly presented.
I think your assumption that morality cannot be objectively defined without theistic intervention is a common but fundamentally flawed assertion. Morality is that which is most evidently viable to propagate our species, killing is bad because it decreases economic productivity and growth, as you can see my view is consequentialist in nature. Evil shall be defined as negative outcome sustained by the known, i.e. If Joe kills 2 people knowing killing is bad then he is evil Evil producing good or exceptionalism is possible and evident however your assumption is that evil is a requirement or facilitator which I'd disagree with, every modern data point would tell us the opposite in fact, negative inputs increase the likelihood of negative outputs, it may radicalize the process creating polarised outputs though, i.e. It creates 100 drug addicts but 1 genius. I think your abortion argument is completely moronic as it fails to realize the first causer, if one's free will creates a fetus who's to say that fetus has free will? They are completely reliant of the first willer and thus have no free will of their own. Your point also preludes the assumption that free will exists. I don't think you or I solved the free will problem in 30 minutes if philosophers have been debating about it for longer than my existence.
Your definition is flawed, how can good be that which 'lets us' make 'better' use of Free Will when we: a. have free will as an inherent part of being human, and b. to make 'better use of' is a tautology.
@@liquidgoldCN I did say I had spared y'all from my lengthy thought process. Which, of course, would leave some glaring gaps that would need to be filled by me. Putting this together took years. However, I find that your argument would be better phrased "Isn't this definition flawed", inviting inquiry and thought, rather than to make the false claim that I am wrong. Because I'm not. Anyway, If you are actually interested in rational thought, here's part of that lengthy explanation: I would first inquire to _what Free Will even is._ I know what I meant by it. I don't know what you mean by it and you do not know what I meant by it, since it was not included in my response. Nevermind that if you are on the "naturalist" side of the argument, your reply is inherently moot as everything would be determined by the "laws of physics" First, I don't like using definitions. As they, as their name implies ("de" implying separation and "finition" from "fin/end" implying limits), cuts off relevant context in the shared understanding of its meaning. I'd rather much use the meaning of things. Free Will can be understood as the autonomy to decide the direction within current parameters. It says nothing about its magnitude, circumstances or style. Think about watching TV after a long work day. You wanna grab the remote on the table but you'd rather not stand up. Having a T-Rex Grabber is *good,* because it helps you grab the remote without getting up. Conversely. One could be kidnapped by some ideological extremist and be held at gunpoint. They telling you to renounce your faith in the name of their "One True Lord". You can accept or refuse. Of course, one course of action can be argued to be better than the other, but by all means you can tell them to go to hell and dine on some lead. I would argue that it would be "good" or "better" if no one found themselves in this kind of conundrum in the first place. I'm pretty sure that most everyone would agree that this meaning of Free Will (and its subordinate Good/Evil), if not extensive, is somewhat agreeable to what everyone understands by that term. Now, if we wanna get petty, I would ask you to define Free Will and show me some evidence that it exists, that it only or inhierently applies to humans and not to other beings, and why. Because that would be the foundation to your argument that mine is a "Tautology" Now, if by that you meant that I used the words "good" and "better". Well, whoop-de-doo, pardon me for trying to explain it in words that can be easily understood. "Wider", "more precise", "bigger", "greater", "more accurate" expressions of our Free Will. Take your pick. We all know what we meant, because I used a word that everyone understands its meaning of. And we know for a fact we do (before you try to "corner" me saying I did the same with Free Will a few paragraphs ago), because otherwise we wouldn't be having the "God cannot coexist with Evil" discussion in the first place. Anyways. Some people seem to have too much fun tearing things down without contributing anything. Lets hear your theory, then! If you have even thought that far.
Evil and good, black and white, positive and negative, such concepts only occur in the illusion of duality nevertheless occurring as suffering here on earth. God which is another word for Consciousness is omnipresent combining both evil and good. Evil is necessary in the evolution of Love. So one could say that God is evil sometimes. Great to hear your discussion which is healthy in order to transcend such concepts of evil.
Definitely an interesting idea! I know this is a view which was a lot more common in ancient times (think Roman and Greek Gods being both evil and good) but has lost a lot of steam now.
I disagree that God is another word for consciousness; nature is governed by god and outside of consciousness. Therefore God is more than consciousness.
I can't see this as a valuable topic aside you being a monotheist yourself. And obviously antitheists can use it as a nuklear weapon in any debate. If you an atheist, agnostic or belong to any religion with non-omni god, it's meaningless, coz from your perspective it's a bunch of people who insist there are specific god, stumble on a problem with this claim, and strugle to break through it for hundreads of years. Your intervention is needless, their struggle is nothing to be bothered...uleas you want to confront them, and use this obsticle to your advantage, in this confrontation.
@@ethanbenson me too. I just reread my comment and it's looks like "ah, why even bother to make this video" it's not what I meant :D It's a good video, thank you :)
@ethanbenson Okay, I'll give it a shot. This is the first video of yours I've seen. I disagree vehemently, but I love channels like yours. I'm a big fan of Alex O'Connor as well. It's good to hear arguments against my worldview. I learn a lot from ppl like you. But please allow me to plead with you, don't stop praying for God to reveal Himself to you. Just try it consistently for a period of time that seems appropriate for an "experiment" if you will. I know it sounds like bullshit, but you really can grope around in the spiritual realm via prayer. Try to reach out & ask God for some kind of feedback. I can't promise results, but on my end, I will pray that your prayer will be answered to you. Good luck & and I wish you all the best m8.
