Hey, Trent. Thank you for the time and effort you put into this rebuttal. I've watched it a few times over, and I'm eager to share my thoughts in a response of my own when I have the time. Thanks again :)
I'm glad you liked it! I'd also be open to having a chat about it if you like. Or we could do a roundtable with you me and @MajestyofReason - That would be epic.
Why are you even posting at all? Don't you realize the implications of your beliefs would mean we don't have any reason or certitude in our beliefs? If we're just deterministic matter, what's the point? Rather your not trying to communicate that semantically at all. You're just trying to justify taking for granted an atheistic liberalism particular to our time.
@@PL9050 schools attempt to indoctrinate children to engage in premarital sex and they attempt to force their own disgusting theories on the beginning of earth on children they also promote homosexual behavior I wish I hadn't had to go through the hell that was public education I'd rather not be able to read than have to go through that living hell again , I wish I could go back in time to when public education by the secular wasn't a thing to warn the common decent people of the decadence of the atheistic secular state and how giving children up to the state was no different than sacrificing them to a false God
The problem of evil is probably one of the stronger arguments against theism, or at least it demands an answer. In any event that's one of the stronger arguments I've found against theism if I were to steel man the athiest position. But it is not well made here; repackaging it doesn't make it stronger. Nor does straw Manning the theist concept of an all-powerful, all-loving God.
@@Jamesmatise if that is one of the stronger arguments against theism, then, there ia no case against theism. One can only talk about evil in the relation to good, the same way, we can only talk about darkness in relation to light.
I found Rationality Rules unwatchable. He was patronizing, insulting, and very presumptuous. He claims that a religious or theistic person would have to think this way or have this opinion, but I could not see nor hear myself in the religious strawmen he tries to build in his videos. It made his channel unwatchable and unenjoyable. I tried many times over the years to watch his content but found it nonsensical, he is arguing against a religious person I have never meet and against religious beliefs I have never held, it makes his content pointless and I think, hateful.
i find it hilarious he made a game based on logical fallacies but is totally oblivious to when he uses them. think the guy would make a stronger arguments with that in his back pocket
If you don't believe in a God that determines people's eternal fate based on their beliefs and created a world knowing many of the beings he created would get the short end of the stick based on those criteria but still should be called loving and just, quite a few of his arguments probably aren't going to seem applicable. I guarantee you I have grown up absolutely surrounded by people that believe the things he argues against though. If you're not committed to such harmful views I'd say good on you, but that doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile for people to argue against them.
@@matthewnitz8367 But, you missed something; Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, & Lutheran (non-reformed) theologians are all arguing against these claims, even many of the Reformed (Calvinist) don’t hold to the claims the way these types of online skeptics fame them. Yes, you can find a poorly informed believer (even a pious one whom knows their bible verses) who claim such things within these denominations and faiths; but that is not the Official teaching of those faiths and denominations. Now, the further you go away from orthodoxy (small o), and away from tradition, doctrine, dogma, and creeds; the more you may hear self proclaimed Christians say these things (maybe), but that’s heterodox. If all the reasonable voices are saying that is not what we believe why would you choose only to believe the unreasonable ones (because it was a bad teacher, or a bad priests, or a bad school mate, or a bad friend, or an enemy)? If you can stand in a class or a job and have opinions different than everyone else in that grouping, and understand that, what can’t you accept that not all individual “Christians” speak for the whole faith.
@@highroller-jq3ix Who are you asking this to, Matt or myself? Because I said I’ve watched his videos multiple times but couldn’t stand them. Maybe I’ve watched 10 of his vids over the years, 11 if you include this one, and all of them were intolerable.
When I was a teenager, atheist arguments like his might have scared me as a nondenominational “Christian”. But it’s fortunate that I converted last year to Catholicism and found theologians like Thomas Aquinas, William Lane Craig and apologist like Trent, Testify, and InspiringPhilosophy
@@existential_o _"Selectively choosing what information you think negates Christianity, then presenting it as if it’s the whole is crazy."_ Yet you believe, without any evidence, that God walked around town for thirty years and then died and became a zombie and then the graves opened and the corpses and skeletons rose out and "appeared to many" and all of that happened without any of the locals noticing.
The whole problem is, he presupposes 'evil', 'logic' and 'reason' without giving even a justification for his position, you can't make ethical claims and divorce them from epistemology and metaphysics. These kind of evaluation things require 2nd order abstractions (thinking of thinking, epestemic starting points, paradigm level consistency, etc.). The thing is how does he know what evil is, let alone recognize, and without knowledge of good and evil, and rejection we are able to chose/reject evil, there is simply no morality. Everyone who uses ought/should is smuggling in imperatives without justification. Thank you Trent for adressing it, this is exactly what I realized as an Atheist, which leads to nihilism if you are honest/consistent with its premises.
I'd really love to see more online debates with Trent Horn vs. Atheists. The one with cosmicskeptic is probably one of the best ever done. Would love to see more
Thank you for responding to Woodford's video with such kindness, reason, and respect! I actually really respect the intellectual work he has done on his channel, even if I disagree with him. Your views on Christianity are so well-rounded and understandable, Trent. In fact, your specific position within Catholicism has actually contributed to my decision to convert in the coming months. God Bless. 🥰
I used to think it was irrational too. Then God showed me how irrational he wanted me. Even as an atheist I couldn’t explain away the things that happened to me. Then the only rational explanation was for there to be a God.
When someone leads off by demonstrating, as Woodford does, that they don't understand the definitions of the terms they use, they make the work of rebutting them SO much easier!
@@Mark-cd2wf vif you know with 100% certainty that if you have intercourse with your partner you will produce a child that will be all his life in the most horrible pain and suffering would you decide to have intimacy and bring this child to the world?
@@fanghur A universally accepted definition that Stephan and those like him don’t accept? What a bizarre thing to ask for, it’s like you don’t know what “universally accepted” means. He said that “to have faith is to believe in a proposition despite there not being sufficient evidence for doing so”. He hasn’t the slightest clue what he’s taking about, that’s never been the definition of faith. Faith is “an act of the will by which one binds oneself to another who is known”.
I've found that "rational" is a highly slippery word with difficult-to-pin-down definitions. For example, in Economics "rational" means "acting acording to desire". It doesn't mean "wise" or "according to aristotelian logic". Generally, calling something irrational is just calling something generically bad, which isn't always helpful.
Roughly it boils down to the pursuit of objective, provable truth. One thing I always question is given that we live in a postmodernist age where objective truth is a concept that’s constantly under attack I don’t fully understand why Christians are still in the crosshairs of so many “rational” atheists. We aren’t even the biggest opponents of their worldview at the moment.
I agree with that. In a sense, "rationality" when understood in a context of sensibility can also mean what is normal coming from current human experience and societal norms. In that sense, rationality could be understood very different based on the context of your surroundings in society. P.S. I am not trying to go denying a metanarrative or anything but just adding to your point 😂.
That is not what rartional means in economics. In economics it means you can organize your choices hierarchically (completeness axiom) and that you can mantain the transitivity of these choices (A>B, B>C => A>C), (transitivity axiom)
Christians are still a big opponent, look at the US @harrygarris6921 Many US christians are in bed with white nationalists or other forms of fascism. These are just as bad as radical islam. They are also authocratic/theocratic fascists. There's a whole lot of moderate christians that find a middle way between actual reality and belief system and want to live in a world where people are nice to each other. Which means acceptance and tollerance, which is only really possible in a secular state. But the same for many muslims. And there conspiricists and grifters. These are in battle with objective truth too. But often these are also related to christianity or islam.
I suppose God created geniuses like Joe Schmid too? Majesty of Reason. Worth listening to him walk through this video. He agrees with Trent that theism can be rational, disagrees with him on other points.
I was an outspoken atheist from the age of 15 to my early 40s and went through most phases - atheist, agnostic, very lukewarm, undenominational Chistian, then suddenly Roman Catholic after having got very close to Orthodoxy. I know perfectly how atheists think and feel about religion: their ideas are mostly based on limited, flawed knowledge and a powerful flow of contrasting emotions.
Catholic here. Engaged in RUclips Comments Section feuds with Atheists. Partially out of ego, partially because I find internet Atheists to be bullies. Partly because we are commended to 'instruct the ignorant'. What 'evidence' convinced you of God? What questions caused you to re-think your Atheism? Double-D, thank you for your witness.
His channel name 'rationality rules' is laughable. As a cognitive science postgrad, his adolescent new atheist understanding of reason and 'rationality' is stuck in an 18th century mechanistic, formal understanding of the mind. This view of rationality has been rejected over and over again in psychology and philosophy over the last few centuries. The irony, of course, is that he claims that religious belief is an outdated practice...all whilst professing an understanding of reason and rationality that is literally centuries out of date😂😂He thinks throwing around terms like 'heuristics' and 'biases' is enough to stop people noticing this. 🤣🤦♂️Mr rationality rules is very much irrational
@highroller-jq3ix words like empathy and compassion don't make any sense without God. It's like what C.S Lewis said about a straight and a crooked line. Well how do you know the lines crooked if you never knew what a straight line looked like. Such is the nature of Good and Evil
@@bucksfan77 Like all human-invented words, no god fantasy is required to make sense out of the words that humans generate through human language. Very little is like C.S. Lewis said. The nature of Good and Evil is silly, false dichotomy adhered to by simpletons. Empathy and compassion are part of the human genetic inheritance and are practiced irrespective of reference to your or any other god fantasy and are, in fact, practiced by non-human animals.
The atheist perfectly demonstrates the possibility that gratuitous evil does not exist when he cites forest fires as one. Forest fires are actually do have long term benefits for the forest and therefore the creatures living within.
Indeed, it’s a natural process that occurs due to natural factors and would continue to occur even if humans weren’t around to call them “evil.” It’s almost like we “theists” believe God created a natural world where not every single thing that occurs has to be due to “divine will.” But then again atheists seem to be rather fond of the idea that things like free will(aka humans can make choices without God’s intervention) doesn’t exist so… maybe he really dose think everything that happens is orchestrated by some predetermined force, a “god” if you will.
I had an entire class in college on prescribed forest fires, the benefits of fire are endless. The destruction we see today is mostly caused by us preventing this natural process to take place for 100+ years.
So? Why the agonizing short term suffering for animals? Like intense panik, air poisoning and getting burnt to the point of being disfigured or death? Couldn't god make them fireproof and immune to the poisons and still keep the long term benefits?
Couldn't an omnipotent omniscient God find another way to regulate the forest than the requirement of its inhabitants to burned to cinders? Oh, how loving he is, isn't he?
Literally helping my friend through a nasty breakup due to his drinking habits and addictions he picked up at the genius secular institution the state called a "university". His soul is lost and enslaved after reveling in the empty freedoms promoted by the secular atheist culture that promised life without consequences. He has to live those consequences everyday. Real people suffer from their lies.
This. Christianity should be about discipline and certain values, not rationalism, the bible is only as good as it builds discipline and the values yeah?
2:02 RR establishes intuition as an undesirable justification for belief. 4:17 RR claims we live in a world of “gratuitous evil” through intuition of knowing what “gratuitous evil” is.
I have an atheist friend who is absolutely smitten by his atheism. And he uses a version of this guys charge against suffering; except he calls it “unnecessary” rather than gratuitous suffering. I said, “how can you know what’s ultimately unnecessary and what is?” Because he does grant humanity the authority to allow suffering where its end is in the perfection or well-being of the sufferer! So I asked, “considering your finite limitations; why then can’t you grant an infinite knowledge the same utility on the suffering you can’t know how it plays out for the greater good?” His rebuttal only amounted to “that he doesn’t like it.”
@@CalebScott1991 Not if you don’t allow suffering that leads to a greater good; which we do to the degree our finite knowledge can allow. Beyond that, you would have to be perfect, which is interchangeable with infinite. So no, you’re not more moral than God. You’re not even AS moral. And neither are any of us.
@@garymanz3403 I am, I wouldn't give children cancer, so I'm more moral than your god. Just saying 'there could be cool benifits we haven't thought of for children suffering and dying', doesn't mean anything, it just shows that your're just as big of a monster as this supernatural creature you think runs your life, and sadly, that is the problem with cults in the first place.
@@Tzimiskes3506 I was explaining how it's morally virtuous, and a moral obligation, to not give children cancer. I gave a virtue, and your best comeback was I don't have a virtue. This is the most embarrassing attempt at making a point in this entire comments section.
@@CalebScott1991 I wouldn't agree there, but either way I would say his main intention here was just to rebut the points that Stephen made in his own video, rather than to build a positive case.
