DEBATE: Could God Be Evil? | Alex O'Connor vs Max Baker-Hytch
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 23 фев 2021
- To support me on Patreon (thank you): / cosmicskeptic
To donate to my PayPal (thank you): www.paypal.me/cosmicskeptic
To purchase Cosmic Skeptic merchandise: cosmicskeptic.teemill.com/
-------------------------VIDEO NOTES-------------------------
This debate was hosted by Cameron Bertuzzi on his RUclips channel Capturing Christianity. Subscribe here for more debates similar to this one: / @capturingchristianity
Two months ago I released a video called 'Could God Be Evil?' ( • Could God Be Evil? ) in which I discussed a strange and unique angle to the problem of evil for religion. If we would reject the existence of an all-evil god due to the pervasiveness of good in the world, why can't we also reject the existence of an all-good god due to the pervasiveness of evil?
Dr. Max Baker-Hytch is a tutor in philosophy at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford University. He co-authored a paper on the so-called 'evil god challenge', objecting to it in various ways. So, he and I had this discussion, to see if the evil god challenge as I originally presented it can hold up.
-------------------------------LINKS--------------------------------
Capturing Christianity: / @capturingchristianity
'Could God Be Evil?' (The video that inspired this debate): • Could God Be Evil?
Dr. Baker-Hytch's paper - "Meeting the evil God challenge": www.academia.edu/41284402/Mee...
More about Dr. Baker-Hytch: www.philosophy.ox.ac.uk/peopl...
---------------------SPECIAL THANKS-----------------------
As always, I would like to direct extra gratitude to my top-tier patrons:
Itamar Lev
Evan Allen
Faraz Harsini
John Early
Austin Chiappetta
Sveline
Teymour Beydoun
Isaac Medina
Adam Gray
Nolan Kent
Jade
Monstar
Seth Balodi
Anon Training
David Nehlsen
Citizens of Civilization
David Nehlsen
William Davies
----------------------------CONNECT-----------------------------
My Website/Blog: www.cosmicskeptic.com
SOCIAL LINKS:
Twitter: / cosmicskeptic
Facebook: / cosmicskeptic
Instagram: / cosmicskeptic
Snapchat: cosmicskeptic
The Cosmic Skeptic Podcast: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
---------------------------CONTACT------------------------------
Business email: contact@cosmicskeptic.com
Or send me something:
Alex O'Connor
Po Box 1610
OXFORD
OX4 9LL
ENGLAND
------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's so weird to see Alex with a beard. He's truly becoming a philosopher in front of our eyes
Yeah 😍
Cute beard
I think we're likely to see the second coming of Christ before Alex gets a proper beard.
@@AcidOllie Ouch! ...but, yeah.
He’s becoming Muslim
If all else fails, fall back on "The evil God works in mysterious ways."
You should be higher!
You're fantastic.
Don’t ever question evil god
Hilarious 😂
@Doo Du your argument-
‘I don’t know. Therefore, god.’
A classic god of the gaps argument.
17:28 “Hm. that’s interesting. I’ve never thought about that”. What more could you hope to hear in a debate? Brilliant.
I fully expect the comment section to decend into a full on simp fest for Alex's facial hair... There you go, calling it now
I guess so.
Could there be anything more annoying? Because it is so painfully trivial.
You guessed it right
You call that facial hair?
I had that when I was 4.
@@Reignor99
good for you
Isn't this comment a self fulfilling prophecy?
Alex, can you please make a rebuttal video or a video exposing Sadhguru. He has millions of followers across the world. He claims to be spiritual and downplays science. He has given speeches in the UN a platform that he clearly doesn’t deserve. I’m sure it’d help bring light to a lot of people.
Yeah bro
THIS! It would be great if either Alex or Steven makes a video on this.
Yes pls
arvind animal activist made a couple of great response videos about him
i highly recommend him if you don't know his channel yet
ruclips.net/channel/UCuaj1eVLt9O2aHRN-ULEXiQsearch?query=sadghuru
You guys don’t understand what god is
I just want to say I applaud these two for demonstrating good debate etiquette. They didn't interrupt one another too much they didn't go off on tangents they didn't they didn't try to argue outside of what a debate is meant to be you don't find that very often nowadays.
This truly was less of a debate and more of a discussion.
Well I mean by all technicalities a debate is a civilized argument so it does tend to seem like a discussion. this is technically what a debate is supposed to look like, not the whole being interrupted by the other person other person always butting in sort of thing, that's not how a debate works. But of course people ignore that anyways and talk as they please.
Takes a strong character to say "Yes that's a fair point, I'll have to give that some more thought". And it's hard, but not quite as hard, to accept that and move on to the next point without gloating.
You like that they obeyed the moral and ethical law written on their hearts by God. Yes me too.
@@alil6547 no I liked the fact that they didn't ignore the rules of "do not interrupt when it's not your turn". Do you know the rules of debate?
Its nice to see Alex’s opponent admitting when Alex’s objection makes sense and not resorting to straw man arguments. Alex logical reasoning is strong. I stopped eating meat largely because of it. I think the ability to change your mind when confronted with better logic is important to re addressing your own views which is obviously difficult.