Omg... you are a fool. The problem of evil. Karl Jung solved it nearly a centuary ago.
You lie to yourself then you lue to others.
You do and create evil then point a finger at God and demand He cleans it up.
Thats like a grown child who sh*ts on himself and expects his daddy to clean and wipe him. When you have been potty trained dozens of times.
This is pseudo-intellectual crap.
He straight up didn’t though. I swear you didn’t watch the video. If you did, you would have noticed that I have responded to this argument in it. You being too dense to understand a video doesn’t make it pseudo-intellectual, it makes you a dunce.
@@ethanbenson Your conclusion is egregiously false. So yes. I did not watch the video to see your faulty reasoning.
Who the HELL are you to pass judgment on God almighty?
Who the hell are you?
What humans do is that they create a STRAW MAN GOD and pick Him apart and pat their heads on the back and nod with pride and conceit.
You are wasting your time making this crap.
You are judging someone and something far beyond your PUNY HUMAN INTELLECTUAL COMPREHENSION.
Even the comment below this one from @ericzuniga69 that you LOVED. That is stupid reasoning which betrays your foolishness. It's not true.
It says in the book of Isaiah that God created evil. That God created darkness. Evil was here before Adam and Eve in the garden . There was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Take a long walk off a short pier fool.
If God is all powerful then God cannot be all good. If God is all good then God cannot be all powerful.
Lex Luthor said that from Man of Steel.
Berkeley, no?
How distinguishing between the pre-Babylonian captivity definitions of El (God) and Elohim (sons/beings of El) versus the post-captivity syncretized definitions could resolve contradictions and cast the Yahweh figure of Genesis 2-3 in a very different light from the transcendent Elohim portrayed in Genesis 1.
Pre-Captivity Definitions:
In this framework, the supreme creator deity is simply referred to as El - the Most High God. The Elohim are understood as a pantheon or "sons of El" - lesser divine beings subordinate to El. This aligns with ancient Canaanite and older Israelite religious conceptions.
Under these definitions, the Genesis 1 account would refer to the transcendent El as the prime creator, with the Elohim (plural) potentially being celestial forces/angels enacting aspects of the creation. The Ruach Elohim (Spirit/Breath of the divine beings) hovering over the primordial waters connects to surviving traces of this polytheistic worldview.
Crucially, this allows one to separate the Elohim of Genesis 1 from the distinct Yahweh Elohim first appearing in Genesis 2 to form man from the dust. Based on references like Deuteronomy 32:8-9, the pre-captivity perspective viewed Yahweh as one of the sons of El (an Elohim) rather than conflating him with El itself.
This de-syncretization casts Yahweh as a separate, lesser, more anthropomorphic deity associated with the ancient Israelites - perhaps retained from their Canaanite heritage. His behavior and commandments in Genesis 2-3 and elsewhere in the Torah would then represent the teachings of this tribal desert deity, not the supreme metaphysical creator El.
The Garden Scenario Reframed
From this vantage point, the events of Genesis 2-3 can be interpreted not as ordained by the most high El creator, but rather as humanity's initial tragic entrapment by the lesser devolved being Yahweh within his constructed realm of mortality, suffering, and cosmic privation.
Yahweh's wrathful conduct, his placing of humans under a yoke of commandments, his expulsion from Eden's paradisiacal environment, and the subsequent violent legacy of his covenants and laws all derive from the subjugating delusions and stunted, anthropocentric conception of this finite Elohim - not the infinite plenitude of the supreme El.
Contradictions Resolved
Separating El from Yahweh along the pre-captivity definitional lines could resolve contradictions in several important ways:
1) It distinguishes the transcendent, metaphysically profound cosmic creator portrayed in Genesis 1 from the all-too-human tribal deity of the remaining Torah material.
2) It allows for a reframing of the Torah's teachings around blood sacrifice, ethnic conflicts, law codes, etc. as the cultural mythological traditions of ancient Israelite history rather than attributed to the most high El itself.
3) It creates space for the Christ figure of the New Testament to represent a re-emergence of the supreme El's sovereignty and universal spiritual path - overriding the outdated covenants, ethnic segregations, and violent subjugations prescribed by the lesser Yahweh consciousness.
4) Humanity's existential struggling, our proclivity towards violence/evil, and our fundamental state of cosmic imprisonment can be metaphysically associated with the fallout of our ancient reunion from Yahweh's corrupted influence rather than the designs of the supreme El consciousness.
5) Competing depictions of the divine across different books (wrathful/peaceful, loving/cruel, spiritual/legalistic) can be added to different nodes of the El vs. Yahweh consciousness schisms.
While still requiring some nuanced interpretation, this delineation allows for a coherent reintegration of Old and New Testament perspectives under a broader metaphysical framework. It preserves the universal spiritual integrity of the highest Creator from the cultural mythological contexts surrounding the more finite tribal deity Yahweh.
By embracing the pre-syncretized definitions and recognizing the conflation of El and Yahweh as a later imposition, one can reconnect with deep streams of ancient Hebrew theological diversity. This presents an intellectually robust path for understanding the unified trajectory of the biblical texts as exploring a single universetheological consciousness's reassertion over more contingent, anthropomorphized deviations and exiles.
Keep up the good work, fix up the audio tho, it was kinda muffled but excellent video.
Epicurus saw the contradiction 2500 years ago but today's theist can't see it
I’ll look into the audio for the next video, thanks for that feedback.