@@CalebScott1991 Well you raise a fair question, and I'll answer honestly. In this specific video, I don't think he made a positive case for Christianity. He very briefly outlines a partial positive case for theism in general at around 12:00 - "only a Divine cause explains a changing contingent finite fine-tuned and moral Universe". Which, if we grant for the sake of argument, doesn't get us to Christianity, but does point us towards theism. It's my understanding that Trent came to Christianity (specifically Roman Catholicism) from atheism, although I don't know his reasons for converting, and I'm not persuaded so far that Roman Catholicism is true. I don't particularly recall any positive arguments he may or may not have made for Christianity specifically, although that said, I don't claim that I would know or remember if he had. I don't always make time to watch his videos. That said, I'm seeing his recent video about the "Martyrdom Argument" for Jesus's Resurrection in my sidebar right now. Assuming he doesn't completely mess it up, that would be an argument for Christianity, and it would at least warrant a refutation rather than just immediately discounting it. So maybe that answers your question to me here. But if for the sake of argument we ignored that, I can only say from his video history that it looks like he spends more time rebutting arguments against Christianity and Catholicism than building a positive case. A complete lack of a positive case might be a red flag, but it wouldn't invalidate his rebuttals. In this video specifically, his aim is not to show that Christianity is true, but that it is not irrational, and he addresses the all the arguments Stephen raises. If the main criticism here is that Trent doesn't go further towards making a positive case, then I'd say he at least succeeded in what he intended. Either way, I'm grateful to Trent for taking the time to watch and respond, because watching and thinking through confident takedowns of your beliefs isn't fun, even when that confidence is misplaced.
Rationality is a snare if you rely on it to justify your faith. That's not to say that there aren't good rational arguments for God but if that's all you have then you're closer to being an atheist than you suppose.
He has the pragmatist issue as well. When he says gratuitous evil does not lead to anything good, he’s presuming that he knows all the requisite variables to make such a pronouncement, something a finite being cannot, by definition, know.
@@Tzimiskes3506 Probably not since I think traditional burial is a waste of valuable land resources. I will be excited molecules in the process of combustion food or an organ bank or a med school cadaver. But don't you believe your body is worm food, or does everyone get to zombie out like every other character in the Gospels?
@@highroller-jq3ix I won't argue your claim about our God being a tyrannical despot. I'm more concerned about how you don't see why we bury bodies, and would rather be generator fuel. You are thinking on a purely rational mindset. Don't get me wrong, that's extremely useful, but you also have to use your actual, real _human_ brain. The one "stained" with empathy, memories, emotions, and so on. Otherwise, you may reach horrific conclusions by weighing, say, the benefit of euthanizing the poor. You just don't, and for that you got to listen to your humanity. Brother, let me tell you something quite fascinating. We have evidence of primitive humans burying their dead for tens of thousands of years before we even knew how to build mud huts. Why did they do that? Were all pre-historic humans, from Ireland to Indonesia, somehow, believers of a zombie resurrection like you say? I think you'll understand why as you grow older. For now, a hint: Humans are not a purely rational species. We cry, lament the deaths of animals and children, strive to help strangers for no benefit of our own, revere those with most knowledge, feel attached to those nearest to us, etc. Use your human brain, not the manufactured, incomplete purely-rational brain. Cheers.
@@highroller-jq3ix Nevermind, I'll address your point about God being a "hegemonic despot". Just because of its weirdness. You see, most claims I've seen about God from atheists is that, if God exists, he is too permissive. Right in this video, the atheist being debunked is basically screaming "use me as a puppet and don't allow me to wrong anyone ever again!" But no, the way us Catholics see it, God encourages us to do good but doesn't force us, and we consider that a gift, come what may. So no, our God is not a despot, nor a tyrant, nor a puppeteer. You may wish he was and instead forced us to be good boys and girls (or else!), but personally, I'm rather fond of my free will :)
I like how Stephen Woodford says that theists must provide theodicies for *every* example of gratuitous evil, with the implication that there are just too many unique situations to reasonably do so for or considering that you only need a few theodicies because they usually don't apply to only individual specific events but large classes of situations.
God punishes children for things that their fathers, grandfathers, great-grandfathers, and great-great grandfathers did. He is so proud of this that he repeated it four times in the Bible- Exodus 20:5 , Deuteronomy 5:9 "I, the Lord, thy God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation." Exodus 34:7 "Visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children unto the third and to the fourth generation." Numbers 14:18 "Visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation." If you fail to follow all of God's commandments, God will curse your children- Deuteronomy 28:15-18 "If thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day ... Cursed shall be the fruit of thy body." And sometimes God slaughters children for the unspecified sins of their fathers- Isaiah 14:21 "Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers." The Great and Mighty God shows loving kindness to thousands, but punishes children for the iniquities of their fathers- Jeremiah 32:18 "Thou shewest loving kindness unto thousands, and recompense the iniquity of the fathers into the bosom of their children after them: the Great, the Mighty God, the LORD of hosts, is his name." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Slavery God blessed Abraham by giving him lots of slaves. Genesis 24:35 "The Lord has blessed my master abundantly, and he has become wealthy. He has given him sheep and cattle, silver and gold, male and female servants, and camels and donkeys." God's rules for slave ownership- Exodus 12:44 Don't let any of your uncircumcised slaves eat the Passover meal- "But every man's servant that is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof." Don't covet your neighbor's slaves- Exodus 20:17 "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's." Deuteronomy 5:21 "Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbor's wife, neither shalt thou covet thy neighbor's house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbor's." Exodus 21:2 "If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve, and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing." Deuteronomy 15:12 "And if thy brother, a Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman be sold unto thee." Leviticus 22:11 "If the priest buys any soul with his money..." Leviticus 25:39 "And if thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee..." Exodus 21:7 "And if a man sells his daughter to be a maidservant..." Leviticus 25:44-46 "Thy bond-men and thy bond-maids which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you: of them shall ye buy bond-men and bond-maids. Moreover, of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land. And they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession, they shall be your bond-man forever." But don't get caught stealing a slave, or you'll be put to death- Deuteronomy 24:7 "He that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death." Exodus 21:16 "If a man be found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Israel, and maketh merchandise of him, or selleth him; then that thief shall die." It's OK with God if you slowly beat your slaves to death- Exodus 21:20-21 "If a man smite his servant or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand, he shall be surely punished; notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished, for he is his money." Exodus 21:26-27 "And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake. And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake." If your ox gores someone's slave, pay the slave owner thirty shekels of silver- Exodus 21:32 "If the ox shall push a manservant or a maidservant; he shall give unto their master thirty shekels of silver." Sell poor thiefs as slaves to pay for their theft- Exodus 22:2-3 "If a thief ... have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft." If a man has sex with an engaged slave woman, scourge the woman, but don't punish the man, because she was a slave- Leviticus 19:20 "And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free." Rules for obtaining slaves during wartime- Deuteronomy 20:10-11 "When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee." Deuteronomy 20:14 "But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself."
You just need to understand Good and you can define all acts of evil. But people sayings is just to limited and those people tend to based their life in that limited description are foolish and ignorant. Quotation never meant to represent fact but rather an account of affirmation. It's funny that most people find to do things base on affirmation than studying the actual representation of fact. Understanding fact is by accessing to the actual source and given evidence. But these atheists asking affirmation by forcing you to give an evidence. Theist is building communication to God and atheist is just lazy and ignorant. I wonder why most of them self proclaimed to be introvert. Theist is studying the truth while atheist's is affirming for truth. Most Atheist basing their thoughts or knowledge in affirmation just like false prophets and preacher does. In many times I encounter atheist and false Christian, they asking question for affirmation and didn't really bring or provide any precise information to understand a certain situation. Like asking how far could Love goes and not be called evil then they will just provide their own opinion and share their views. Which things real Christian didn't think of because it's obviously it was never mean to be. They basing their morality base on poll and not gathering the most valid and direct reason to consider. Which is corrupted, bias and insufficient.
@@Tzimiskes3506 Yeah, the guy with no life and plenty of paste to waste has showed up again. I _really_ hope nobody responds to him; I’ve seen him go on for 100+ posts with his mythicist nonsense.
This appears to come down to differences in the definition of "evil." Rationality Rules appears to operate on the idea that good and evil are opposites of each other; a Yin-Yang view of the world. Trent expresses the view that evil is the absence of good.
Irrelevant distinction. You could use either definitions and the argument from the problem of evil still works and a theist still needs to have a response.
“Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It’s like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can’t trust my own thinking, of course I can’t trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.” CS Lewis
Trent you are an amazing man and such a God send! I often refer to you whenever I or someone else has questions about Catholicism or just wanting to learn more! Keep it up!
What properties do molecules have that render them capable of delivering rational thought? In other words, how does rationality fit in a chemically determined world?
@@Eliza-rg4vw The definition of rational is using reason and logic. If molecules produce your thoughts, you did not use reasoning or logic to make them. The molecules told you what to think. Also, molecules don't produce thoughts. They are part of a causal chain to produce action with your body. If that is wrong, what molecule told you to reply to me and type that exact response?
@@WhatsTheTakeaway They don't produce rational thoughts. Molecules are part of a causal chain to produce a bodily action based on the rationality YOU made. Rational means using reason and logic. If molecules tell you what to think and what to say, you did not use any reason or logic. You are stating what the molecules told you to say.
But God is morally evil, because he created suffering as a concept knowingly omnipotent perfect being, punishing billions of innocent humans. No matter how you dance, it comes down to that. God knew, and still to stroke his ego, he wanted to be worshipped so he dooms almost all his creations beforehand, before one speck of dust was 'created'. But still going with it. No, he is the morally evil creature.
@@ChristiFuturum there is no objective morality. There's relative morality. Morality because of God's authority is very shallow. I wouldn't trust somebody who derives it from interpretations of a remarkably dark book. But we can invoke the 10 commandments for the sake of this conversation. If we use that as a standard, than God is the most immoral creature. Manslaughter of billions. Lying. Not treating his neighbour (us) well. His own inspired book is filled to the brim with immoral stuff.
The problem of evil is nonsensical on its face. It's not an argument against God, it's an argument against God being a supreme good but treated as if it's the same. But then the issue is good vs evil becomes a subjective distinction, not an objective reality. Any subjective understanding of evil is insufficient to argue against God. If it's subjective, then your subjective understanding could just be incongruent with reality. The argument should start with "what is objective good if God does not exist"?
I think the "evil god" thought experiment is just a kind of cunningly laid trap for a theist. On hearing one of the parodied theodicies, you're supposed to say, "no, there's no way an evil deity would allow goodness in this world!" - and then you face the (not impossible) challenge of showing how a good deity would allow evil when the reverse isn't true, or take the intellectually humble route and just say, "OK I guess I was too hasty, maybe an evil god could have created this world." But the trap can be reasonably avoided by just responding with, "So what?" Even if an evil deity would have created a world like this, why should we think that's what happened? There is independent evidence for thinking a good God exists, and no evidence at all for thinking an evil deity exists, so God is still the more rational hypothesis.
@@MatthewFearnley It is not a trap but a defeater for one of the desperate tries by theists, to wiggle out of the problem of evil. This defense claim is that there is evil in the world, so we can choose good or that we can appreiate good more. The idea of the evil good turns this on his head. To be very clear, the problem of evil is not a defeater of a god in general, but for deitys like the Christian one. And btw we have zero evidence for a good god, exactly zero. If there would be any real evidence for such a being every apologist would should it out 24/7 but instead all they do is wiggle around the problem of evil, never solving and most times just avoiding it and they do that for 2000 years.
If we really want to talk about gratuitous evils, maybe we should start with the absolutely hideous gen-AI visuals in RR's video. It's like banality and garishness had a child.
So Horn missed the point. It's an internal critique. Woodford hardly needs to define evil, and can simply state these are things that theists themselves consider evil, but cannot explain rationally. Or, if believers recast some unnecessary suffering as "not really evil" that only makes it that much harder for them to define what evil really is. And you'll see from the comments here that even among Christians, there's a division. Some take the suffering to be a fair example of evil. Others say suffering does not equal evil. The Christians in this very comment section do not have a consistent view of evil. I see this simply by reading the comments. Perhaps, for this reason, the counterargument of the evil god as equally plausible, fails. It fails because one could easily look at all the hurt and suffering deliberately caused by a malevolent god, wise in his evil, and name that 'good'. Given the discrepancy in how Christians view evil, I suggest there is no meaningful difference between -- and no way to tell apart -- an all-hating god from an all-loving god. Nothing here turns on what atheists consider evil, but on what theists consider evil. Woodford is examining theism, remember. And theists cannot keep their story straight, and cannot be rationally justified in believing their good god is real. "Good" can have no meaning to a Christian if everything can be taken to be good. A distinction without a difference.