It is hard to overstate just how honest an interlocutor this chap seems to be. Alex rips him up and he seems to be conceding the whole time. There seems to be zero "Tap Dancing" (as Dillahunty would say).
@@alittlelogic5914 I get what you're saying, but does it not just mean he lost the argument badly?
@@brianennion4832 I don't understand how you could even come to actually ask this question.
@@hannah3146 How come?
His logic is good but he never gave me a reason to give a fuck about morals, i believe morals are subjective and his arguments against that dont work for me.
1 view , 53 likes . Proof of a miracle.
Explain this, christians.
@@AcolyteOfLucifer It's even more miraculous on the Muslim channels. 000's of likes before streaming even begins.
@@laurameszaros9547 hahahah yeah
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHA
I like how "torturing puppies" has to be accompanied with "for fun" from a theistic view, because there are good reasons to justify torture, like "sin"
well if you said is it possible for a maximally good being to torture puppies, you can imagine a hypothetical scenario where it is, in a trolley problem life situation. So for fun is to make it more clear what you have to debunk.
facts
We are torturing many things for fun and think it's OK every day.
@@AntonConstanti can you give me some examples? (no hate) Just curious, because I can't think of any.
Yeah we add “for fun” just to avoid the possibility of some overriding reason why a being may torture puppies which we aren’t aware of.
Listening to Alex tear down someone's hypothesis feels like listening to Hitchens, but with even more emphasys as Alex is more grounded in philosophy.
I kind of feel bad for the other guy TBH.
Alex: a good god is as likely as an evil god.
Max: an evil god is less likely because of *insert special pleading here*.
Alex: that can be used to argue for the evil god existing too, so we're back to square one.
Max: yes but an evil god is less likely because of *insert special pleading about the psychology of an evil god needing to be known first here*.
Alex: the problem with that is it can be used to argue for the existence of an evil god too, so we're back to square one.
And so on and so.
Granted though alex did eventully get through and max did eventually admit that he didn't have a rebutal and that on the specific topic that they were diecussing at that moment he would need to look into it more in depth.
I do feel though that there was a lot of cognitive conflict on max's part in "computing" that a good god is no more likely than an evil god, and I hope he can come to see that fully in the future.
Dead on, I actually appreciate how intellectually honest Max was being in accepting when he did not know or when Alex had a good point. I have hope for more useful discussions in the future
True. I think deep down max knew they were not totally logically sound. It seemed that he was hoping to argue for a probabilistic sway in the good God direction by way of posing a lot of different arguments. The problem is, most of them boiled down to having the same flaws and assumptions that as you said, Alex could then pose the opposite premise and once again reach the opposite conclusion. Argument quality is more important than argument quantity.
I understand God could possibly be evil, such as the christian God or Muslim God that will torcher people forever, but we do evil things because of motive for power, money, greed, control and such.... God would have no motive to be evil because he has all power and control... I do believe in God and property translated scripture that doesn't have a hell or eternal torment....and we are here to experience evil for a short time for contrast purposes....and all creation is subject to disobedience so God can have mercy on all and give all everlasting life.... that's what scripture teacher in the original Hebrew and Greek....that makes most sense to me ...
This was a really good conversation! As a Christian I always enjoy Alex’s conversations with his critical thinking and I’ve never seen dr. Max but he seems really smart too. They both added really good things to the conversation
Alex’s intellect coupled with that beard was a combo we clearly weren’t ready for 😂
Having facial hair /=/ having GOOD facial hair. Maybe his genes are evil... 👿
just imagine his accents depth when he gets older
It's stubble, not a beard.. I have faith he'll get there some day...
😂😂😂
Damn, you killed it man. Mad respect to Dr. Max for his honesty and modesty, but I almost genuinely felt bad for him, lol. Keep it up, you’re clearly only continuing to improve your discourse!
Nice, wanted to hear this topic properly discussed!
Doesn't need to be, there's plenty on this topic in the old testament. You don't need debates when narcissistic monarchs brag about their atrocities in their own vanity book.
@@AcolyteOfLuciferTrue, hence why I appreciate a proper discussion, which the bible is not haha
@@young_oak right lol
@@AcolyteOfLucifer
which means what you stated was stupid.
@@reesecane7878 There was no need for that. They corrected it. No need to poison the well here.
Alex, you were the last evidence we had that beards weren't required to be a philosopher! Noo!
Well William Lane Craig doesn’t have a beard so there is some hope
25:45 - 27:33 - This is clearly a failure of imagination on Max's part. We can easily imagine an evil god who creates things in order to torture them, rather than a good god who creates things in order to love them. This is trivially easy to imagine, and Max's asymmetrical agnosticism on this point tells me that he hasn't seriously considered it. At least he did concede most of this point in the subsequent minutes.
A "Why couldn't your god be evil?"
B "Because he only does good things."
A "And how do you know that makes a thing good?"
B "It comports with my god's nature."