I agree, I really find it tough to comprehend how some of these theists can try to square away this problem yet their solutions end up in one of the categories Epicurus set out or they completely redefine God to something beyond this discussion. It seems most if not all of the responses from theists here fall into one or both of these categories as far as I can tell.
Well done video Ethan! Problem of evil, while being a very old objection to the tri-omni god I find works extremely well to this day.
I do think there’s better arguments out there but I find problem of evil a really good beginner argument to debating tri-omni gods and introducing people to philosophy
Absolutely agree. Better objections exist, but I think the strength of the problem of evil is in its simplicity and the fact that anybody can understand it even without knowing a lot about philosophy
@@ethanbenson agreed. Though we have different ways of objecting to free will my way is to grant free will exists for the sake of my argument.
the objection is more like this:
Let’s imagine two possible worlds:
World 1: all of gods actions are in this set: {X, Y, Z}. And the total set of all actions in this world is {X, Y, Z, A, B, C} where C is a bad action.
World 2: in this world, the set of all of gods actions is {X, Y, Z} but the set of total actions taken in the entire world is {X, Y, Z, A, B, K} where K is good. So the two worlds are different, but not because of something god did. In both worlds god did the same things. It’s different because some human chose to do action K instead of C
This means there is a world that logically exists where humans freely can choose to do the good action instead of the bad/evil action. The evil action logically could still be actualized but a human freely chooses not to. So free will is not a relevant objection to the problem of evil.
There’s a distinction between moral evils and natural evils.
Moral evils: Evils done by moral agents.
Natural evils: Evils done by naturally occurring events. Things that are not an action done by a moral agent.
Moral evils are explained by free will. Natural evils are often explained with the character building theodicy. That is to say, natural evils help or can help to improve people’s character.
There’s others for the natural evils, but aside from when people just dismiss the problem of evil as an emotional argument, the character building theodicy is the main one I’ve seen defended so far. At least by Cameron Bertuzzi on Capturing Christianity. I don’t remember if I’ve seen it anywhere else.
But anyone serious about the problem of evil usually either gives a skepticism view like in this video or the character building theodicy. Although, usually with the skepticism point it’s in the context of the evidential argument from evil. David Wood made the point of, if we’re to ask someone to see if there’s a rhino in the room, they’d be to quite confidently say no. The thing is just massive. If you were to ask whether there’s a fly in the room, it’s a lot harder to tell because so small. So one way to approach the problem of evil with God’s omniscience is to look at it like that, what is this really more like, trying to find rhino in the room you’re in or like trying to find a fly in the room your in? Assuming they’re stationary.
So with the evidential argument from evil, this is to put doubt in the idea that we should think it’s likely that there are gratuitous evil.
From an omniscient God's point of view there is no such distinction between natural and moral evil.
And regardless they are permitted, despite it being obvious in the Bible that thoughts are judged all the same as deeds. Why then permit the deeds?
If it builds virtue in some way then you have a God who is not omnipotent, because he cannot create someone who has that virtue without having experienced the suffering.
@@PROtoss987 Keep in mind, when talking about things like omniscience and omnipotence are about what's possible, not any idea that comes to mind. Keep that in mind.
Now to what you said. That's missing the point. The point is, we have free will, but nothing is going to be perfect. Perfection is about how we perceive something. We can't be as good as God because God is God. God can't make God because God would be creating himself, but himself is his own entity. He can create another being with the exact same abilities and everything and they still won't be God, or at least not the same individual.
As less powerful beings, we must accept that we and everything else aren't perfect. That is why our free will is important. Our ideas about what is perfect may be different than one another. If we only have one type of person, then there is effectively one person. There is no reason to create anything if all there is is one person, especially as an omnipotent being. We have to learn because it is impossible to be perfect as another thing with free will. It is our pride that gets in the way of choosing what is good. Yet, you can't really create someone without the capacity for pride since there is value in what we are able to do. Badness, in a way, is taking what is or can be good and taking it too far. Reframing it in favor of what's ultimately destructive or selfish.
Bad thoughts are judged because thoughts drive action. Thoughts show what is possible, and to eliminate that possibility, you must acknowledge it as bad and, ideally, never think it again otherwise it may one day become a reality.
Another thing to keep in mind is that eternity is much longer than our time alive on Earth. What may feel like ages, might feel like a quick pinch compared to eternity.
And when it comes to the afterlife, the truth is we know very little about Hell. We also don't seem to know much about Heaven either. We just know that Heaven is more preferable than Hell. Everything else is up to the imagination.
@@encounteringjack5699 >Nothing is going to be perfect
Why not? Christians have this in their eschatology, which is a future without sin and death. If God is perfect why can't his creation be?
The inability to speak things into existence is not a flaw or imperfection. Future saints are described as without blemish, and like God.
But they aren't like this now because Plan of Salvation something something mystery.
Not even deterministic materialists think there is only one kind of person. But that there are many people on their own determined course.
Which is the same as that implied by an omniscient God, because if we were free to do something other than that which he has foreknown, then he wouldn't be omniscient.
Bad thoughts could be judged without any evil having been brought about
It does not matter that finite time is zero when compared to eternity. Well it does with regards to eternal torment in flame being the work of a petty and vindictive god, but not with regards to the absence of evil being better than it's presence, no matter how brief.
If you're talking about Christianity, heaven was seldom described but we know a lot about that hell. It was designed for the angels, will be visible from heaven from whom it's inhabitants will be abhorred, it will be a place of eternal fire, those in it will starve and mourn.