This is called “skeptical theism”, which means that it is impossible to know whether or not gratuitous evil exists because if a good reason for a particular evil there is no reason to assume that we would know it, atheistic philosophers generally agree that skeptical theism refuted the argument from gratuitous evil
@Koolguy Is there a cow in the room you are in right now? I'm betting not. But how do you KNOW there is no cow in the room? You know because you can reasonably assume that if there were a cow in the room, you would be aware of it. Now, is there an insect in the room? There almost certainly is, but is there any reason to believe that if there were an insect, that you would know about it? No, there is no reason to assume that. The insect might be hidden behind a wall, or it might be so small you can't see it. There is no reason to assume that if an insect is there, that you would know about it. The same is true of evil. Suppose there is some evil that exists. Is there a reason for the evil? And if there is a reason for the evil, is there any reason to assume that you would know what the reason is? No, there isn't. The reason for an evil is like an insect in the room, there is no reason to assume that just because you aren't aware of it, that no reason exists. Skeptical theism is the argument that if God has a reason to allow a certain evil to exist, there is absolutely no reason to assume that we would know about it. And atheists who are experts in the philosophy of religion generally agree that skeptical theism is an adequate response to the idea that it is "obvious" gratitutous evil exists. Thus, atheists who are experts in the philosophy of religion tend to make a Bayesian argument instead. That is, the argument that they make is that it is probable that there is at least one evil for which there is no reason. But notice how much weaker that argument is than what Rationality Rules is claiming. Indeed, since the latter half of the 20th century, atheists have been retreating and gradually surrendering on the whole problem of evil. They continue to make a form of the argument but the version they employ has been gradually getting weaker over time
@Koolguy that is the logical problem of evil, the argument that it is logically impossible for both evil and God to exist. This is generally regarded as having been refuted by Alvin Plantinga. After the logical problem of evil, atheists altered the argument to the problem of gratuitous evil, ie evil for which there is no apparent explanation. Theists responded with skeptical theism, and after some arguments, it was conceded that this is an adequate response. Now, they employ a Bayesian argument. If you don't know Bayesian statistics it is difficult to explain but it basically amounts to a probabilistic argument. The way things have been going, it probably won't be long before theists refute this one too.
Atheism is irrational.....and I used to be an atheist. All the theist position says is that (a) we observe that the universe and everything in it exists in an intelligible manner, and (b) that this intelligible order proceeds from a Source as an effect from a cause. To deny either one of those things would invariably lead to premises that are by definition irrational. Are you going to deny that the things in the universe are intelligible? Well, say goodbye to any and all scientific endeavors. Are you going to deny that this vast intelligibility didn't proceed from a source as an effect from a cause? Ok, then explain where it came from without devolving into vapid and absurd hypotheses about multiverses or an infinite series of big bangs, none of which can be substantiated.
What they don't tell you in philosophy class is that such basic cosmological arguments don't prove the theist's position. The theist believes in God, not the universe coming from a "source as an effect from a cause." As an atheist, I can believe the universe had some sort of cause without believing that that cause is a person, all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good. Once you realize this, you also realize something else: there is not one mainstream argument in philosophy of religion that tries to show that God is good. Theists are constantly on the defensive from atheists who argue that God, if he existed, would be evil. God's goodness is purely a doctrine of religious faith.
@@Molotov49 Um, yeah no. For starters, it depends on what you mean by "proves the theist position" Something can be sufficiently proven without being definitively proven. Science deals with this distinction all the time. Just because something isn't definitively proven *for you* doesn't mean that it's not sufficiently proven.
@@Molotov49 Second: ok, then explain the cause of the universe and the intelligibility within it without devolving into nonsensical and unproven hypotheses.
@@Mark-cd2wf "For what is evil without good? And what is good without God?" Whatever good is. You do realize that the overwhelming majority of metaethicists at bare minimum regard the claim that God is required to make sense of the concept of 'goodness' to be dubious, right?
and its such a flimsy way of flipping the burden too. Unless you maintain a positive stance which you cant defend (all evil has purpose) , your beliefs become contradictory to themselves. Our stance that we are better off without evils, is a tautology. The fact that the world goes on whether some evils exist or not is demonstrated every time a new evil is appears or disappears. Its self evident that there would be a better world if someone with more power than us worked for it. These are truisms, there is just no other way to put it, i dont know what else to say.
@@Tzimiskes3506 By your definition of that word, someone who doesnt believe there are any gods becase they never even heard about the idea or bothered to consider it would not be an atheist. Only those who claim they know what a god is and that its all fiction. Then you are correct about the burden on that claim. Its a bit offtopic though. What about the absurd claim that all evil must be for the greater good? That still has a burden as well. I think merely claiming that anything has to be a specific way conflicts with the idea of an all powerful god. How is it all powerful if things have to be a specific way and thats above him? Its a rhetorical question, it/he cant be.
@@tothumn it is not the case that, "We need to believe in all evil having a purpose." This is merely one potential solution to the problem. Explaining each hypothetical situation in which it would be permissible would take all day. Trent's point is that, if you are making the point, "Gratuitous Evil exists", and your goal is to convince someone else, then you have the burden of proof. The burden of proof is on the one trying to change the mind of the other person in a discussion. Does that make sense?
Its difficult to argue belief in God is irrational if our rationality (and logic itself) is contingent on God's existence (As Aquinas and Locke argued).
Sicentists confidently declare, "there MUST be dark matter out there". Its special magic matter that is undectecibale aside from the one thing we use it to explain. Science be praised!
No, scientists know that our formulqtion of gravity doesn't explain our observations, so they know there is something extra. Dark matter is just a hypothesis, and no one knows if it exists. All attempts to detect it have failed, so plenty of scientists think it doesn't exist.
Not all do, some are experimenting with MOND, of which there are several proposals. It's an unsolved problem. The scientific world is currently leaning to a dark matter explanation, but is not consensus, and most certainly don't claim it a certainty.
Dark matter exists to fill in the gaps of current theory regarding heliocentrism and universe expansion. It's hilariously contrived and makes me laugh that instead of thinking they might just be wrong that say that the universe is 99% made up of matter we can't have evidence of.
@@bumponalog5001 It does remind me of the aether and the miasma. I got the gut feeling it's all in the wrong direction. Only God knows where it will take us. There must be a solution to this problem. But just let me note something, heliocentrism is not current theory. Now it's agreed the universe has no center.
@@bumponalog5001 dark matter has literally nothing to do with that. We observe that galaxies seem to have far more mass than we can actually observe, so we infer from that that there’s some exotic form of matter than only interacts gravitationally. The only alternative is that our understanding of gravity is significantly wrong on cosmological scales, which is a possibility taken very seriously by physicists.
Evil is the lost of a human soul, or actions that lead to the loss of a person's soul. Pain, suffering, etc. are not necessarily evil. Otherwise, good Saints like Mother Teresa, Father Damien, who suffered for their choices were actively seeking evil.
My ears perked when he said the rowandan genocide. My guy, is LITERALLY using acts of human evil, the core of our religion, to say that God doesn't exist. I don't think he's an idiot, he's smart enough to know that arguing about the existence of God ought be limited to acts of God, but he's literally just padding for the sake of having more words.
I think he was putting forward an example of gratuitous evil. An evil that doesn’t procure a good that outweighs it. I have a difficult time and it would strain credulity for someone to actually make the case that allowing a genocide to take place outweighs the harms associated with it ….
@@IvanGonzalez-kf4lp - man can sin. A man killing another man by his own will is an abomination in the sight of God. Just so as a million men killing a million men. Our faith exists as ways to act in the world despite our inevitable death and the cruelty that is man crowning himself God by expanding his dominion over other men. A genocide physically by its very nature cannot fit in his example, as these are acts of Man crowning themselves God at his disdain, not of God himself.
@@wes4736 if you know with 100% certainty that if you have intercourse with your partner you will produce a child that will be all his life in the most horrible pain and suffering would you decide to have intimacy and bring this child to the world?a
@@a.39886 - that's insane. Absolutely of course, that's the reality of the human condition until like 100 odd years ago when we really began to understand how to curb infant mortality.
They still do. I'm trying to iron the counter right because before I even begin to explain I realize it would take a while. May God gift me with words, for I lack them.
Another issue about declaring something to be "gratuitous": strictly speaking there's no way for us, not being all knowing, to absolutely know that gratuitous evil even exist. You would have to be God in order to truly know if gratuitous evil actually exists, but then that would defeat the argument.
It seems to me that the video could have ended when Trent pointed out that Woodford does not define evil. There is no way to define evil without a criterion to differentiate it from good. A criterion to distinguish good from evil is what we call a moral law. Any law must be given by an entity with authority over all mankind. This "law-giver" is what we call God. As it stands, Woodford's concept of evil seems to be, "whatever I say it's evil." Then everyone should accept his law, because he is the voice of Goddess reason. Or, maybe, he himself is the God Reason. Interestingly, the same can be said about the definition of "rational." Who decides what is and what is not rational?
@Koolguy Laws of nature describe what _is_ (descriptive: gravity, entropy, equal and opposite reaction for every action, etc.). Moral laws prescribe what _ought_ to be (prescriptive: do _not_ kill, do _not_ steal, do _not_ cheat, etc.). Such prescriptions must be issued by a Competent Authority who has the right to issue them. A morally perfect Lawgiver meets this requirement. Which is what we find in the Biblical account. Which is why everyone, everywhere instinctively knows that some things are _really_ right, and some things are _really_ wrong. Even if they don’t completely agree on what those things are. And regardless of what they know or don’t know about God. Because He has written His laws into our hearts. “Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. So they show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts either accusing or defending them on the day when God will judge men’s secrets through Christ Jesus, as proclaimed by my gospel.” (Rom. 2:14-16)
@Koolguy Thanks for the clarification. In answer to your last question, the standard is the infinitely perfect character of an infinitely perfect God. Our moral values flow from His morally perfect character, and our moral duties stem from his commands, which also flow from His perfect character. IOW, something isn’t good because God commands it, and God doesn’t command something because _it_ is good. Rather, He commands things because _He_ is good. He is _the_ Good. He is Goodness Himself. His unchanging, infinitely perfect moral character just _is_ the standard of good. We must have a stopping point for right and wrong, and _Who God is_ is as good as we will ever get. “There is only one Good, that is God. Everything else is either good when it turns toward Him, or bad when it turns away from Him.” CS Lewis
@koolguy5344 The laws of physics are not laws properly speaking. A law, in the traditional sense, is a guidance for behavior. The laws of physics are not meant to _guide_ the behavior of inanimate matter; they just describe it. Inanimate matter cannot choose to reject the laws of physics. The moral law, instead, applies to beings who can either follow or reject that guidance. For people to feel obligated to follow a law, they must be under the one authority that dictates it. E.g. I don't feel obligated by the laws of China, because I'm not under the authority of China's government. But I do feel obligated by the laws of the USA. You see? And I know that everybody in my situation is obligated by the same laws. If the universe is the US, those laws are universal. And they are objective, because, once passed and enacted, the subjects do not have a saying in what those laws must be: they either follow them or violate them (or, in a democracy, they can try to change them). And, because they are universal (within the US universe) and objective, I expect they will not be violated. But, if they are, I will expect that there will be undesirable consequences for the violators. The laws of the countries, whether they are just or unjust, decide what is "good" and what is "bad" within their universes. You can say that it is "bad" to have an abortion for no reason in Afghanistan, but it is not bad in the US. You can say that it is bad to force women to wear burkas in the US, but it is not bad in Afghanistan. But you cannot say that chasing penguins in the park is good or bad in either place. Why? Because the law-givers in those countries didn't pass a law concerning the chase of penguins. You can say that something is good or bad within a certain universe, if, and only if, there is a law-giver with authority over that universe, who has passed a law on the matter. If the moral law is to be a real law in this sense, then it must be objective and universal. And to be objective and universal, it must be given by a law-giver over the universe of all human beings (for moral laws are meant for human beings). Unless somebody comes with an alternative, there is no other way for a moral law to exist without a law-giver with authority over all mankind. That law-giver with authority over all mankind is what believers call "God." Take away that law giver and you are left without a rationale for a moral law and, therefore, you cannot say what is good and what is bad. This is why an atheist does not have a rational basis to claim that something is good or something is bad. Therefore, an atheist cannot use the argument of the existence of evil: because they have no reason for deciding what is evil. That's why the argument that God doesn't exist because there is evil in the world is irrational (and, therefore, self-defeating).