A "... and your god's nature is good?"
B "Yes."
A "But why couldn't it be evil?
_Without_ repeating your first answer, because that would be a circular argument."
If you ask me 2+2 I would answer 4. If you again ask me 2+2 and expect a different answer, then I have to recommend you to go to a psychiatrist.
But that asserts everything He does is absoluletly objectively good. But as we can see creating men wasn't the best idea ever because of how much suffering there is in the world. And the fact that we today know god didn't create men in his image but we evolved creates the question where does even god come into the play and do absoluletly good things. Even if we agree that god created the universe and natural evolution lead to our existence, what makes creating the universe an objectively good thing? But if we take the another way and say god interferes with our daily lives and does objectively good things, where does the suffering in the world comes from? And humanity isn't the correct answer in this question because if god does interfere to push objectively good things he would not allow suffering, but if he deliberatly allows suffering then he is obviously not good.
@@alpacino9226 yeah it's dumb. When you get an answer it's like it's not going through their head
The only reason people experience "good" is so that those who don't have that recognise they experience suffering. If nobody experienced anything good, everyone else wouldn't know how miserable their lives are. Therefore, an evil god can be expected to promote some good in the world in order to maximise suffering for everyone else.
@@alpacino9226 You could say that you are being given the answer "4" and are insisting that the only addition to reach it is 2 + 2, ignoring 1 + 3, -1 + 5, etc.
Only halfway through, but this is fascinating! A very well-done, collected, and intriguing conversation. I wish more "debates" were like this.
My first impression of Dr Baker-Hytch is he looks too young to have a doctorate. But he makes good arguements, is polite, and a genuinely great conversationalist.
The CosmicBeard is back!
Does that mean the Skeptic part is gone? 🤔
This man has earned my respect to a degree only one other person on RUclips has, to the point I don't skip his ads!
I missed the debates, I love to listen to those while working
Cant wait for the Cosmic Clips of this video!
the portion that begins at 16:30 sounds like the paarthurnax dilemma "What is better - to be born good, or to overcome your evil nature through great effort?"
Exactly, plus you have to be a jerk to kill a dragon who saved existence twice lol.
I thought of Paarthurnax the moment they raised that argument!
You’d probably have to be good to overcome evil.
I was thinking Alex must have just played Skyrim!
BRUH I JUST COMMENTED THIS WITHOUT EVEN READING YOURS HAHA. I got Paarthurnax vibes hard lmao
I'll judge God the same way I judge everyone else, I'll judge him by his character and not by hear say.
Here here
@@Questionablexfun We said NOT by 'here say.'
Comment ratio:
60% beard
40% about the actual debate
More like 90-10 honestly
A generous ratio, honestly. I expected about 90-10, beard's favor.
Honestly I've seen more comments about comments about his beard than the actual comments themselves
So glad to see smart people having actual discussions, willing to concede points and examine views. I wish all debates were this rational. Well done, all 3 of you.
Alex, very impressive responding so eloquently and clearly on the spot. You clearly have a great grasp on the deepness of these issues and can consider them on the fly. Well done.
The indifference of a god to the torture and suffering of animals, at the hands of humans, suggests that he is evil.
Thats just to you people suffer far far more than any animal can and we still want to live even if tommrow I'm going to get my head chopped off that could happen I know that animal's don't I don't worry about bad happening and it has
I'm a vegan so I'm definitely pained by what animals go through. But how can you be sure god is indifferent toward animal suffering?
Or just indifferent
@@Killerkiki313 I can't but we are omnivorous and I won't ever go vegan because it very clearly adapts your mind we could be highly intelligent like elephants without needing animal's but we do for optimum health
Understand the concept the disgusting treatment of animals but god gave man free will (good) not to do bad things. The choice is not preloaded only a choice.
This was a really, really good debate, if anyone's on the fence about watching.
BTW such a lovely conversation between two people are happy to have one and not suggest they are either right or wrong!
Great debate, cheers mate.
Are you kidding? Max had no good answers or rebuttals for anything. He seemed unprepared and completely out of his element. This wasn't even a debate. This was Alex having to repeatedly explain concepts to someone who for all intents and purposes is obviously intellectually inferior or woefully unprepared to discuss the topic.
I like Max due to his civility, and just generally a nice guy in all instances I've seen him. But man, he had his whole thesis basically put on ice >_
Alex has a lot of these good faith debates.
I would've really liked to see them talk for another hour so they could finish some of the arguments they left unfinished due to time.
This is literally the most respectful and interesting conversation like this on the internet that i've ever heard
I think Max needs to watch some of the latest Darkmatter2525 videos. God clearly has a propensity to do evil also.