The NT descriptions are clear whether or not you think it depicts the God responsible as sadistic.
Great video, buddy!
As an atheist, I personally don’t find this argument very compelling because I have never seen a theist be convinced by it. They usually bring up free will. Although, of course, free will is a problem itself.
New subscriber. :)
@@AtypicalSkeptic cheers! Yes, I don’t think it’s a fantastic argument either, just an iconic one worth exploring. I’m probably going to do another video on why I think it doesn’t work as I’m writing an essay on it at the moment
Thanks for watching! Do you think this is a big challenge for theists? I'm keen to see the discussions in the comments!
A being, claimed to be omnibenevolent can not, by definition, create a system of eternal suffering.
1. This concept of Hell is wrong/does not exist.
2. This God is NOT omnibenevolent.
3. This God does not exist.
According to the creation story in Genesis, it’s possible for all animals, including people, to exist by eating plants, only. If, by eating a single fruit they couldn’t have known it was wrong to eat, they doomed themselves to lives of suffering and death, someone explain the suffering other animals must undergo every day simply to allow the continued existence of predators. What was the impetus for taking away their ability to live solely on plants? Capricious malevolence is the best I can summon. See Steve Woodford’s recent video on the subject. If it’s necessary, what caused it to become necessary when it wasn’t?
dang that was deep!!
good is one shade, in adding another shade to this realm, you make an infinite number of possibilities now possible and each has its own beauty and good to it.
maybe you could disguise good as evil so it adds color while evil still added good to the picture
@@arshia2331 He mentioned that in the video, that takes away your ability to call anything evil.
Hi Ethan. I generally agree with your points but I do question the idea that things like earthquakes and famines are "evil." Evil exists in the context of moral choice; the earth doesn't have the capacity to make these choices. We tend to think of these calamities as evil only because of the detrimental impact they have on human lives and property. Were they to occur in an unpopulated place where no human harm can come, I doubt if they would still be considered "evil" in any rational sense of the word. Only sentient beings are capable of being evil.
If we claim there is a God who is omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient, then allowing these things to happen becomes a moral action and therefore can be thought of as evil precisely because then that God is either purposely allowing these things to happen and causing suffering, or is not acting to prevent suffering from occurring.
@@ethanbenson I'm not sure how that would work from a theistic perspective. What we call natural disasters are simply natural Earth processes, many of which are actually necessary to maintain Earth's capacity to sustain life. Is God supposed to suspend these processes to prevent anything bad from happening? Does he warn of an impending disaster so people have time to evacuate the area? Clearly both responses are practically unworkable from a sustainability perspective. Obviously the only alternative is to create a completely static planet that lacks earthquakes, tornadoes, volcanoes, floods, bad weather, high winds, etc. Otherwise, I don't see what choice a personal God has, even if allegedly omnipotent. (BTW: I'm a pantheist and don't believe in a personal God, so this is all a moot point to me anyway.)
exactly
@@ethanbenson however he brought up those things for there to be trials. If he didn't do that then everything would be too easy or boring, and then everyone or at least alot of people will be uneducated or not grateful after.
These arguments are ridiculous. In the bible, god states " l, God, created evil". This is all you need to know.
so many people who have experiences of being one with god also claim everything is perfect like jesus did, there is bad but its not evil or at least in brings forward the oppurtunity to not be evil. Maybe it was all evil and god created something else other than evil out of love, in this case he wouldnt want to rid the world of what turned him into the all loving and powerfull being that he is.
Evil exists so we can have contrast to good, duh. God can be good because if we are eternal souls, why should we, or God care if evil needs to happen to us to teach us what good is? And is it evil to do so?
We are all interconnected eternal souls that reincarnate for eternity. That's why you can explain away the "problem" of evil, which is really more of a mechanism, that exists within this unity to demonstrate to us the interconnectedness of infinity. Using terms such as good or evil is not the point. The point is that when you realize this unity it will become obvious that to hurt another is to hurt oneself, and vice versa.
This is simply a matter of misusing a metaphysical scalpel, first started by the Greeks around the time of Socrates/Plato/Aristotle (perhaps earlier). It was later employed by writers of different books of the Bible, fully fledged in the New Testament - thus propagating the problem towards the Christian world.
The metaphysical scalpel I'm talking about is this very Greek penchant of splitting everything in categories, subject/object, good/bad(evil?), useful/useless etc. (Anyone reading Aristotle wades through a bog of categories.) Now, rather than adopting the minimalistic and elegant approach of the Eastern world of intertwined good and evil (think ying/yang), the Western world, with a typical left hemisphere effort, heaved all good on a pedestal making it 'God', and then had to do another effort to invent something else to explain the evil left after this excision of good. Predictably, this generated the 'problem of evil'.
The Greeks themselves were mostly spared of this problem because their pantheon was already full of gods with a healthy mix of good and bad traits. Purely from my own experience, the oldest books of the Old Testament also contain a god that had no problems embodying both good and evil (Amos, Hosea, first Isaiah etc.) because the authors themselves had no qualms with that. The book of Job, on the other hand, is quite unique in that it presents some sort of a recognition of that evil streak in the Abrahamic god. In my mind, I see it as some sort of turning point, a landmark where the Israelites started to get in touch with the Greek philosophy and decided to 'clean up' their god to higher standard (just my opinion, this).