@koolguy5344 It seems to me that you have a very common misunderstanding, prevalent among intelligent design supporters, of judging teleology as something exogenous, as something that is added to Creation. Teleology provides aim, meaning, purpose, not only to the universe as a whole, not only to its disparate parts, or groups of parts, nor even to the smallest known particle of matter. God creates all from nothing. So before the universe begins to exist there isn't even a particle of helium for God to work with. It could be construed as a "divine disadvantage" that humans have prime matter at their disposal to mold it according to their creative purpose. God must create even the prime matter out of nothing, even each electron in the atom must be designed in God's mind out of nothing, and given being (existence) out of nothing (with qualifications). From this teleology we can perceive the nature of things, the laws embedded in the most intimate parts of all beings. God does not create and then gives commands that are good because he is good. God's goodness is deeply embedded even in the remotest and unknown interstices of reality. God does not create and then makes things good. He creates "and sees that it was good." Before I wrote that the ex-nihilo (out of nothing) quality of God's creation must be qualified. Indeed, being cannot come from non-being. When we say "out of nothing" we don't mean "out of non-being": that would be a logical contradiction that goes against the very being of God, who is infinite being that subsists without the need of an essence to contain it. In conclusion, God "doesn't have a choice" but to share His own being with his creation, because there's no being outside of God. Hence, God's being must be present in absolutely everything, in every atom, and in every atomic sub-particle, and all the sub-sub-particles that remain to be discovered. That's why there's good (the being of God) present in absolutely everything. And, to rivet the idea, God "sees" that goodness in everything after each "day" of creation. (A quick caveat: God's being, being infinite, is not "reduced" or in any way affected by sharing it with his creation, because that is the meaning of "infinite": what, by virtue of lacking any boundaries or limits, can neither grow nor diminish). After that, God doesn't have to (nor does) impart any laws or commands, as they are already in his creation, "written not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts." Think about a human made invention, like the automobile. It's not like the manufacturer builds the car and then decides from an array of options each one of the recommendations and instructions in the owner's manual. If the car is built to work with gasoline, there's no point in wondering whether to write that in the instructions or something else, say, electricity. It's not like God creates man and then commands not to fornicate-humans are already "built" to work well (to achieve their ends) eschewing fornication. You could very well say that God cannot dictate laws or issue commands against the moral order, because that would imply that his creation is defective, that he wasn't perfect and "the sum of all perfections." Does this makes sense to you? Does it address your concern?
There are many flws at these arguments: 1.) "Faith is like trust and can be irracional and racional." No, faith is strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof. Which means, it is not the same as trust based on evidence. 2.) The problem of god's evil - it is here again. The same version of ad hominem attack as always around this problem: - 2a: Stephen Woodford can call things evil since the most of the people would agree that some things are evil, because the word has the meaning which is clear to many people, especialy in cases of unbased suffering and killing. - 2b: The point is "if the christian god exists, than he would be evil, which contradicts what this religion teaches" so it doesn' matter how it is in case o atheism. The simple fact, that he, as a human, can imagine a world without such evil, means the god could too and he can't create such world (than he is not almighty, or he doesn't care and he is not loving. Attacking Stephen's moral framework doesn't adress the point at all, but moves the topic to details of Stephen's morality and its base. And it repeats every time this topic comes. And if the believers realy get to the point when they have to sdress this point, we hear things like accepting genocide as moral, if this god said so, or if he was the one who killed the people. Which is disturbing. 3.) "If gratuitous evil exists, then God doesn't exist" - actualy, it is a strawman. Stephen was commenting Christian version of "all loving, all knowing and all powerful god". Not just any god. And the response to that, that it is the price we pay for a specific ecosystem, is comlplete ignoring those characteristics, because all powerful god could make such ecosystem, that doesn't require or even enable such evil, all knowing god would know the result during the creation and all loving god wouldn't want to create such ecosystem. 4.) First he mixes harm and evil, but those words are not the same. Than "He has to prove, that they are realy gratuitous" - it is just a variation of banging away any criticism of acts and contradictions of religions like this. If something seems to be positive, god is the cause. If it seems negative, who are we to judge God? It makes the proposition impossible to criticise. But it is no problem now, because God is supposed to be allmighty and therefore there is no need for any evil at all, because he can do whatever wolds he imagines. Therefore every evil is a problem. Because he is a creator who knew exactely the outcomes of his creation. "atheist have to show, that evil and god are incompatible" - he has just shown it. No matter what the evil may serve to, it doesn't matter, since almighty god can do world without it. The point is, Christian god is said to be able to avoid that suffering without any loss of other qualities of the world and decides not to, which contradicts with "all loving atribute".
I think you're points are thought out but you are leaving something out that helps to solve this. The Fall. When we sinned, our good little world came crashing down. Evil came in. Disease came to humans, suffering came to humans. All because God respected our wishes to be away from Him. Sin is punishable by death, therefor Hell. Eternal death. At least that's what I believe Hell is. If God forced us to love him and vice versa is that love? Realistically no. The Fall is the main reason why "if God real why bad thing happen" struggles against Christianity. And your 7th point is especially problematic because it ESPECIALLY doesn't take the Fall into account. It was perfect for us humans. Then the Fall. WE (humans) caused our suffering. So your points would work but the Bible addresses it almost immediately.
@@idkbro-n5c Nope. God made us the way we had to do what we did. And the one lying was god, not the serpent. So the first sin was just god's fault. And he punished all people for his own mistake. And he caused them to suffer. No one wished to suffer. Punishing people who have done nothing wrong for god's mistake with death penalty or eternal torture, it is so evil - the most evil being at all seems to be god himself.
@@jakubholic8769 Biblical verse for that? It's pretty obvious that the serpent lies. I see no verses saying God lied. We made the choice to sin. Not His fault. And nothing wrong? We lie and do bad things ALL the time. So if you're atheist Hell is legit what you think it is. He doesn't send us to hell. We die and if we lived separate from God we get to stay that way. You're whole arguments is dumb and is that God is at fault for what WE do. Which is extremely wrong and unbiblical. What Adam and Eve did. You seem to just not want to take accountability and want to make humans look perfect but God bad. Why? Nobody is good. Nobody is perfect even in atheist standards. Give me verses for your argument or you just made it up for that dumb reason I mentioned.
@@jakubholic8769 Biblical verse for that? It's pretty obvious that the serpent lies. I see no verses saying God lied. We made the choice to sin. Not His fault. And nothing wrong? We lie and do bad things ALL the time. So if you're atheist Hell is legit what you think it is. He doesn't send us to hell. We die and if we lived separate from God we get to stay that way. You're whole arguments is dumb and is that God is at fault for what WE do. Which is extremely wrong and unbiblical. What Adam and Eve did. You seem to just not want to take accountability and want to make humans look perfect but God bad. Why? Nobody is good. Nobody is perfect even in atheist standards. Give me verses.
@@jakubholic8769Second account me here. I’ve been having many problems on my main account with my comments not appearing to me or any others. Can you see my responses above?
3:15 one way I conceive of "faith as trust" is trust in terms of people, not necessarily claims. Atheists will say things like "i have an invisible dragon in my garage, you just have to have faith" in order to mock the idea of faith in a claim, while assuming that they're automatically a party that is worthy of being trusted. In essence, they subtly invite the theist to put the same trust in them as the theist does in God. Atheists get accused of wanting to make themselves God, which many of them deny, but an example like this is fairly clear that they're trying to put themselves on the same field, if not unconsciously. I have faith in God because I have good reason to trust the persons of God (God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit) I have no reason to trust the person of an atheist who cannot get this conception of faith correctly and who, knowingly or not, wants to elevate themselves to the level of God.
@WaterCat5 this sounds like a "which god" retort which is nonsensical I also said I put faith in God because I have good reason to believe in God, established through reason.
@@newglof9558 Your last paragraph is correct. It is best to believe something based on reason. However, this contradicts your original comment. When someone has a dragon in their garage, you should ask for proof if you think there's a reasonable chance. It has nothing to do with trust or faith. The fact that you have faith in God does nothing regarding the actual truth of his existence. There's a reason why you don't ask for evidence of a dragon: because it's so unreasonable that you correctly assume it must be false. Atheists do the same thing with gods. If you want to convince an atheist, simply provide evidence. Yet Christians can't, which is why faith is brought in. Just admit you don't have any evidence pointing to God's existence. That's all most atheists want out of religious people.
@@newglof9558 You can use it that way, but you are going against a large number of Christians and arguably the Bible in doing so. The Bible does not say faith is trusting God because we have good evidence he exists and can reasonably believe he is speaking to us through the Bible. It says "faith is being sure of what we HOPE for, the conviction of things NOT SEEN". (Although admittedly I feel like the author of Hebrews is doing a bit of double speak here too, because he then goes on to give examples of people who trusted God after literally seeing his face, like Moses. Some of his example do though speak of their faith before they had any good reason to believe God existed, like Moses fleeing Egypt, so I'm not sure the author had some coherent and fully developed idea of faith either beyond "hey, if you trust what I'm telling you that's the same thing as trusting God, and is very virtuous!") The Christians I know take this very seriously, to the point they would say that people that claim they know and can reason out that God exists from evidence DON'T have faith because they are basing their belief on unreliable human reason instead of the miraculous and unreasonable gift of faith from God.
Trent, could you make a video about the popular interpretation in academia that Jesus was a failed apocalyptic prophet? And maybe talk about some other views challenging this, like that of N.T. Wright
Well done! Thank you! Incidentally, I think we might be able to look at Woodward, with his rationality and his reaching outside of himself for Truth, and his sympathy for earth;y suffering, as a kind of proof of God's existence, no?
@@ComicRaptor8850 There is nothing wrong with any beliefs in and of themselves. It's actions that cause harm. There is nothing rational about any of those silly fantasy beliefs however.
@@highroller-jq3ix No, there is a plethora of evidence to support the reliability of the Church, New/Old Testament, and the doctrines of the faith when properly researched and understood. Not believing them is actually more silly upon the correct philosophical and evidential review.
@@RomanCatholicAspiringScholar Actually, that's entirely ridiculous and nonsensical. The Catholic Church is demonstrably a public and political fraud as well as a massive child sexual abuse ring. When properly researched and understood, the Catholic Church is an immoral, corrupt, heinous blight upon humanity.
I’d love to see you and Stephen have an in person discussion. His video here doesn’t delve too deep into the “problem of evil” argument, I think you two could have a very enlightening dialogue:)
There's a very obvious rebuttal to the "gratuitous evil" definition, specifically when he says that "no good whatsoever comes from it". I would ask him how he knows that. Its impossible for a person to know that nothing good can come from any given act of evil, because we don't know all possible outcomes. We could also propose at the same time that each act of "gratuitous evil" is actually better than the alternative evil that it could have been, and we'd have the same amount of evidence to our claim as his.
This wouldn’t be convincing to a proselytizing atheist, but the idea a human can rationally judge God, is a strange form of egomania. When I entered college, though I didn’t want to take a course on the Bible (I was at a completely secular university) I had a tight academic schedule, had to take a Freshman Seminar (a course mainly to ensure Freshman were trained well in writing) but the only topic available in my schedule was a seminar on the Bible. In the course we studied 1) Genesis and 2) Job. Though it was a secular course, both books impacted my understanding deeply of the Judeo Christian belief system. From Job, it made complete sense that it was absurd for a human to think he can sit in judgment over God. To do so was clearly a form of egomania, and profoundly irrational. Simply from a logical standpoint, whether you believed in God or not, it simply could not make sense for a human to believe he could judge God. At that point I was atheist, but still understood the absurdity of the concept of a human judging a god that was as all-encompassing as God is described in the Bible. When you are talking with someone who thinks it makes sense to judge God - even just theoretically, as an atheist or agnostic - if that is a person you are talking with, you are in a “Casting pearls before swine” situation.
"This wouldn’t be convincing to a proselytizing atheist, but the idea a human can rationally judge God, is a strange form of egomania." Actually no, it's a consequence of believing that morality can be regarded as objective and of not giving God a free pass just "because he's God!" Most Christians don't actually believe morality is objective and that moral facts exist though.
Yes. The only rational position is to accept the existence of a God. Atheism poses some degree of eternal risk for quite literally zero reward. It’s hard to get more irrational than posing risk to yourself for no reason.
It’s supremely ironic to me that a finite, limited little carbon blob that is only alive for a tiny fraction of temporal time can rear up on its hind legs and proclaim that an infinite, all-good, all-powerful, _and all-knowing_ Creator and Sustainer of everything that exists can’t possibly exist Himself, because he, the hairless little biped named Steven Woodford can’t see any reason for the evils that exist.
Hey Trent. Thank you so much for this video. Please is it possible if you could make a video explaining the transcendentals and how "good is convertible with being?" I think it's somewhere of an unsaid rule that we theists use but some(including me) might not fully understand. I hope you see this comment, please like it if you do!
I genuinely don't get the "atheism is rational" arguments they make. Like, as far as I'm concerned, just a generic form of Deism (or some kind of "Agnostic Deism," perhaps) would be more rational than atheism. Maybe it's just my STEM brain thinking this.
Personally, it's using my senses to distinguish truth from false and good from bad. I don't have nor require answers for everything, from the mundane to the existential. This framework seems pretty rational to me.
I agree, even when I walked on the border between religious and atheism, agnosticism just made more sense, cause there's basically no way to disprove the concept of God.
@@lordfarquaad8601I mean, atheism makes the claim that "God for sure does not exist", even as we speak there's a million things we don't get about our universe, so how someone can claim with 100% certainty that an higher being (that some would call God) does not exist doesn't make sense to me, especially when most people would in the same heartbeat accept that there's probably life somewhere else in the universe. Maybe I simply do not understand your position.
@@anangelsdiaries Atheism isn't a monolith. Some say there isn't a God, I say I don't know if there is one. What's true of all atheists, however, is our lack of religion.