I watched his video about Christian pro-forced-birthers, and why they are wrong. Brilliant video! But plenty of atheist pro-forced-birthers in the comments, who started to argue that in their opinion it is science that somehow supports the idea of restricting pregnant women's right of bodily autonomy
Yeah
@@KateeAngel yay he makes cool videos but there not right
The pro abortion one made me laugh so hard
Wow that looks so bad out of context 🤣
@@megamillion2461 what Bible quote was inaccurate? Or how so, can you elaborate because frankly he gives sources you just make a claim
*insert comment about how the debate was really interesting and appreciating both the beard and the arguments*
Of course an alleged deity like the one in the Bible could hold and embrace and instruct its adherents in this world to follow morally bankrupt (evil) positions. We know it's possible because if you believe the alleged deity of the bible actually exists, then there's already clear demonstration that this deity has instructed its adherents to behave in morally irresponsible (evil) ways.
Exactly! I can’t tell you how often Christians justify heinous acts in the Bible by saying they are actually morally acceptable because God commanded it (see destruction of Amalekites 1 Sam 15). This notion further bleeds into extremist Christian views of today - justifying morally reprehensible behavior by saying they are doing God’s work (see WBC, subjugation/abuse of women, etc)
@@that1monk 😆
@@hannahhill5627
Hi, I don't know if you're able to see this meme, but I took the quote from a radio interview of AC Grayling by Dennis Prager that I listened to quite a number of years ago: facebook.com/photo?fbid=10151538905215905&set=a.93099875904 ..................quite terrifying, actually.
Anyone who can read the bible (which should be renamed “God’s Guide to Genocide “) and not recoil in horror and revulsion at the gratuitously cruel atrocities committed or commanded by the barbaric, bloodthirsty deity therein, has suspended all pity, empathy and compassion.
Yes just look at trumpslife of serving the devil and it's results.
Couldn't ask for a better video to fall asleep to.
Great debate! Very respectfull...
Love your vids Alex! Also digging the beard
This is probably the most amicable I've ever seen a discussion. Neither person seemed to try to misunderstand or strawman the other.
My bias is showing but Alex definitely won the debate in regards to the topic but as a conversation, we all win.
wow i loved that, could have listen to for another hour easy
Great debate!
"could god be evil?" short answer, yes, long answer, if he exists he most probably is and is playing with us in some way
and he butchered every single one of mankind that didnt do as demanded.
Thats just how your mind works we judge other's threw our eye's
@@davidevans3223 what? I’m not “judging others” I’m thinking philosophically about the topic
@@miguelmackay4851 you said God is evil rather than try and understand
Descartes 'Evil Genius'
I love the way google thinks "theodicy" is the same as "The Odyssey" and puts up either indiscriminately.
Hello. As a theist I trully enjoy your program. Just subscribed. Hello from Serbia.
Absolutely crushed this one.
23:23 "There's nothing that God can't do for a lack of strength..." so easily it falls out of the mouth yet he is powerless when children are stolen, or babies are mutilated, or women are raped, or bombs are dropped - so he does nothing because he is cruel, oblivious, apathetic or more obviously non existent.
Ay, that was really hard at the end. I wasn't convinced that the good god hypothesis was more convincing than the evil god hypothesis since Alex made so many points that caused Max to concede, but even moreover, the story of the homeless person outside the college actually, embarrassingly, provoked my eyes to well up ... Can't say that's ever happened while watching a debate! But to really focus on the tremendous suffering that people (and non-human animals) have to experience brings out a lot of emotions, and it becomes really hard to stay rational and look at it all purely from the lens of philosophical argumentation. With such powerful emotions, it seems obvious that if there is a god, it would be uncaring to say the least and evil at its worst. In fact, I just watched an interview on Invisible People with an 18-year-old who became homeless at age 7 because his parents died in a car crash, he ended up in an abusive foster care situation, and he ran away. He now is going to enter the army just so he can have a nightly bed and three meals a day. That is no reason to enter an institution that will only inflict even more suffering on the human race. What kind of god would allow this all to happen to a child? Christians try to do backflips and somersaults to rationalize these conditions that humans face, but from an outsider, no matter how many possible reasons are given, it still doesn't seem possible, just like madness really. I have to say though that these conclusions are based on my emotions more than hard logic, but at least this discussion helped to shed light on how the logic that Christians use can very well be turned on its head to equally justify an evil god.
Interestingly, that idea of a torturous mixed world also reminded me of Season 1 of the series The Good Place, in which a demon thinks the best way to torture humans is with themselves alone, including the comparative living conditions that Alex was describing. The real kicker is that most of the humans that seemed good and to be living well were actually just demons acting as humans, and in a later iteration, they were played by realistic virtual simulations that didn't even have a conscious human experience of pleasure. That would be even worse than the most torturous world that Alex came up with, as then any pleasurable living conditions aren't even enacting pleasure, and yet the humans think it's all real and feel the worst kind of pain imaginable.
Oh, and I think it's VERY obvious that anyone who stepped into a perpetual bliss experience ("bliss world" as they term it) would absolutely 100% choose that over the mixed world we currently have. People don't like to admit this to themselves for all sorts of reasons, but to me at least, such reasoning always seems disingenuous.
Great debate by 2 fantastic people
"Could" is a waste of time on such a question in which theists have *never once* in thousands of years, shown a 'there there.'