This worldview in which good is segregated from evil causes a distorted image of the universe. It promotes all sorts of crutches to correct a problem which shouldn't have existed in the first place. We (as a society) only want the good without the evil, only the the sweet part and not the bitter, only light and no darkness, we want life without death, not understanding that these come as a package deal. Apologies for the wall of text.
Christian eschatology includes a future without suffering, so it's not necessarily all in one package
Perhaps this explanation will satisfy. The nature of good and evil is that evil is simply the perversion or absence of good. Good can stand on its own but evil must exist in reference to the good it’s opposing. This can be seen from examples: You can speak the truth without there being a lie, but you cannot lie without there being a truth you are perverting. You can be happily married without there being adultery, but you cannot commit adultery without there being a marriage you are forsaking. I speak in a platonic, abstract sense. From a scientific lens, we would say that cold is not of itself but the absence of heat, silence of sound, darkness of light etc. This becomes very interesting when you consider that Satan’s name means “opposer.” He doesn’t actually stand for anything but just opposes God’s will whatever it is.
If this is accepted, then the first realization is that evil didn’t have to exist. This world very well could have been completely good and perfect without any evil and in fact when we are asked about the problems of the world, it is precisely in reference to this perfect world our answer is to. We understand evil exists because we have an idea of a perfect world without evil and it is different from the actual world which it is in reference to.
As for why God allows evil (don’t get it twisted, if God exists he must be sovereign and absolutely must allow evil), the place way to understand it is probably through the lens of redemption which most simply means “to buy pack,” or “to purchase again.” In the context of gift cards, you buy an amount of store credit which is useless to you outside of the store and then when you want to redeem the card you buy back the money you essentially gave the store in the form of goods you receive for “free” (no cost you haven’t already used). In the religious context, this word refers to Christ “buying back” the souls of his people with his blood from the Devil who before we profess faith own us. The overarching narrative is that we were once God’s possession as his creatures leading to life but forsook that and became the devil’s possession leading to death, but Christ through his death “bought us” and “paid the price” for us to defeat death and bring us back to life. He redeems us which when we have genuine faith involves us turning from sin and becoming holy and morally upright which is where you get the literary context for the word which describes when a character generally goes from being bad to being good (oversimplification but still). If you ever wondered why that same word is used seemingly in two entirely different ways, that’s why.
All this is to say when you apply this to evil itself, you find that God can redeem or “buy back” evil itself. What this looks like is God using evil to bring himself more glory. This does not mean God actively does it or condone it or that evil is good in disguise, but simply that he can use evil for his purposes and bring himself glory by doing so. This is clearest in Genesis when Joseph gets sold into slavery in Egypt by his brothers (which is an evil act) but from that act all of Egypt propers and don’t starve of famine. The ultimate example of this is in the crucifixion of Jesus (the ultimate evil) without which no soul can be saved (the ultimate good). Steering back to pure philosophy, think of how your suffering (an evil) can produce deep closeness with your friends (good) that you wouldn’t have had otherwise if you’re vulnerable with them. This is currently happening to me and though I’m sad, I’m very joyful at how close I’ve become with my best friends in this time.
For another example of this, think of Lord of the Rings. After Frodo dismisses Sam’s help after coming all the way to Mordor (a very evil act) Sam still trails him and eventually rescues him and their bond is inarguably strong because of the betrayal and reconnection (a very good act)
Or, you could take the explanation with far fewer presuppositions and say that there just is no God
@@ethanbenson A Godless worldview might seem simpler with fewer presumptions but I'd be ignoring a couple of key things, mainly that mathematics wouldn't make sense, the world around me wouldn't make sense, science itself wouldn't make sense, the pretty inarguable amount of historical evidence for the New Testament being reliable and trustworthy, and the unbearable weight of my wrongdoings on my conscience and the sense that I will be punished for them if I don't have some sort of payment. If you'd like me to explain any of these in depth I can
@@ethanbenson A Godless worldview might seem simpler with less presumptions but there'd be a few big things I'd be ignoring, mainly that mathematics wouldn't make sense, the world around me wouldn't make sense, science itself wouldn't make sense, the amount of historical evidence for the New Testament, and the unbearable weight of my wrongdoings on my conscience and the sense that I would be punished for them if I didn't have some kind of payment. If you want me to explain any one of these I can.
(sorry, YT won't let me respond directly to your reply) I may think that a godless worldview might be simpler with fewer presuppositions but I'd be ignoring a few big things, mainly that mathematics wouldn't make sense, the world around me wouldn't make sense, science itself wouldn't make sense, the amount of historical evidence for the New Testament, and the unbearable weight of my wrongdoings on my conscience and the sense that I will be punished for them if I don't have some kind of payment. If you want me to explain any one of these, I can
@ethanbenson Well, that certainly seems like a betrayal of the invitation to dialouge.
I've read codified theological statements with less substance.