@@anangelsdiaries These days the line between Atheism and Agnosticism is very thin. They are used virtually interchangeably for what ever reason which makes it complicated. Most "atheists" don't think god for sure doesn't exist.
I love how atheists always try to attack Christianity, for they know, deep down, that's the only true religion. You never see them use Hinduism or something like that to "make their points". That will always serve to prove how true Christianity is, when is the sole target of wicked men.
Because the atheists you interact with are all Western atheists who are usually brought up Christian. Christianity is all we know. We also live in a society where self-professed devout Christians are throwing their support behind widely reviled people like DeSantis and Trump.
Clearly you don't know a SINGLE atheist that fights against other religions. Like what. Just because we are in the west and surrounded by Christianity WAY more than any other religion means your religion is automatically true? That's terrible logic even from the perspective of another theist.
@@Yesunimwokozi1 I wouldn’t say so. Several atheists take issue with different religions based on their regional impact; for example, an atheist in a Muslim majority area would generally critique Islam. Same for a Hindu area. However, to say that other religions are “stupid” apart from Christianity is a bit of a stretch. I’m an agnostic myself, who takes issue with a lot of theist Hindu claims. I also find the philosophical doctrines in Hinduism quite teaching, nonetheless. For example, the Vedas talk about the origins of the universe, and assert that there is a singular “creator”. The Nasadiya sukta is quite beautiful, and provides room for agnosticism. It focuses on questions of purpose, the reason for existence, the reason for creation, and surrenders that “only He can know. Or perhaps even He does not know”. I’m not defending any particular religion, but only to not dismiss others simply because they are not Christianity.
@@ahampurushahasmi6040 somehow I agree with you... But isn't it true that alll serious scholarly critics is against Christianity?? Why all focus on Christianity ?? There are PHDs critics of christianity like bart erham and he is a BIBLE SCHOLAR.. 😁.. someone trians PHD in order to critique.. speaks alot . Hindusim is mixture of all things...so many won't even bother ..
I don’t believe this but most who see good and evil existing without God mostly view it from a utilitarian view or the effects of said action on others/society.
Kudos to Trent for actually going into the topic of how God might bring good from evil, but for me I've always thought that complaining to a perfect being about being created in an imperfect world is like a beggar complaining to someone who gave him five dollars about not getting thirty dollars. You could always complain about something, but it's not like you have a right to anything better. The only reason you even exist (or got the five dollars) is because of the benevolent individual's kindness. You have no reason to expect anything more.
@@crusaderACR tell that to the three year old, that god kills painfully over one year by using cancer. Why shall it rejoice? Why shall the parents rejoice?
@@TgfkaTrichter Very Calvinist of you to suppose God directly decided to inflict bad things on people. Before you ask, no bad things don't happen as a way to "test" us. It grinds my gears how so many Christians insist on that. In your example 1. That child had no fault 2. That child's parents' had no fault 3. No one is being tested or given a lesson You have to remember that, yes, God has an ultimate plan, at the end of the world. To suppose God has a plan that includes individual tragedies is the wrong way to see it. The World is geared towards the Good Ending, but your life may not be. Though if it isn't, God will at least make sure to repay your pain with riches in Heaven. A small number of Christians do see it that way though. If you meet a Calvinist or a "Reformed", run. Limited atonement and their way to see predestination is not only unbiblical, it's outright cruel. If God is like the Calvinist God then I'm with you - I want nothing to do with that God.
@@crusaderACR we should all be thanfull, that the christian god does not exist. Also the story with the sick child does not end with its death. Depending on which version of Christianity someone believes, then the story could go on. If the parents of this child, after praying to god every day that their child will be saved, will lose their believe in god, then they will go to hell, cause they dared to question a god, just because this god killed their child. There seems to be no limit to gods malice.
Woodford seems to ignore centuries of religious systematic theology to make his points. How can theism be irrational if there are multiple academic fields are knowledge stretching back 2 to 3 thousands of years with endless amount of inner-religious debates, theories, and more? It's not like a group of people just blindly believed in something. Christianity, for example, is filled to the brim with diverse opinions and views, thus showing the capacity to reason, think, meditate, and rationalize. No serious Christian or religious thinker would say that atheists can't reason, so why say that theists can't reason when there is centuries of theological thought being expressed throughout the ages?
I find atheists amusing and mostly a bit sad for not allowing themselves to look past their blinkers. A human being trying to comprehend God and God’s purpose is a bit like an ant trying to understand humans with their limited ant worldview.
I'm an atheist, I wasn't there when the universe was made, so I don't know how it happened. Where did I go wrong? How do I take my blinkers down around that statement?
The problem is god allowing things such as children dying of cancer before getting a chance at life. Sure MAYBE god could have some moral reason we can't understand but being an all loving god he should tell us that reason. He is god he could do it in a way we can all understand.
Exactly. Quetzalcoatl is inscrutable! His knowledge beyond ours! His mysteries are not for us to know! We cannot disprove Quetzalcoatl! Oh wait? You don't believe that's the one true god? I find your lack of belief in Quetzalcoatl amusing and a bit sad. You say you don't find evidence of this god, or reason for the human sacrifices, but you can't see the truth. A human trying to comprehend God (meaning Quetzalcoatl) and His purpose is a bit like an ant trying to understand humans with their limited ant worldview.
This argument of evil is very weird when most of the people spreading it then tried to instate a totalitarian state where a "bigger entity" tries to protect you from yourself and then makes everyone miserable and in turn evil spreads. Then I feel happy for the gift of free will. The free will to follow God's way or not. Then again if we cause so many man made deaths it just proves that there is indeed a flaw that God's teachings has warned us about and its the concecuences of us going away from God.
Atheism doesn’t have any force as it once appeared to have. That initial scare is gone. That’s because theists actually took a second look at all they were saying and realized it was complete nonsense. I actually blame this current generation of theists. We dropped the ball with our intellectual tradition. For instance, consider the rich intellectual tradition of the Catholic Church, do you think atheism would have thrived in the time of Thomas Aquinas or in the great scholastic era of the Catholic Church? It would have been laughable. Anyway, I am happy our generation is slowly picking up the ball again, hence, the rapid decline of atheism.
Rapid decline of atheism? Maybe in some countries but in most of the world religion is at a high decline. Bigger than ever seen before. Not sure what makes you think atheism is declining when there are more atheist now than ever and the number is still increasing even if it's slow.
@@Dock284 That’s the interesting part of all this. The decline of religion (mostly in Europe) doesn’t mean an increase in atheism. Most people who leave religion aren’t necessarily becoming atheists, they still believe there is a God and are now embracing some vague form of spirituality. They are the none affiliated or just “nones” as we refer to them. That’s where our struggle and our attention should be right now. Atheism isn’t of much concern as it once was.
@@Dock284 I'm afraid what you're saying is not correct. According to Pew Research, the World Economic Forum and other researchers Unbelief in general and Atheism in particular are facing a great decline worldwide. Nonbelief peaked around 1970, when it comprehended almost 20% of the world's population and 1/3 of the world was under Communism, which preaches State Atheism. During that period Atheists were around 163M, 4% of the world's population. Yes, because Unaffiliated does not necessarily mean Atheist. It is estimated that between 70 and 80% of unafiliated people have some kind of religious belief. Atheists are a minority even among the Unaffiliated. Since the 70's Nonbelief saw a collapse in percentaces: from almost 20% in 1970 it fell to less than 16% in 2020, and it is expected to fall to 13% in 2050. If the trend continues unalterated, nonbelievers will be less than 10% before 2100. In these 50 years world population has doubled, from 3.6B to around 8B people. Atheists went from 163M people, or 4%, in 1970 to less than 140M, or 2%, in 2020. It was one of the only two groups which fell in absolute numbers, together with Shintoism. The main reason for this is that Unaffiliated people have a tendency not to have children, or have one at most. At the same time Christian women have on average 2 or 3 children and Muslim women often go beyond 4. So while Christians will go from 2B in 2010 to around 3B in 2050 and Muslims will go from 1.5B in 2010 to 2.7B in 2050 the Unaffiliated will only go from 1.13B in 2010 to 1.23B in 2050. They will increase in absolute numbers, mostly due to deconversions, but in 2050 the world's population will be around 10B people, meaning that Unaffiliated people will inevitably fall behind, because their growth rate is too slow. Also, always according to Pew Research, around 2040 the Unaffiliated will stop growing in absolute numbers as well, making their decline even more prominent. Deconversions will no longer keep their numbers up. In Asia the Unaffiliated are expected to lose tens of millions of "units", mostly in China, Korea and Japan. Nonbelief is only rising slightly in the West today, but mostly in countries which are experiencing a population drop, especially in Europe. I live in one of these countries. Meanwhile there have never been so many religious people. So no, in most of the world religion is not facing a decline; the data suggests that, unless something epocal happens, the opposite will be true.
@@charlesudoh6034 I guess the decline has much to do with extremely bad theology. If every kid at church had The bible and Augustine's City of God or Mere Christianity, they would still be Christian.
My guess is that he thought it was aesthetically pleasing. The whole thing looked AI generated, so there’s even the possibility that a machine made that decision. -Kyle
As an agnostic I find Trent to be genuine instead of disingenuous, and very thoughtful. I do have to question his definition of Evil as the absence of good. Something that can easily be measured in degrees of harmfulness can not merely be an "absence".
I agree. This always strikes me as a wholly self-serving way of thinking about good and bad for theists, and one which is completely at odds with how people actually think about them.
Yet you believe, without any evidence, that God walked around town for thirty years and then died and became a zombie and then the graves opened and the corpses and skeletons rose out and "appeared to many" and all of that happened without any of the locals noticing.
@@Tzimiskes3506 _" quiet, mythicist."_ If you have evidence that the Bible figure known as Jesus existed, provide it. However, it is an absolute fact that there is literally no contemporaneous evidence that Jesus ever existed. Paul made up the Jesus fiction in 48 AD after the Daniel 9:25 prophesy failed to fulfill. Shouldn't we expect that if God was walking around town for thirty years that the locals would have noticed? Fun fact: none of the Gospel authors witnessed Jesus.
There always have been atheists. With the technological advancement demystifying more and more of the world, atheism was bound to grow, regardless of the accents atheists.
Hey, Trent. Thank you for the time and effort you put into this rebuttal. I've watched it a few times over, and I'm eager to share my thoughts in a response of my own when I have the time. Thanks again :)
Just watched your latest video regarding JP and saw this one as recommended. I'm looking forward to your response to this one!
I'm glad you liked it! I'd also be open to having a chat about it if you like. Or we could do a roundtable with you me and @MajestyofReason - That would be epic.
@@TheCounselofTrent Sounds great. I'll try reply to you by the end of next month, and from there we can arrange further interaction.
Why are you even posting at all? Don't you realize the implications of your beliefs would mean we don't have any reason or certitude in our beliefs? If we're just deterministic matter, what's the point? Rather your not trying to communicate that semantically at all. You're just trying to justify taking for granted an atheistic liberalism particular to our time.
@@rationalityruleszzzz sure...
10:15pm described as "middle of the night" is evidence of Trent Horn's wholesomeness.
Haha that's what I was thinking
Lol
its a sign of getting old.
Dang right. I can think of absolutely no reason to be up at 10:15 pm except pig hunting. And maybe fishing, if you're really into that.
It’s a sign of having kids, a job, a spouse, a house, family and church commitments and being worn out by 8pm! We all feel you Brother. Lol
Babe, time to take a break from homeschooling the kids, new Trent Horn video just dropped!
Based
But Catholicism wants you to send your kids to exorbitantly overpriced parochial schools for indoctrination.
@@PL9050to protect children from state mandated grooming and atheistic education
@@PL9050 schools attempt to indoctrinate children to engage in premarital sex and they attempt to force their own disgusting theories on the beginning of earth on children they also promote homosexual behavior I wish I hadn't had to go through the hell that was public education I'd rather not be able to read than have to go through that living hell again , I wish I could go back in time to when public education by the secular wasn't a thing to warn the common decent people of the decadence of the atheistic secular state and how giving children up to the state was no different than sacrificing them to a false God
Use his videos as part of your curriculum! It’s important for kids to learn apologetics and how to take a stand against atheist bullies!
Did he just hit us with the " If GoD eXiSt WhY bAd ThInGs HaPpEn" ?!
A neo version, yes.
But his accent makes it a stronger argument, it’s “jUsT ObViOuS”
He added the animations...
The problem of evil is probably one of the stronger arguments against theism, or at least it demands an answer. In any event that's one of the stronger arguments I've found against theism if I were to steel man the athiest position. But it is not well made here; repackaging it doesn't make it stronger. Nor does straw Manning the theist concept of an all-powerful, all-loving God.
@@Jamesmatise if that is one of the stronger arguments against theism, then, there ia no case against theism.
One can only talk about evil in the relation to good, the same way, we can only talk about darkness in relation to light.