Without any proof of a god, any discussion of anything else is just time-wasting, daydreaming nonsense. It would be like discussing what Unicorns eat... um... why bother when you haven't presented a freaking Unicorn!
Wow don't you think God clearly wants to remain anonymous so nothing you can do will prove it if that happend free will would end no more future
It's not a waste of time when billions of people base their lives on the predicate that their god is good, whether or not that god exists.
If your child had an imaginary friend they thought was good, but that told them to tortute animals, I think
"Are you _sure_ your imaginary friend is good...?"
is a perfectly reasonable question.
You talk about unicorns when thats not the same one is God the creator of the universe the other a fictional character...
Whatever created the universe is what God means you can't have a better exsplantion you can only say don't know
@@davidevans3223 No.
@@JMUDoc Yes, it is. Numbers of people doing or thinking stuff is irrelevant.
A lie is a lie, no matter how beautiful.
It was actually getting frustrating watching this doctor not understand Alex's point (good/bad in terms of functionality vs good and evil objectively) after so many explanations. He would always answer in a circular non-answer and it ultimately ended with: "huh, I don't know I'll have to think about it".
The 'bliss world/mixed world/torture world spectrum' idea was very interesting. I would love to hear a longer discussion on that.
Interesting observation. I’m only about 52 minutes in and I’ve been incredibly impressed with this guy. I found the points from both sides really intellectually stimulating, I’ve seen no straw manning, I’ve seen the Dr accept pretty much everything Alex has said. And I don’t mind at all that he said he’d need to think on it some more. There’s been one time I’ve seen so far where he said that, and it was to a scenario I think he probably hadn’t considered before (that having a propensity for evil but overcoming it and always doing good is more virtuous than having a nature that always makes you do good).
*"Huh, I don't know I'll have to think about it".* > Is actually a really good point to bring a theist to - it's about as good as it gets.
@@JohnSmith-fz1ih yeah, I'm definitely not against admitting when you don't know something. With how long they spent on that point, I was just hoping he would've had something substantial to answer Alex, since he always seemed to have a good rebuttal previously. Hopefully they'll revisit the topic again.
@@xFriendlyNapalm I agree, but I wouldn't lump Dr Max in with other theists. This seems to be an intellectual pursuit for him, and he understands very well that his opinions could be wrong. That's not typical for a theist (in the online world anyway).
@@_Booker_DeWitt I agree with that. When I hear the words "he's written a paper" that implies to me that he's studied the topic in depth, considered all underlying assumptions and possible rebuttals against the points made in the paper, and only published the points that he can back up. But if this discussion is to go by, it seems like the paper was a list of arguments, where possible rebuttals weren't given much if any consideration, and published with the hopes that one or two might hold water.
Alex’s rebuttal of Torture World and his insight on Mixed World was great 🎯.
I really appreciate Max’s honesty in admitting that he needed to think about something further, rather than doubling down in self defense.
Bro Im so proud of you
Riveting stuff, best thing I've seen on your channel. Though I'm an atheist Alex's description of a maximally evil God needing to create a world of continual suffering felt like an accurate portrayal of life! Aaargh!
As a person who is likey high on the scale of being a psychopath, thanks for saying if we choose to do good it is a positive quality.
You're the best! I'd love to see more Omegle vegan debates.
This was an actually good conversation, yay
WOW this intro go hard!!!
Alex looks cool with the facial hair
He looks like a true intellectual
Can anyone explain to me how an omnipotent being could possibly be "moral" when it is not subject to any oversight or repercussions for any of its actions yet we are? If their is a "God", life immediately turns into the matrix. How could existence have any meaning if all are ruled by God? Enjoy your eternal veal pen.
Lovely debate.
loving the facial hair man
Some pretty interesting discussions! The Specially "A mixed world of mostly suffering with a small minority living well could be worst than torture world" and the question of "Is something that is fully good better or worse than a fully bad being that chooses to do good".
I think that small minority living well part doesn't work very well. It's clearly a more evil world in my opinion if the minority living well to taunt the people suffering are just some kind of illusion.
I will simp for the beard anyday but, with my aesthetic instincts kicking in, I can't help but want to sort that hair out! haha Someone get Alex a stylist, there's real potential here ;D
Has to let it grow a little more first. Beard grow very unequally and many people start to trimming too soon.
@@RanEncounter I'm talking about the hair on his head though. I enjoy just watching beards grow actually, but his hairstyle needs work hehe
I get that this is intended as a light hearted joke, and in response to this, I'll take Alex's critical thinking that is rooted in integrity, justice, and quest for knowledge however way he chooses to communicate them. =)
philosophers need beards
So, the thesis of Max's paper is that God could be good. Sure it can, but the point is God could also be bad!
I think the point of the paper was that A maximully good god is more probable than an evil one. The Evil god argument says that both are equally likely, doctor Baker-Hytch was trying to claim that a good god is more likely, it's more probable
@@zephyrproffitt240
I’d like to see the maths on that probability calculation.
@@larjkok1184 same, I absolutely agree with you, I just don't think we're getting anywhere over simplifying his argument like that
@@zephyrproffitt240
I think the simplification stops his argument in its tracks.