Priepastné bytie a moje spolužitie s mesačným dieťaťom, ktoré tu spadlo z odvrátenej strany mesiaca, aby ma ukrátilo o život....
omnipotence that christian(catholic) teach exclude the ability of doing something in a self contradicting way for e.g exist and not exit ..in my opinion from there we can find the key for the explanation of evil..for e.g according to catholic encyclopedia God cannot exhaust his power..for e.g he cannot create the most beautifull world..because it can be infinitely beautifull.IMHO in a cosmos with infinite number of souls there must be some souls feeling pain more than other..however how much suffering is possible?..well let imagine that God want to give each person what he deserves because he is good and dont want to be unfair for anyone..but he dont want any one to experience evil he would lower the standard so that all the soul can be safe..however because they are infinite number of souls he would have always souls below the safe line of salvation...thus hell must exist..and the evil of hell is the foundation of all evil we fear(like death) even if God is omnipotent.so why did God created this evil world?for the sake of the one who will be saved..and why doesnt he just annihilate those below the salvation line? Because they would all have the same fate although some deserve punishment more than others.(for e.g the lowest when is anihilated then the ones above him should have better fate).which is unjust maybe.some questions couldn t be answered easily i am just trying to direct the boat.but I know something for sur that even if humans lived googole number of years..witnout faith they will always be walking in the unknown
lots of questions wont be answered till we die & face are creator if there is one- is one willing to risk going to fire hell satan kingdom damnation down below ? when we might have a choice to heaven everlasting life/light- i would rather be good like i am & not take chances with my soul- I like reading about karma- what do you think of it?
I myself am an atheist. I don’t think belief in God has any relation to being or not being a good person.
absolutely your moral compass/body soul is yours not gods- I like ignoring fanatical religious god people- like they have some kinda special unique protection-there churches always have big steeples pointing up as if they know & see have been up there to talk to a god
Frankly, I find the thought of eternal life terrifying. Especially if I have to spend the overwhelming majority if it worshipping the monster described in the Bible.
Good video and good presentation.
Thank you!
Deism. Or Agnosticism.
Can be both
if god only created one evil person that one person given the right circumstance could destroy the world
Even assuming that for God the free will of one madman is more important than the lives of millions of innocent people, free will does not explain natural evil.
Good summary. This is what the vast majority of these comments seem to not understand
It is due to evolution, starting with the billions-old microorganisms and their “fight for survival” (resources). All life forms must limit each other in order to be able to exist (for a limited time). It's about "balance," so to speak; if life were not finite there would be no diversity of life forms but in the long term only a single species (be it plant, microorganism or animal) that displaces all others and thus destroys its own livelihood in the long term. Is that “cruel” or “evil”? Of course not, it is the condition of biological life, including humans. Aggression is not per se "evil", but it become destructive in more anonymous, hierarchical societies as a function of social control and power (be it by social elites or parents/family members etc.).
Since the first civilisations started in Sumer/Mesopotamia destructive ("evil") aggressions and hybris become part of mankind, that`s what the ancient bible mythology "the great flood" and later on "Babylon" is all about.
Lost me at 1:15. If God took away evil and "just fixed everything" he would be taking away your free will to believe in him or whatever else u choose to believe in.
Right, but if the desire of God is for a specific outcome, why create free will in the first place if the outcome then isn’t desirable? It’s nonsensical.
God created evil.He said so himself. So what is the problem?
There is absolutely no logical way out of the epicurean approach. As far as I see it things just are. There is no such thing as true justice, only just-is disguised as justice. All things are arranged by and for God ultimately. This is an amazing thing for some and inconceivably horrible thing others. Simply put, Satan holds the worst job in the universe, nothing else. Yet he will never once be thanked for it or redeemed in any way. The eternal fall man in a universe that only suits God and those He blesses. It is quite difficult to call this God all good, at least regarding the means He uses to make known his glory. In fact the complete opposite
Theistic philosoohy is honestly getting so boring, it's literally just trying to prove the existance of inexistance. I think its a shame that half of philosophy is just debating about whether or not a god exists which inevitably goes nowhere and in my opinion leads to there not being one but I'm biased soo take that for what you will.
It’s merely one aspect of philosophy, and not really the focus of academic philosophy in a broad sense. In fact, I’d guess philosophy of religion is one of the less focused on areas of philosophy within academia. I think it’s just popular as a discussion online because it’s immediately accessible and everyone has a view. The new atheists also probably have a lot to do with it.
My main concern with religion is the undermining of the principles of science and the encouragement of superstition, pseudoscience and conservatism. Hence why I feel it’s pertinent to discuss this topic.
yo
Evil is simply the non-existence of goodness in human beings. God gave us conscious will, it's our choice to act spiritually or not. Moralising events of nature as good or evil is inappropriate, nature has no awareness or will.
I disagree with your definition of evil. I believe actions are good or evil based on their characteristics and consequences, not on the absence of good or evil. The opposite of evil is not goodness. Many evil acts seem to require more than just an absence of good. For example, acts of cruelty or malice involve intentions, desires, and actions that aim to cause harm or suffering, not just a passive lack of benevolence. Evil often manifests through active engagement and decision-making that directly opposes what is considered good. If evil were merely the absence of good, it would be primarily characterized by passivity or non-action. However, many evil actions arise from deliberate choices that contravene moral laws, suggesting an active component to evil.
Evil as a necessary possibility in the world if conscious will exists. The capability for evil would be a real and integral aspect of human choice and moral freedom, not just a lack of goodness.
@@tessahammond4963 Very thoughtful reply, thank you Tessa. I'll have a go at rebutting your argument. Given actions stem from a human being, goodness is what we perceive in the praiseworthy qualities of a human, what we'd call virtues. When we see kindness in a human, that is good. To attribute a moral judgment on the characteristics and consequences of actions is not connecting to what it is for something to 'exist'.
😂😂😂Are u still saying that old trope that has been debunked...
Yes our free will have us earthquake.