Thumbnail typo fixed 26 minutes after posting with a passable edit in Powerpoint . . . I really need to learn how to use Photoshop 🙂
I blame Kyle! 😂
This rebuttal was fantastic Trent, great job!
I found Rationality Rules unwatchable. He was patronizing, insulting, and very presumptuous. He claims that a religious or theistic person would have to think this way or have this opinion, but I could not see nor hear myself in the religious strawmen he tries to build in his videos. It made his channel unwatchable and unenjoyable. I tried many times over the years to watch his content but found it nonsensical, he is arguing against a religious person I have never meet and against religious beliefs I have never held, it makes his content pointless and I think, hateful.
i find it hilarious he made a game based on logical fallacies but is totally oblivious to when he uses them. think the guy would make a stronger arguments with that in his back pocket
If you don't believe in a God that determines people's eternal fate based on their beliefs and created a world knowing many of the beings he created would get the short end of the stick based on those criteria but still should be called loving and just, quite a few of his arguments probably aren't going to seem applicable. I guarantee you I have grown up absolutely surrounded by people that believe the things he argues against though. If you're not committed to such harmful views I'd say good on you, but that doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile for people to argue against them.
How could you have reached this infantile position without watching?
@@matthewnitz8367 But, you missed something; Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, & Lutheran (non-reformed) theologians are all arguing against these claims, even many of the Reformed (Calvinist) don’t hold to the claims the way these types of online skeptics fame them. Yes, you can find a poorly informed believer (even a pious one whom knows their bible verses) who claim such things within these denominations and faiths; but that is not the Official teaching of those faiths and denominations. Now, the further you go away from orthodoxy (small o), and away from tradition, doctrine, dogma, and creeds; the more you may hear self proclaimed Christians say these things (maybe), but that’s heterodox. If all the reasonable voices are saying that is not what we believe why would you choose only to believe the unreasonable ones (because it was a bad teacher, or a bad priests, or a bad school mate, or a bad friend, or an enemy)? If you can stand in a class or a job and have opinions different than everyone else in that grouping, and understand that, what can’t you accept that not all individual “Christians” speak for the whole faith.
@@highroller-jq3ix Who are you asking this to, Matt or myself? Because I said I’ve watched his videos multiple times but couldn’t stand them. Maybe I’ve watched 10 of his vids over the years, 11 if you include this one, and all of them were intolerable.
When I was a teenager, atheist arguments like his might have scared me as a nondenominational “Christian”. But it’s fortunate that I converted last year to Catholicism and found theologians like Thomas Aquinas, William Lane Craig and apologist like Trent, Testify, and InspiringPhilosophy
_"...I converted last year to Catholicism..."_
Wait. So you found the literal worship of ritual human sacrifice appealing?
@@EvilXtianity Selectively choosing what information you think negates Christianity, then presenting it as if it’s the whole is crazy
@@EvilXtianityTell me you don’t really understand Catholicism without telling me that you don’t really understand Catholicism
@@EvilXtianity it's literal worship of godly sacrifice that's appealing. No human owns his own life except the human that is God!
@@existential_o
_"Selectively choosing what information you think negates Christianity, then presenting it as if it’s the whole is crazy."_
Yet you believe, without any evidence, that God walked around town for thirty years and then died and became a zombie and then the graves opened and the corpses and skeletons rose out and "appeared to many" and all of that happened without any of the locals noticing.
The whole problem is, he presupposes 'evil', 'logic' and 'reason' without giving even a justification for his position, you can't make ethical claims and divorce them from epistemology and metaphysics. These kind of evaluation things require 2nd order abstractions (thinking of thinking, epestemic starting points, paradigm level consistency, etc.). The thing is how does he know what evil is, let alone recognize, and without knowledge of good and evil, and rejection we are able to chose/reject evil, there is simply no morality. Everyone who uses ought/should is smuggling in imperatives without justification. Thank you Trent for adressing it, this is exactly what I realized as an Atheist, which leads to nihilism if you are honest/consistent with its premises.
I'd really love to see more online debates with Trent Horn vs. Atheists. The one with cosmicskeptic is probably one of the best ever done. Would love to see more
I'd pray for the man. (The atheist) I was just like him at 1 point. ✝️ God bless you Trent.
Thank you for responding to Woodford's video with such kindness, reason, and respect! I actually really respect the intellectual work he has done on his channel, even if I disagree with him. Your views on Christianity are so well-rounded and understandable, Trent. In fact, your specific position within Catholicism has actually contributed to my decision to convert in the coming months. God Bless. 🥰
I used to think it was irrational too. Then God showed me how irrational he wanted me. Even as an atheist I couldn’t explain away the things that happened to me. Then the only rational explanation was for there to be a God.
For me it was exactly the oposite, god showed me he wasn't there through a whole succession of unbelievable things and moments. Which gave me my life.
When someone leads off by demonstrating, as Woodford does, that they don't understand the definitions of the terms they use, they make the work of rebutting them SO much easier!
WHAT?! Are you accusing Ratty of not knowing what he’s talking about?! How dare you!!😁
@@Mark-cd2wf vif you know with 100% certainty that if you have intercourse with your partner you will produce a child that will be all his life in the most horrible pain and suffering would you decide to have intimacy and bring this child to the world?
What universally accepted definition did Stephen not know?
@@fanghur A universally accepted definition that Stephan and those like him don’t accept? What a bizarre thing to ask for, it’s like you don’t know what “universally accepted” means.
He said that “to have faith is to believe in a proposition despite there not being sufficient evidence for doing so”. He hasn’t the slightest clue what he’s taking about, that’s never been the definition of faith.
Faith is “an act of the will by which one binds oneself to another who is known”.
@@originalchilehed actually that’s always what faith in the religious context has meant.
I've found that "rational" is a highly slippery word with difficult-to-pin-down definitions. For example, in Economics "rational" means "acting acording to desire". It doesn't mean "wise" or "according to aristotelian logic". Generally, calling something irrational is just calling something generically bad, which isn't always helpful.
Roughly it boils down to the pursuit of objective, provable truth. One thing I always question is given that we live in a postmodernist age where objective truth is a concept that’s constantly under attack I don’t fully understand why Christians are still in the crosshairs of so many “rational” atheists. We aren’t even the biggest opponents of their worldview at the moment.
I agree with that. In a sense, "rationality" when understood in a context of sensibility can also mean what is normal coming from current human experience and societal norms. In that sense, rationality could be understood very different based on the context of your surroundings in society.
P.S. I am not trying to go denying a metanarrative or anything but just adding to your point 😂.
That is not what rartional means in economics. In economics it means you can organize your choices hierarchically (completeness axiom) and that you can mantain the transitivity of these choices (A>B, B>C => A>C), (transitivity axiom)
Christians are still a big opponent, look at the US @harrygarris6921
Many US christians are in bed with white nationalists or other forms of fascism.
These are just as bad as radical islam. They are also authocratic/theocratic fascists.
There's a whole lot of moderate christians that find a middle way between actual reality and belief system and want to live in a world where people are nice to each other. Which means acceptance and tollerance, which is only really possible in a secular state. But the same for many muslims.
And there conspiricists and grifters. These are in battle with objective truth too. But often these are also related to christianity or islam.
The very concept of faith is irrational by definition: absolute belief without evidence which does not change because of evidnce.
I'm so grateful to God for giving us intellectual geniuses like Trent to help us understand and learn the Truth of things! ❤🙏👍👍👍👍
I suppose God created geniuses like Joe Schmid too? Majesty of Reason. Worth listening to him walk through this video. He agrees with Trent that theism can be rational, disagrees with him on other points.
Now if God gave us the intellectual genius to cure the cancer He created, instead of these weak philobabble, that would be nice.
I was an outspoken atheist from the age of 15 to my early 40s and went through most phases - atheist, agnostic, very lukewarm, undenominational Chistian, then suddenly Roman Catholic after having got very close to Orthodoxy. I know perfectly how atheists think and feel about religion: their ideas are mostly based on limited, flawed knowledge and a powerful flow of contrasting emotions.
Awesome testimony, and interesting about the flood of contrasting emotions
Gee, I think those are the reasons for why people believe in God.
Catholic here. Engaged in RUclips Comments Section feuds with Atheists. Partially out of ego, partially because I find internet Atheists to be bullies. Partly because we are commended to 'instruct the ignorant'. What 'evidence' convinced you of God? What questions caused you to re-think your Atheism? Double-D, thank you for your witness.
Whyd you picked catholicism over orthodoxy? Trying to decide which side to land on, I like both and I am currently going to both on Sunday.
Do you mind if I ask you what is your educational background?
Rationality without morality is like the definition of evil.
His channel name 'rationality rules' is laughable. As a cognitive science postgrad, his adolescent new atheist understanding of reason and 'rationality' is stuck in an 18th century mechanistic, formal understanding of the mind. This view of rationality has been rejected over and over again in psychology and philosophy over the last few centuries. The irony, of course, is that he claims that religious belief is an outdated practice...all whilst professing an understanding of reason and rationality that is literally centuries out of date😂😂He thinks throwing around terms like 'heuristics' and 'biases' is enough to stop people noticing this. 🤣🤦♂️Mr rationality rules is very much irrational
No, motivated action without empathy and compassion is the definition of immorality, which the superstitious or gullible refer to as evil.
@highroller-jq3ix words like empathy and compassion don't make any sense without God. It's like what C.S Lewis said about a straight and a crooked line. Well how do you know the lines crooked if you never knew what a straight line looked like. Such is the nature of Good and Evil
@@bucksfan77 Like all human-invented words, no god fantasy is required to make sense out of the words that humans generate through human language. Very little is like C.S. Lewis said. The nature of Good and Evil is silly, false dichotomy adhered to by simpletons. Empathy and compassion are part of the human genetic inheritance and are practiced irrespective of reference to your or any other god fantasy and are, in fact, practiced by non-human animals.
@@highroller-jq3ix "which the superstitious or gullible refer to as evil."
so _you_ don't believe in evil?
The atheist perfectly demonstrates the possibility that gratuitous evil does not exist when he cites forest fires as one. Forest fires are actually do have long term benefits for the forest and therefore the creatures living within.
Indeed, it’s a natural process that occurs due to natural factors and would continue to occur even if humans weren’t around to call them “evil.”
It’s almost like we “theists” believe God created a natural world where not every single thing that occurs has to be due to “divine will.”
But then again atheists seem to be rather fond of the idea that things like free will(aka humans can make choices without God’s intervention) doesn’t exist so… maybe he really dose think everything that happens is orchestrated by some predetermined force, a “god” if you will.
I had an entire class in college on prescribed forest fires, the benefits of fire are endless. The destruction we see today is mostly caused by us preventing this natural process to take place for 100+ years.
Ok... but in order for that to happen, certain creatures have to die in agony. That is the point!
So? Why the agonizing short term suffering for animals? Like intense panik, air poisoning and getting burnt to the point of being disfigured or death?
Couldn't god make them fireproof and immune to the poisons and still keep the long term benefits?
Couldn't an omnipotent omniscient God find another way to regulate the forest than the requirement of its inhabitants to burned to cinders?
Oh, how loving he is, isn't he?
Literally helping my friend through a nasty breakup due to his drinking habits and addictions he picked up at the genius secular institution the state called a "university". His soul is lost and enslaved after reveling in the empty freedoms promoted by the secular atheist culture that promised life without consequences. He has to live those consequences everyday. Real people suffer from their lies.
This. Christianity should be about discipline and certain values, not rationalism, the bible is only as good as it builds discipline and the values yeah?
2:02 RR establishes intuition as an undesirable justification for belief.
4:17 RR claims we live in a world of “gratuitous evil” through intuition of knowing what “gratuitous evil” is.
I have an atheist friend who is absolutely smitten by his atheism. And he uses a version of this guys charge against suffering; except he calls it “unnecessary” rather than gratuitous suffering.
I said, “how can you know what’s ultimately unnecessary and what is?” Because he does grant humanity the authority to allow suffering where its end is in the perfection or well-being of the sufferer!
So I asked, “considering your finite limitations; why then can’t you grant an infinite knowledge the same utility on the suffering you can’t know how it plays out for the greater good?”
His rebuttal only amounted to “that he doesn’t like it.”
If I was an all powerful god, I would stop children suffering. But then again, I'm more moral than your god.
@@CalebScott1991 Not if you don’t allow suffering that leads to a greater good; which we do to the degree our finite knowledge can allow. Beyond that, you would have to be perfect, which is interchangeable with infinite.
So no, you’re not more moral than God. You’re not even AS moral. And neither are any of us.
@@garymanz3403 I am, I wouldn't give children cancer, so I'm more moral than your god. Just saying 'there could be cool benifits we haven't thought of for children suffering and dying', doesn't mean anything, it just shows that your're just as big of a monster as this supernatural creature you think runs your life, and sadly, that is the problem with cults in the first place.
@@CalebScott1991 Yes and hence getting rid of virtues. The atheist yet again fails in morality.