Probability is simply likelihood over possibility.
He presents nothing to assign a value to either of those variables.
@@larjkok1184 Evaluation of "one is more likely" doesn't require actual values assigned. Evil god argument claims total symmetry, so only thing needed to refute is is finding one piece of assymetry towards your preferred outcome, and you have a probabilistic argument without ever needing to assign any probabilities. Math is only required to check relative weight of multiple assymetries pointing separate ways to see where we fall after factoring them in.
My brain is far to tired for this just now. I'll come back later.
Hope you all have an awesome day.
You too
If you say that 1000 sufferers, is worse than 1000 sufferers and 1 happy person, because they all see what they are missing out on. Then wouldn't 1000 happy people, be worse than 1000 happy people and one sufferer, because they all see what they are missing out on.
A non-provably existent supreme being that's evil (rather than good) is something that all of us necessarily should worry about.
Why? Its not like we can do anything about him. Since we have no proof, or means with which to interact with such a being, it is a moot point worrying about it.
It's amazing how both good and evil gods are equally plausible... almost like god can have whatever attributes we want... like we're the ones in control and god is like a fictional character.
The difference in volume between these 3 gents is really jarring
Only an hour of the way in, but I'm confused about why Baker-Hytch is talking about a probability space. If Alex is only tasked with showing that God _could_ be evil, why does it matter whether one view is compatible with more theories?
I was thinking the same way! Great conversation but Baker-Hytch has to work on his presentation or understanding of his interlocutor's propositions. Steel manning Alex should have happened earlier in the conversation so that he could get a better understanding of what it was he was to be debating.
The burden of proof is on both of them, but the only way to disprove an evil God is to prove that only a good God has the probability of existing.
As Max said, the validity of philosophical views is usually determined by the number of possibly contradictions. When arguing about whether a god could be evil, Alex isn't trying to argue that it has a non 0 probability. The "could" in this sense implies with equal probability because any non equal probability would skew the argument and make either the evil god or the good god more likely and therefore more philosophically valid.
@@ParadoxProblems Understood. But it would seem to me that Max did a terrible job of proving that the "good" god takes up a greater probability space than the evil god in this video. It's important to articulate one's self well, and I'm sure his paper is very well written and more thorough than the things he stated, but from the video alone, one would seem to take away that Alex provided enough contradictions to validate the idea that an evil god is just as likely as a good god.
Disclaimer: I have not read Max's paper, nor do I plan to, as this is a theological issue rather than philosophical (which I am much more interested in). One cannot debate the morality of a being that has not even been substantiated.
@@alchimyst4995 Yeah, I agree. It seems Max's main problem was conflating "good" as fulfilling its purpose and "good" as the moral definition of an act which makes life better. That leads to the similar conflation of "bad" and "evil" that Alex pointed out. I feel like Alex could have deconstructed the 2nd claim even more by addressing the difference between what is good for god's purpose and what we consider to be morally good.
It is entirely plausible that a god that is good at being evil makes us think that god is morally good leading to a disparity between moral good and the morality of god which completely deconstructs Max's 2nd point as well.
@@ParadoxProblems Okay thanks, that makes sense. I guess I was thinking of could in a really strict way. But true, they were only really trying to "break the symmetry" one way or the other. I wonder how it would've gone if they instead had like 3 hours to hash it all out
If he exists, he is definitely evil 😂
I agree he is evil and does good from time to time just to mess with us . Or there's also a possibility he is neutral. Neither bad or evil. In that case no one can be rewarded or punished since everything is morally neutral.
Loving the beard Alex 👍
16:36 reminds me of Paarurnthax's words from skyrim, "What is better, to be born good or to overcome your evil nature through great effort"
I think us living in "torture world" is more likely than us living in the opposite.
Torture world yay
You mean here?
I would say both seem pretty unlikely, for one of the same reasons the idea of a benevolent god is often considered suspect-a malevolent god could be doing so much better at making us suffer.
@@jacobd1984 Or no god at all which explains everything?
Thanks spaghetti, I don't living in US.
It not a hard question to answer:
Yes;
Why?
He murdered all of mankind except some that kissed his arse.
Murdered haha
@@reesecane7878 You do know that God created man after his own image right?
=Murdering mankind because his followers rather be with women did 100% trigger a genocidal & mudering ragefit.
@@kennethnystrom593
You do know I'M NOT CHRISTIAN, Right?
Try again, Dr angry 😅
@@reesecane7878 Angry at a murdering monster. You bet yah.
And so should you be. Cause the followers want to depict it as it was ok/good for "God" to do it.
@@kennethnystrom593
Irrationally angry Dr?
I'm still not Christian 😅
Lmao that opening😂😂😂😂😂
Love the mustache
Another topic of debate could be: “is god so-so?”
Maximally meh.
Lol
Max's whole argument was just a word play of 'Good' and 'Goodness'...but you can be Good at being Evil.
Their definitional argument fails everywhere they use the word 'Good'...which is literally everywhere in their religious claim.