@@liquidgoldCN Hello. You said that evil is the non-existence of goodness *_in human beings._* However, it's common for people to predicate evil not just of people, but of actions. We frequently say things like "that was an evil thing he did". Is the theory of evil that you proposed compatible with the notion that actions (and not just people) can be evil?
@@chad969 thought provoking response thank you. In response: every action has a cause, to analyse an action in isolation and label it as good or evil seems to me a judgment without recognition of the influence of its origin. As you suggested people commonly do this, but it’s not wise as it leads to an externalisation of responsibility.
God is good. And ive heared very often people say that cause there is evil he is not all powerful but not all goos.
Point 1. God did not create evil or sin he created beings with free will will do creat and do what they please and we humans corrupted the good God created.
Point 2. If God is all powerful than why do bad things happen? God created us not cause he was lonely but cause he wanted to he wanted to love us so when he created us we rejected him and created a fallen world he tried to get us to stop he gave us more and more opportunities to stop doing what we are doing he gave us so many chances to change on our on cause if God forced hs to change and stop than we are not longer beings with free will which than leads to God coming to human for as Jesus Christ to save the world from OUR evil he took the sins from past, president, and future so that the evil actions are paid for. God loves us and wants us to be free creatures and cause we sin we aee evil so God gave is a chance to change.
I really hope people see this cause I am strong follower of the bible and am chossinf to deduct my life to God.
Point 1: God gave us free will so that humans can either choose to be good or bad. God just didn't create good but also created bad for a reason. He did that to show us that there can be bad things and bad itself is important as so good is. If there only is good, in life there will possibly be no trials wich is boring and bad. So that point still doesn't truly debunk the fact that God is good. Because you are ignoring and just saying that God only created good but also created bad and free will too. And for a good reason, because not everything that seems good or bad is always good or bad.
Point 2: Bad things happen to us or other people or generally in the world so that life can have trials. In this life there will be trials and difficulty. For example: if you achieve a hard level on a video game, then you will have something called satisfaction after finsihing it. But if difficulty or trials never existed themselves in life. You would infact never feel any good or satisfaction, and start to realize that life without absolutely any difficulties or trials is bad and boring.
F- im sorry i just didn't read the end or everything you said and i just debunked the points that you addressed.
Personnaly im not christian and i do not believe in the Bible but i believe in Allah.
The glaring fallacy that both most theists and atheists are unwilling to accept is the fact that both don't understand the rationale of why something is evil.
Most definitions rely on the concept of "suffering" or "pain" or unnecessary suffering" as if they can provide an actual explanation. But this fails to give an actual objective and reasonable explanation for it.
For example: "Killing babies is bad." Almost everyone would agree with this. But why is it evil?? I'm not saying it isn't, but do you know why?? "Because they suffer", well we could put them to sleep before killing them. Is it okay now?
This inablilty to properly rationalize good and evil is the thing that leads society to degenerate as much of it is seen from the lens of "Pain vs Pleasure". One for which we have no evidence for.
People haven't even rationalized what is the proportion of Good and Evil that is best. What is more "Good"? Having Lv.1 Good always, or having Lv. 1 Evil and Lv. 3 Good? People often forget that most of the greatest to ever exist that produced the most Good for humanity had to endure the most suffering, and their contributions more than paid for it. Have you ever considered that maybe a little Evil creates greater Good? It's a clear possibility.
I, for one, see the issue of God and "evil" quite easy to resolve.
For starters, the proper meaning of "evil" has to be discussed. Saving you the long thought process I went through, I can confidently assert that the meaning of "good" and "evil" is subordinate to the concept of *Free Will.*
*Good is that which lets us make better use of, and honor, our Free Will and Evil is that which impedes or somehow compromises our Free Will*
With this definition, even the most contentious moral problems are easily solved.
Case in point: Abortion. Massive controversial issue.
If evil depends on your ability to express your free will, we have two scenarios.
1. Someone enforced their free will on a woman, stripping her of their free will. Therefore we should ask you for your Grace if it is not a heavy burden so we dont infringe in the baby's Free Will. If you cannot, it is sad but you are not evil.
2. Woman makes use of her free will to get herself in a situation where they get pregnant. Therefore it is of paramount importance to keep the baby alive and hold the person responsible. If they get an abortion, they are *evil.* Because you infringe on the Free Will of the child while already having made use of your Free Will and not honoring your choices.
"But the child suffers without a proper family." So what?? Suffering makes a small minority of people yield, but makes most people stronger.
Back to the problem of God and evil:
If Free Will is a priority to God, He will let evil happen, even though He can stop it, without being malevolent. This is because it will help the people with strong enough wills to come out the other side stronger and helping them make better use of Will.
And because God is All-powerful, He can tie the loose ends and soothe the people left behind in the wake of what we consider evil.
And then you can say that "Evil, then, doesn't really exist", but we would just be arguing semantics that have no actual bearing on the reality of the issue.
There, I solved the God and Evil problem and abortion in a single RUclips comment, and what did it take? 30 minutes??
Thanks for the response! I think this is a very interesting take, although I think it’s somewhat flawed. I think rather than respond through a comment, this deserves a video response because this is a really interesting argument you’ve made which is a more complete version of the free will argument I briefly presented.
I think your assumption that morality cannot be objectively defined without theistic intervention is a common but fundamentally flawed assertion.
Morality is that which is most evidently viable to propagate our species, killing is bad because it decreases economic productivity and growth, as you can see my view is consequentialist in nature.