@@Tzimiskes3506 I was explaining how it's morally virtuous, and a moral obligation, to not give children cancer. I gave a virtue, and your best comeback was I don't have a virtue. This is the most embarrassing attempt at making a point in this entire comments section.
Thanks brother, for everything you’re doing in defending the rationality of our faith.
Yet he hasn't given any rational reason to believe, so don't thank him too hard.
@@CalebScott1991 I wouldn't agree there, but either way I would say his main intention here was just to rebut the points that Stephen made in his own video, rather than to build a positive case.
@@MatthewFearnley if you don't agree, then what reason as he given, in ANY video, for why anyone should think your specific god is real?
@@CalebScott1991 Well you raise a fair question, and I'll answer honestly.
In this specific video, I don't think he made a positive case for Christianity. He very briefly outlines a partial positive case for theism in general at around 12:00 - "only a Divine cause explains a changing contingent finite fine-tuned and moral Universe". Which, if we grant for the sake of argument, doesn't get us to Christianity, but does point us towards theism.
It's my understanding that Trent came to Christianity (specifically Roman Catholicism) from atheism, although I don't know his reasons for converting, and I'm not persuaded so far that Roman Catholicism is true.
I don't particularly recall any positive arguments he may or may not have made for Christianity specifically, although that said, I don't claim that I would know or remember if he had. I don't always make time to watch his videos.
That said, I'm seeing his recent video about the "Martyrdom Argument" for Jesus's Resurrection in my sidebar right now. Assuming he doesn't completely mess it up, that would be an argument for Christianity, and it would at least warrant a refutation rather than just immediately discounting it. So maybe that answers your question to me here.
But if for the sake of argument we ignored that, I can only say from his video history that it looks like he spends more time rebutting arguments against Christianity and Catholicism than building a positive case. A complete lack of a positive case might be a red flag, but it wouldn't invalidate his rebuttals.
In this video specifically, his aim is not to show that Christianity is true, but that it is not irrational, and he addresses the all the arguments Stephen raises.
If the main criticism here is that Trent doesn't go further towards making a positive case, then I'd say he at least succeeded in what he intended.
Either way, I'm grateful to Trent for taking the time to watch and respond, because watching and thinking through confident takedowns of your beliefs isn't fun, even when that confidence is misplaced.
Rationality is a snare if you rely on it to justify your faith. That's not to say that there aren't good rational arguments for God but if that's all you have then you're closer to being an atheist than you suppose.
He has the pragmatist issue as well. When he says gratuitous evil does not lead to anything good, he’s presuming that he knows all the requisite variables to make such a pronouncement, something a finite being cannot, by definition, know.
Ah yes, this reminds me of my rebellious teenage years when i shook my fist at God. Now Christ is my Lord 😎
So your suzerain superior in a system of feudal fealty? I though he was supposed to have been a humble carpenter rather than a hegemonic despot.
@@highroller-jq3ix so you are worm food?
@@Tzimiskes3506 Probably not since I think traditional burial is a waste of valuable land resources. I will be excited molecules in the process of combustion food or an organ bank or a med school cadaver. But don't you believe your body is worm food, or does everyone get to zombie out like every other character in the Gospels?
@@highroller-jq3ix
I won't argue your claim about our God being a tyrannical despot. I'm more concerned about how you don't see why we bury bodies, and would rather be generator fuel. You are thinking on a purely rational mindset. Don't get me wrong, that's extremely useful, but you also have to use your actual, real _human_ brain. The one "stained" with empathy, memories, emotions, and so on. Otherwise, you may reach horrific conclusions by weighing, say, the benefit of euthanizing the poor. You just don't, and for that you got to listen to your humanity.
Brother, let me tell you something quite fascinating. We have evidence of primitive humans burying their dead for tens of thousands of years before we even knew how to build mud huts.
Why did they do that? Were all pre-historic humans, from Ireland to Indonesia, somehow, believers of a zombie resurrection like you say?
I think you'll understand why as you grow older. For now, a hint: Humans are not a purely rational species. We cry, lament the deaths of animals and children, strive to help strangers for no benefit of our own, revere those with most knowledge, feel attached to those nearest to us, etc. Use your human brain, not the manufactured, incomplete purely-rational brain.
Cheers.
@@highroller-jq3ix Nevermind, I'll address your point about God being a "hegemonic despot". Just because of its weirdness.
You see, most claims I've seen about God from atheists is that, if God exists, he is too permissive. Right in this video, the atheist being debunked is basically screaming "use me as a puppet and don't allow me to wrong anyone ever again!"
But no, the way us Catholics see it, God encourages us to do good but doesn't force us, and we consider that a gift, come what may.
So no, our God is not a despot, nor a tyrant, nor a puppeteer. You may wish he was and instead forced us to be good boys and girls (or else!), but personally, I'm rather fond of my free will :)
I like how Stephen Woodford says that theists must provide theodicies for *every* example of gratuitous evil, with the implication that there are just too many unique situations to reasonably do so for or considering that you only need a few theodicies because they usually don't apply to only individual specific events but large classes of situations.
God punishes children for things that their fathers, grandfathers, great-grandfathers, and great-great grandfathers did. He is so proud of this that he repeated it four times in the Bible-
Exodus 20:5 , Deuteronomy 5:9
"I, the Lord, thy God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation."
Exodus 34:7
"Visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children unto the third and to the fourth generation."
Numbers 14:18
"Visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation."
If you fail to follow all of God's commandments, God will curse your children-
Deuteronomy 28:15-18
"If thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day ... Cursed shall be the fruit of thy body."
And sometimes God slaughters children for the unspecified sins of their fathers-
Isaiah 14:21
"Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers."
The Great and Mighty God shows loving kindness to thousands, but punishes children for the iniquities of their fathers-
Jeremiah 32:18
"Thou shewest loving kindness unto thousands, and recompense the iniquity of the fathers into the bosom of their children after them: the Great, the Mighty God, the LORD of hosts, is his name."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Slavery
God blessed Abraham by giving him lots of slaves.
Genesis 24:35
"The Lord has blessed my master abundantly, and he has become wealthy. He has given him sheep and cattle, silver and gold, male and female servants, and camels and donkeys."
God's rules for slave ownership-
Exodus 12:44
Don't let any of your uncircumcised slaves eat the Passover meal-
"But every man's servant that is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof."
Don't covet your neighbor's slaves-
Exodus 20:17
"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's."
Deuteronomy 5:21
"Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbor's wife, neither shalt thou covet thy neighbor's house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbor's."
Exodus 21:2
"If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve, and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing."
Deuteronomy 15:12
"And if thy brother, a Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman be sold unto thee."
Leviticus 22:11
"If the priest buys any soul with his money..."
Leviticus 25:39
"And if thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee..."
Exodus 21:7
"And if a man sells his daughter to be a maidservant..."
Leviticus 25:44-46
"Thy bond-men and thy bond-maids which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you: of them shall ye buy bond-men and bond-maids. Moreover, of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land. And they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession, they shall be your bond-man forever."
But don't get caught stealing a slave, or you'll be put to death-
Deuteronomy 24:7
"He that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death."
Exodus 21:16
"If a man be found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Israel, and maketh merchandise of him, or selleth him; then that thief shall die."
It's OK with God if you slowly beat your slaves to death-
Exodus 21:20-21
"If a man smite his servant or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand, he shall be surely punished; notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished, for he is his money."
Exodus 21:26-27
"And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake. And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake."
If your ox gores someone's slave, pay the slave owner thirty shekels of silver-
Exodus 21:32
"If the ox shall push a manservant or a maidservant; he shall give unto their master thirty shekels of silver."
Sell poor thiefs as slaves to pay for their theft-
Exodus 22:2-3
"If a thief ... have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft."
If a man has sex with an engaged slave woman, scourge the woman, but don't punish the man, because she was a slave-
Leviticus 19:20
"And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free."
Rules for obtaining slaves during wartime-
Deuteronomy 20:10-11
"When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee."
Deuteronomy 20:14
"But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself."
@@EvilXtianity Nice copy paste, mythicist spoon!
You just need to understand Good and you can define all acts of evil. But people sayings is just to limited and those people tend to based their life in that limited description are foolish and ignorant. Quotation never meant to represent fact but rather an account of affirmation. It's funny that most people find to do things base on affirmation than studying the actual representation of fact. Understanding fact is by accessing to the actual source and given evidence. But these atheists asking affirmation by forcing you to give an evidence. Theist is building communication to God and atheist is just lazy and ignorant. I wonder why most of them self proclaimed to be introvert. Theist is studying the truth while atheist's is affirming for truth. Most Atheist basing their thoughts or knowledge in affirmation just like false prophets and preacher does. In many times I encounter atheist and false Christian, they asking question for affirmation and didn't really bring or provide any precise information to understand a certain situation. Like asking how far could Love goes and not be called evil then they will just provide their own opinion and share their views. Which things real Christian didn't think of because it's obviously it was never mean to be. They basing their morality base on poll and not gathering the most valid and direct reason to consider. Which is corrupted, bias and insufficient.
@@Tzimiskes3506 Yeah, the guy with no life and plenty of paste to waste has showed up again.
I _really_ hope nobody responds to him; I’ve seen him go on for 100+ posts with his mythicist nonsense.
@@Mark-cd2wf naw he’s scared of me I’ve taken him out in 1-2 comments. Watch and learn.
This appears to come down to differences in the definition of "evil."
Rationality Rules appears to operate on the idea that good and evil are opposites of each other; a Yin-Yang view of the world.
Trent expresses the view that evil is the absence of good.
There's no such thing as evil according to science and evolution. So atheists cannot make any argument about gratuitous evil. Self-defeated. 🤣
Really? I haven’t watched the video yet (going to in a few), but IMHO evil would be a corruption of good, not an absence of it.
We’ll see….
Irrelevant distinction. You could use either definitions and the argument from the problem of evil still works and a theist still needs to have a response.
@@IvanGonzalez-kf4lp Response to what?
@@lkae4 the argument from the problem of evil.
You and exploring reality did a great job coveri g this video! Keep it up!
Great stuff Trent! Fix the thumbnail typo!
Edit: He fixed it! Woot!
Yep. Haha
Can you fix thumbnails withi6ut taking down the video?
"THESISM" lol
@@chernobylcoleslaw6698yes
@@chernobylcoleslaw6698 Yes looks like he fixed it!
Hi Trent, I am from Protestant background, but I must say that you are God's gift to His church. Your video is very informative.
“Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It’s like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can’t trust my own thinking, of course I can’t trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.”
CS Lewis
Now apply that same reasoning to God’s mind.
This quote is so idiotic. That it passes for wisdom is astonishing to me.
Well done Trent. Your analysis is excellent. Thank you.
I'm not a Christian (I am a Sikh) but this was an excellent video. Thanks for sharing.
Trent you are an amazing man and such a God send! I often refer to you whenever I or someone else has questions about Catholicism or just wanting to learn more! Keep it up!
It is funny Steven believes in rationality when he believes we don't have free will.
Molecules made up his thoughts.
Unless molecules are irrational, I'm not seeing how this is a point.
What properties do molecules have that render them capable of delivering rational thought?
In other words, how does rationality fit in a chemically determined world?
@@Eliza-rg4vw
The definition of rational is using reason and logic. If molecules produce your thoughts, you did not use reasoning or logic to make them. The molecules told you what to think.
Also, molecules don't produce thoughts. They are part of a causal chain to produce action with your body.
If that is wrong, what molecule told you to reply to me and type that exact response?
@@WhatsTheTakeaway
They don't produce rational thoughts. Molecules are part of a causal chain to produce a bodily action based on the rationality YOU made.
Rational means using reason and logic. If molecules tell you what to think and what to say, you did not use any reason or logic. You are stating what the molecules told you to say.
@@vtaylor21 Sorry, my question was for the other guy. I agree with you btw.
"Suffering is not morally evil." Debunked in 5 words. 😂
"Evil" in Problem of Evil arguments usually doesn't mean "morally evil." It just means bad.
@@Molotov49
Indeed. Which is why I think it would be more fruitful to recast the PoE as the PoS (Problem of Suffering).
But God is morally evil, because he created suffering as a concept knowingly omnipotent perfect being, punishing billions of innocent humans. No matter how you dance, it comes down to that. God knew, and still to stroke his ego, he wanted to be worshipped so he dooms almost all his creations beforehand, before one speck of dust was 'created'. But still going with it. No, he is the morally evil creature.
@@inajosmood Morally evil by what objective standard?
@@ChristiFuturum there is no objective morality. There's relative morality. Morality because of God's authority is very shallow. I wouldn't trust somebody who derives it from interpretations of a remarkably dark book.
But we can invoke the 10 commandments for the sake of this conversation. If we use that as a standard, than God is the most immoral creature. Manslaughter of billions. Lying. Not treating his neighbour (us) well. His own inspired book is filled to the brim with immoral stuff.