Evil Good God is just as likely as Loving Good God.
Well done Alex for illustrating that.
You raised a good point about a god who overcomes a desire for evil is better than one who never overcomes that desire. There is even biblical support for this with the temptation of Jesus in the desert. Jesus’s moral character was demonstrated through him resisting temptation. It would show nothing if he was resisting nothing at all.
Wow! One hour in before they started defining terms (what are "good" and "evil"?) and they still didn't manage to avoid equivocation afterwards!
A very good discussion, Max was acting in good faith, what a standup guy
Came for the beard, stayed for the knowledge
I came for the knowledge and stayed for the beard lol
We really need these types of discussions 😊
my answer to this
basically is,us humans have no "Peace"
and the alledge entity aka god.
have yet to revealed himself,or give us,an explanation for all this chaos in the world.
It seems to me that the semantic issue here is that we're using and acknowledging two definitions for bad (ineffective vs evil [malevolent]) but we're not drawing the same distinction between the definitions for good (effective vs good [benevolent].) A god that maximizes malevolence is a good (effective) malevolent god, where as one who tries but fails is a bad (ineffective) malevolent god. Likewise, a god that maximizes benevolence is a good benevolent god compared to a bad benevolent god who tries but fails to maximize benevolence.
29:20
I like how he responds with "fair point" as if what he just said didn't show the probability for there being an evil god rather than a good one as essentially equal given our predisposed knowledge.
*you can't convince a smart theist by any simple means...*
It sucks to see minds with so much potential beauty suffer from cognitive dissonance
1:04:46
I want to know if I'm the only one that sees these videos and is like, "I honestly don't care anymore."
But still watch the whole darn thang👀
Kudos to Max Baker-Hytch for his maturity in the debate. From my perspective, Alex's points were more sound (note that I was already on Alex's side of the debate) but I greatly appreciated that Dr. Baker-Hytch conceded points when he didn't have sound refutation at that time. This isn't to say that he couldn't have refutation but just that he didn't have one at the time. I know that sounds mundane to point out but it's a very difficult thing for probably every person in the world so I just wanted to voice that.
There is a discussion to be had about what 'true bliss' really is; I don't think it's necessarily the same thing as constant maximal pleasure. The fact that we might prefer to live in a world where pleasure is not constant and maximal shows that perfect bliss may not be possible in a world of perfect pleasure
Could the most powerful being in existence be evil? Of course, there is absolutely no reason what so ever not.
Could the creator of everything be evil? Of course, there is absolutely no reason what so ever not.
Could a being defined as the ultimate manifestation of good be evil? No.
Does these have to be the same being? No.
Exactly. You can't have an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient God.
You can have a god with 2 of these traits, but not all 3.
Omnipotent and omniscient god can be evil or not perfectly good so he let's evil happen.
Omnipotent and omnibenevolent god doesn't know everything, so he can't stop all evil.
Omniscient and omnibenevolent doesn't have the power to stop evil.
A god with all 3 traits cannot exist because evil exists in the world, which means god can't or doesn't want to stop it, or he doesn't know about it.
@@randominternetguy3537 The way people get around that is by saying good and evil is defined by a godlike being. For example, if a god thinks a group of people should die, then that is the morally Good thing. Therefore an omnipotent and omniscient god can do anything, and anything they do is by definition Good. This presumes that humanity's intuition of good and evil doesn't matter in a cosmic scale as it is a god who defines what good and evil is. A good example of this is when Christians say the Israeli genocide of non-Israel tribes in the old testament is good.
@@Lilybellmusic no, they would say "you wouldn't find something like this in the new testament, because Jesus died for our sins in the new testament." Despite the fact that there is suffering in the world. So they're saying that anything God does is good because God did it, so it must be good. Now we find ourselves in a conundrum because they believe in the abrahamic God, one who is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient.
The conundrum is that if God can't make us understand why his actions are good, he isn't omnipotent. If he can't stop the suffering, he is (again) not omnipotent. There are reasons why a God who is only 2 of those things could justify not being able to stop suffering.
Omnibenevolent and omnipotent, he doesn't know where or when suffering is happening.
Omnibenevolent and omniscient, he knows of the suffering and wishes to stop it but lacks the power.
Omniscient and omnipotent, he simply does not give a fuck.
Its a shitty argument, unless you consider free will, which gives it a little more nuance, except that he doesn't make himself clearly observable therefore proving an objective morality within him. Also, he could simply explain why some action will lead you to hell.
This is a shitty part of the argument and I'm done. I'm gonna sleep.
@@randominternetguy3537 I don't really understand why you wrote the whole thing out again, I very clearly understand the omni-qualities requirement of a Christian god. My point was that the Christian argument of "anything God does is good because God did it, so it must be good" which hinges upon the assumption that Christian god defines good and evil, essentially works to negate any sort of moral challenge - for example, when you say "the conundrum is that if God can't make us understand why his actions are good, he isn't omnipotent; If he can't stop the suffering, he is (again) not omnipotent" - that could easily be dismissed by a Christian to say "Not explaining why his actions are good and choosing to not stop suffering, is Good from godly point of view".