Evil shall be defined as negative outcome sustained by the known, i.e. If Joe kills 2 people knowing killing is bad then he is evil
Evil producing good or exceptionalism is possible and evident however your assumption is that evil is a requirement or facilitator which I'd disagree with, every modern data point would tell us the opposite in fact, negative inputs increase the likelihood of negative outputs, it may radicalize the process creating polarised outputs though, i.e. It creates 100 drug addicts but 1 genius.
I think your abortion argument is completely moronic as it fails to realize the first causer, if one's free will creates a fetus who's to say that fetus has free will? They are completely reliant of the first willer and thus have no free will of their own. Your point also preludes the assumption that free will exists.
I don't think you or I solved the free will problem in 30 minutes if philosophers have been debating about it for longer than my existence.
Your definition is flawed, how can good be that which 'lets us' make 'better' use of Free Will when we: a. have free will as an inherent part of being human, and b. to make 'better use of' is a tautology.
@@liquidgoldCN excellent point
@@liquidgoldCN I did say I had spared y'all from my lengthy thought process. Which, of course, would leave some glaring gaps that would need to be filled by me. Putting this together took years.
However, I find that your argument would be better phrased "Isn't this definition flawed", inviting inquiry and thought, rather than to make the false claim that I am wrong. Because I'm not.
Anyway, If you are actually interested in rational thought, here's part of that lengthy explanation:
I would first inquire to _what Free Will even is._ I know what I meant by it. I don't know what you mean by it and you do not know what I meant by it, since it was not included in my response.
Nevermind that if you are on the "naturalist" side of the argument, your reply is inherently moot as everything would be determined by the "laws of physics"
First, I don't like using definitions. As they, as their name implies ("de" implying separation and "finition" from "fin/end" implying limits), cuts off relevant context in the shared understanding of its meaning. I'd rather much use the meaning of things.
Free Will can be understood as the autonomy to decide the direction within current parameters. It says nothing about its magnitude, circumstances or style.
Think about watching TV after a long work day. You wanna grab the remote on the table but you'd rather not stand up. Having a T-Rex Grabber is *good,* because it helps you grab the remote without getting up.
Conversely. One could be kidnapped by some ideological extremist and be held at gunpoint. They telling you to renounce your faith in the name of their "One True Lord". You can accept or refuse. Of course, one course of action can be argued to be better than the other, but by all means you can tell them to go to hell and dine on some lead. I would argue that it would be "good" or "better" if no one found themselves in this kind of conundrum in the first place.
I'm pretty sure that most everyone would agree that this meaning of Free Will (and its subordinate Good/Evil), if not extensive, is somewhat agreeable to what everyone understands by that term.
Now, if we wanna get petty, I would ask you to define Free Will and show me some evidence that it exists, that it only or inhierently applies to humans and not to other beings, and why. Because that would be the foundation to your argument that mine is a "Tautology"
Now, if by that you meant that I used the words "good" and "better". Well, whoop-de-doo, pardon me for trying to explain it in words that can be easily understood.
"Wider", "more precise", "bigger", "greater", "more accurate" expressions of our Free Will. Take your pick.
We all know what we meant, because I used a word that everyone understands its meaning of. And we know for a fact we do (before you try to "corner" me saying I did the same with Free Will a few paragraphs ago), because otherwise we wouldn't be having the "God cannot coexist with Evil" discussion in the first place.
Anyways. Some people seem to have too much fun tearing things down without contributing anything. Lets hear your theory, then! If you have even thought that far.
Evil and good, black and white, positive and negative, such concepts only occur in the illusion of duality nevertheless occurring as suffering here on earth. God which is another word for Consciousness is omnipresent combining both evil and good. Evil is necessary in the evolution of Love. So one could say that God is evil sometimes. Great to hear your discussion which is healthy in order to transcend such concepts of evil.
Definitely an interesting idea! I know this is a view which was a lot more common in ancient times (think Roman and Greek Gods being both evil and good) but has lost a lot of steam now.
I disagree that God is another word for consciousness; nature is governed by god and outside of consciousness. Therefore God is more than consciousness.
I can't see this as a valuable topic aside you being a monotheist yourself. And obviously antitheists can use it as a nuklear weapon in any debate. If you an atheist, agnostic or belong to any religion with non-omni god, it's meaningless, coz from your perspective it's a bunch of people who insist there are specific god, stumble on a problem with this claim, and strugle to break through it for hundreads of years. Your intervention is needless, their struggle is nothing to be bothered...uleas you want to confront them, and use this obsticle to your advantage, in this confrontation.
I’m an atheist to be clear
@@ethanbenson me too. I just reread my comment and it's looks like "ah, why even bother to make this video" it's not what I meant :D
It's a good video, thank you :)
The Lord is good.
Check out my video “The Bible is Completely Unethical” for some pushback on this statement
@ethanbenson Okay, I'll give it a shot. This is the first video of yours I've seen. I disagree vehemently, but I love channels like yours. I'm a big fan of Alex O'Connor as well. It's good to hear arguments against my worldview. I learn a lot from ppl like you. But please allow me to plead with you, don't stop praying for God to reveal Himself to you. Just try it consistently for a period of time that seems appropriate for an "experiment" if you will. I know it sounds like bullshit, but you really can grope around in the spiritual realm via prayer. Try to reach out & ask God for some kind of feedback. I can't promise results, but on my end, I will pray that your prayer will be answered to you. Good luck & and I wish you all the best m8.
@drewjohnson1985 that’s really cool and open minded of you. I definitely respect that a lot