The same can be applied when you later say "he doesn't make himself clearly observable therefore proving an objective morality within him" - they could easily dismiss that by saying, "not proving an objective morality is Good from godly point of view". The entire problem is that in Christianity, God is the one who dictates what is good and evil. It's the reason why in a Christian belief system, God can be omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent without being illogical - the premise that God dictates good and evil, makes it logical. What the original poster Rickard Bergelius didn't understand is that their wording has a subtle condition: it should read as: "Could a being defined as the ultimate manifestation of good be evil in human point of view?" And the answer would be yes. The subtlety comes from the fact that the bible argues God is the ultimate manifestation of Good, and it doesn't depend on outside judgment for that to be true. In Christianity, what humans think of good and evil does not matter. This is all because of the incredibly powerful premise that God dictates what is good and evil.
This allows for a (what you might describe as hand-wavy) explanation on omniscient + omnipotent situation - it's not that he doesn't care, but it's that humans simply don't understand why existence of evil is a good thing. Nowhere in Christianity does it suggest that full understanding of God's morality is required to make omnibenevolence true, just like how they don't need to demonstrate exactly how God is omniscient or omnipotent. It's just a premise. It just happens to be that omnibenevolence is an incredibly powerful premise.
Tl;dr: before employing the argument on why omni-qualities of God are inconsistent, you first need to address the presumption that God defines what is good and evil, because as long as God defines what is good and evil, the omni-qualities are in fact logical and consistent. The problem is that omnibenevolence is by definition, unassailable. Any attack on it can be dismissed as "that's just evil in your point of view, but God is still Good". It's the cliche "it was part of God's plan" defense. Personally, I find this very difficult to challenge besides just saying that while logical, it seems unlikely to be true.
@@Lilybellmusic ok I get it. They started out with a premise that can't be falsified, and therefore their argument makes perfect sense as long as they believe in the premise.
Thanks, Imma have to do some research to be able to more easily falsify or get rid of the premise.
About Mixedworld gradients:
I agree, as they admit, there is a version of Mixedworld that people will superficially, upfront, choose as their favorite over Blissworld-but that in reality is not as good, and they only prefer Mixedworld because they are already in Mixedworld. If they were in Blissworld, they would not make that superficial choice.
If there exists such a suffering that can only be produced by seeing the contrast between those suffering and those having pleasure or being fine, and every person in Tortureworld is experiencing maximal suffering, then the people of Tortureworld must be hallucinating to be under the impression that there are people having pleasure. If they weren't, there would be a form of suffering that they are not experiencing.
Adding more people into Tortureworld would indeed add more suffering, even if the new people were only from Mixedworld, but as Alex admits, all of those additional new people experiencing the same torture as the people already in Tortureworld would still be even worse. So assuming the number of people is the same, Tortureworld is worse than any gradient version of Mixedworld. The only reason that having a portion of the people in a world not be Tortured makes it seem even worse is because we're outside observers seeing the contrast, and not because it's actually any worse.
Tortureworld could have a fake raffle. The winners get to escape their torture and live in complete bliss. Everyone is automatically entered in the draw, but the draw is a lie. Fake names are announced, everyone feels worse that they weren’t a winner but are left with (false) hope that they may win next time, only to have that hope extinguished once again. Forever.
No actual absence of suffering required.
@@jojomojojones but what if the hope of winning gives people pleasure? in thag's comment and yours, the argument is essentially the "higher order evil" theodicy. If you accept that theodicy (which you shouldn't to begin with), then you must accept that torture world is a version of mixed world. The exact same arguments work for bliss world. Putting a few suffering people in bliss world could make you feel better that you're not one of them, or make you feel worse that they exist. Here it becomes more obvious that having happy people in torture world could provide torment as much as it could provide hope, and the argument is symmetrical for bliss world. The longer you examine these and the other arguments, the more clear it becomes that maximal good/evil is nonsensical, and assuming that it exists leads to illogical conclusions.
It also took me longer than I'd like to admit to realize that it's literally just heaven and hell. So if people would rather live in mixed world, they're saying that heaven is worse than earth. Or, that heaven would just be the same as earth. Or, that suffering in heaven must exist to create a "higher order good," which is gratitude for not being chosen to suffer. It's a nice demonstration of why maximally possessing a subjective quality just makes no sense, unless the idea was came from a human.
As Alex so clearly laid out the problem towards the end of the video was clearly not that an evil god isn’t possible, but that there are clear problems with the way we go about defining good and evil in relation to any god. Effectively the definitions presented try to define god as good in a manner that is entirely unrelated to his actions, so that a god who does nothing but harm is still good, but only by a definition we would never use in any other context.
I feel like most of this was just watching Max process Alex's objections and same. I'm like can you give me a second to let that load.
I hope this is on Spotify! It‘s getting too hairy here!
Beard looks amazing Alex
Please do a video on ideological subversion
I would love to see a discussion about an indifferent god. A deity who simply doesn't care about their creation