The problem of evil is nonsensical on its face. It's not an argument against God, it's an argument against God being a supreme good but treated as if it's the same. But then the issue is good vs evil becomes a subjective distinction, not an objective reality. Any subjective understanding of evil is insufficient to argue against God. If it's subjective, then your subjective understanding could just be incongruent with reality. The argument should start with "what is objective good if God does not exist"?
Do you agree God putting tumors in people's brains is good or bad?
Thank you!!!
When I saw the video I was really struck by the evil god thought experiment and wanted to hear a Catholic response
I think the "evil god" thought experiment is just a kind of cunningly laid trap for a theist.
On hearing one of the parodied theodicies, you're supposed to say, "no, there's no way an evil deity would allow goodness in this world!" - and then you face the (not impossible) challenge of showing how a good deity would allow evil when the reverse isn't true, or take the intellectually humble route and just say, "OK I guess I was too hasty, maybe an evil god could have created this world."
But the trap can be reasonably avoided by just responding with, "So what?"
Even if an evil deity would have created a world like this, why should we think that's what happened?
There is independent evidence for thinking a good God exists, and no evidence at all for thinking an evil deity exists, so God is still the more rational hypothesis.
@@MatthewFearnley It is not a trap but a defeater for one of the desperate tries by theists, to wiggle out of the problem of evil. This defense claim is that there is evil in the world, so we can choose good or that we can appreiate good more. The idea of the evil good turns this on his head.
To be very clear, the problem of evil is not a defeater of a god in general, but for deitys like the Christian one. And btw we have zero evidence for a good god, exactly zero. If there would be any real evidence for such a being every apologist would should it out 24/7 but instead all they do is wiggle around the problem of evil, never solving and most times just avoiding it and they do that for 2000 years.
If we really want to talk about gratuitous evils, maybe we should start with the absolutely hideous gen-AI visuals in RR's video. It's like banality and garishness had a child.
positive the art is AI too
This is so plain and clear to the understanding. The inability to define evil is not where I would’ve headed with a rebuttal to that video. Great job!
So Horn missed the point. It's an internal critique. Woodford hardly needs to define evil, and can simply state these are things that theists themselves consider evil, but cannot explain rationally. Or, if believers recast some unnecessary suffering as "not really evil" that only makes it that much harder for them to define what evil really is. And you'll see from the comments here that even among Christians, there's a division. Some take the suffering to be a fair example of evil. Others say suffering does not equal evil. The Christians in this very comment section do not have a consistent view of evil. I see this simply by reading the comments.
Perhaps, for this reason, the counterargument of the evil god as equally plausible, fails. It fails because one could easily look at all the hurt and suffering deliberately caused by a malevolent god, wise in his evil, and name that 'good'. Given the discrepancy in how Christians view evil, I suggest there is no meaningful difference between -- and no way to tell apart -- an all-hating god from an all-loving god.
Nothing here turns on what atheists consider evil, but on what theists consider evil. Woodford is examining theism, remember. And theists cannot keep their story straight, and cannot be rationally justified in believing their good god is real. "Good" can have no meaning to a Christian if everything can be taken to be good. A distinction without a difference.
This is called “skeptical theism”, which means that it is impossible to know whether or not gratuitous evil exists because if a good reason for a particular evil there is no reason to assume that we would know it, atheistic philosophers generally agree that skeptical theism refuted the argument from gratuitous evil
@Koolguy Is there a cow in the room you are in right now? I'm betting not. But how do you KNOW there is no cow in the room? You know because you can reasonably assume that if there were a cow in the room, you would be aware of it.
Now, is there an insect in the room? There almost certainly is, but is there any reason to believe that if there were an insect, that you would know about it? No, there is no reason to assume that. The insect might be hidden behind a wall, or it might be so small you can't see it. There is no reason to assume that if an insect is there, that you would know about it.
The same is true of evil. Suppose there is some evil that exists. Is there a reason for the evil? And if there is a reason for the evil, is there any reason to assume that you would know what the reason is? No, there isn't. The reason for an evil is like an insect in the room, there is no reason to assume that just because you aren't aware of it, that no reason exists.
Skeptical theism is the argument that if God has a reason to allow a certain evil to exist, there is absolutely no reason to assume that we would know about it. And atheists who are experts in the philosophy of religion generally agree that skeptical theism is an adequate response to the idea that it is "obvious" gratitutous evil exists. Thus, atheists who are experts in the philosophy of religion tend to make a Bayesian argument instead. That is, the argument that they make is that it is probable that there is at least one evil for which there is no reason. But notice how much weaker that argument is than what Rationality Rules is claiming. Indeed, since the latter half of the 20th century, atheists have been retreating and gradually surrendering on the whole problem of evil. They continue to make a form of the argument but the version they employ has been gradually getting weaker over time
@Koolguy that is the logical problem of evil, the argument that it is logically impossible for both evil and God to exist. This is generally regarded as having been refuted by Alvin Plantinga.
After the logical problem of evil, atheists altered the argument to the problem of gratuitous evil, ie evil for which there is no apparent explanation. Theists responded with skeptical theism, and after some arguments, it was conceded that this is an adequate response.
Now, they employ a Bayesian argument. If you don't know Bayesian statistics it is difficult to explain but it basically amounts to a probabilistic argument.
The way things have been going, it probably won't be long before theists refute this one too.
The book of Job handles this very nicely
"Theisism" vs. "Theism." Let's be real. That's the debate we've all been waiting for.
No debate, thesism wins everytime ;)
Atheism is irrational.....and I used to be an atheist.
All the theist position says is that (a) we observe that the universe and everything in it exists in an intelligible manner, and (b) that this intelligible order proceeds from a Source as an effect from a cause.
To deny either one of those things would invariably lead to premises that are by definition irrational.
Are you going to deny that the things in the universe are intelligible? Well, say goodbye to any and all scientific endeavors.
Are you going to deny that this vast intelligibility didn't proceed from a source as an effect from a cause? Ok, then explain where it came from without devolving into vapid and absurd hypotheses about multiverses or an infinite series of big bangs, none of which can be substantiated.
Not just irrational, also arrogant. At least those that make affirmations that "There is no God"
What they don't tell you in philosophy class is that such basic cosmological arguments don't prove the theist's position. The theist believes in God, not the universe coming from a "source as an effect from a cause." As an atheist, I can believe the universe had some sort of cause without believing that that cause is a person, all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good. Once you realize this, you also realize something else: there is not one mainstream argument in philosophy of religion that tries to show that God is good. Theists are constantly on the defensive from atheists who argue that God, if he existed, would be evil. God's goodness is purely a doctrine of religious faith.
“The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible.”
Albert Einstein
@@Molotov49
Um, yeah no.
For starters, it depends on what you mean by "proves the theist position"
Something can be sufficiently proven without being definitively proven. Science deals with this distinction all the time. Just because something isn't definitively proven *for you* doesn't mean that it's not sufficiently proven.
@@Molotov49
Second: ok, then explain the cause of the universe and the intelligibility within it without devolving into nonsensical and unproven hypotheses.
All atheists seem to have a highly developed sense of good and evil. 🤔
It's usually funny because according to their world view there is really no good and evil. It's all subjective
@@Bred-vz2py True.
For what is evil without good?
And what is good without God?
@@Mark-cd2wfbut,but my feelings..society.. evolution
@@Mark-cd2wf "For what is evil without good?
And what is good without God?"
Whatever good is. You do realize that the overwhelming majority of metaethicists at bare minimum regard the claim that God is required to make sense of the concept of 'goodness' to be dubious, right?
@@fanghur Arguments from authority. Irrelevant.
Thank you, Trent. Your point about the atheist having the burden of proof here is explicitly on point.
Very well done. Fantastic video.
except we dont, we merely demonstrated that you need to believe in all evil having a purpose without being able to justify it, and that is irrational.
and its such a flimsy way of flipping the burden too. Unless you maintain a positive stance which you cant defend (all evil has purpose) , your beliefs become contradictory to themselves. Our stance that we are better off without evils, is a tautology. The fact that the world goes on whether some evils exist or not is demonstrated every time a new evil is appears or disappears. Its self evident that there would be a better world if someone with more power than us worked for it. These are truisms, there is just no other way to put it, i dont know what else to say.
@@tothumn Atheism is a belief and hence has burden. Now you can either be honest or cope with the fact.
@@Tzimiskes3506 By your definition of that word, someone who doesnt believe there are any gods becase they never even heard about the idea or bothered to consider it would not be an atheist. Only those who claim they know what a god is and that its all fiction. Then you are correct about the burden on that claim. Its a bit offtopic though. What about the absurd claim that all evil must be for the greater good? That still has a burden as well.
I think merely claiming that anything has to be a specific way conflicts with the idea of an all powerful god. How is it all powerful if things have to be a specific way and thats above him? Its a rhetorical question, it/he cant be.
@@tothumn it is not the case that, "We need to believe in all evil having a purpose." This is merely one potential solution to the problem. Explaining each hypothetical situation in which it would be permissible would take all day.
Trent's point is that, if you are making the point, "Gratuitous Evil exists", and your goal is to convince someone else, then you have the burden of proof. The burden of proof is on the one trying to change the mind of the other person in a discussion.
Does that make sense?
I don't know why but I didn't expect to like this video. I'm glad my intuition was wrong, I really like this video.
Its difficult to argue belief in God is irrational if our rationality (and logic itself) is contingent on God's existence (As Aquinas and Locke argued).
It could very well be iff such an entity exists. However, I'm not sure how anyone could truly know that for sure.
Sicentists confidently declare, "there MUST be dark matter out there". Its special magic matter that is undectecibale aside from the one thing we use it to explain. Science be praised!
No, scientists know that our formulqtion of gravity doesn't explain our observations, so they know there is something extra. Dark matter is just a hypothesis, and no one knows if it exists. All attempts to detect it have failed, so plenty of scientists think it doesn't exist.
Not all do, some are experimenting with MOND, of which there are several proposals.
It's an unsolved problem. The scientific world is currently leaning to a dark matter explanation, but is not consensus, and most certainly don't claim it a certainty.
Dark matter exists to fill in the gaps of current theory regarding heliocentrism and universe expansion. It's hilariously contrived and makes me laugh that instead of thinking they might just be wrong that say that the universe is 99% made up of matter we can't have evidence of.
@@bumponalog5001 It does remind me of the aether and the miasma. I got the gut feeling it's all in the wrong direction.
Only God knows where it will take us. There must be a solution to this problem.
But just let me note something, heliocentrism is not current theory. Now it's agreed the universe has no center.
@@bumponalog5001 dark matter has literally nothing to do with that. We observe that galaxies seem to have far more mass than we can actually observe, so we infer from that that there’s some exotic form of matter than only interacts gravitationally. The only alternative is that our understanding of gravity is significantly wrong on cosmological scales, which is a possibility taken very seriously by physicists.
Imagine not having a foundation for rationality but then claiming belief in God is irrational. It's absurd.
Evil is the lost of a human soul, or actions that lead to the loss of a person's soul. Pain, suffering, etc. are not necessarily evil. Otherwise, good Saints like Mother Teresa, Father Damien, who suffered for their choices were actively seeking evil.
My ears perked when he said the rowandan genocide. My guy, is LITERALLY using acts of human evil, the core of our religion, to say that God doesn't exist.
I don't think he's an idiot, he's smart enough to know that arguing about the existence of God ought be limited to acts of God, but he's literally just padding for the sake of having more words.
I think he was putting forward an example of gratuitous evil. An evil that doesn’t procure a good that outweighs it.
I have a difficult time and it would strain credulity for someone to actually make the case that allowing a genocide to take place outweighs the harms associated with it ….
@@IvanGonzalez-kf4lp - man can sin. A man killing another man by his own will is an abomination in the sight of God. Just so as a million men killing a million men. Our faith exists as ways to act in the world despite our inevitable death and the cruelty that is man crowning himself God by expanding his dominion over other men.
A genocide physically by its very nature cannot fit in his example, as these are acts of Man crowning themselves God at his disdain, not of God himself.
@@wes4736 if you know with 100% certainty that if you have intercourse with your partner you will produce a child that will be all his life in the most horrible pain and suffering would you decide to have intimacy and bring this child to the world?a
@@a.39886 - that's insane. Absolutely of course, that's the reality of the human condition until like 100 odd years ago when we really began to understand how to curb infant mortality.
@@wes4736 so why would you decide to bring a child that would experience the most horrible pain all his life?
Awesome video. I loved it and subscribed.
I didn't know that people still used this argument
They still do. I'm trying to iron the counter right because before I even begin to explain I realize it would take a while. May God gift me with words, for I lack them.
Another issue about declaring something to be "gratuitous": strictly speaking there's no way for us, not being all knowing, to absolutely know that gratuitous evil even exist. You would have to be God in order to truly know if gratuitous evil actually exists, but then that would defeat the argument.
Only OGs remember when this was titled Thesism
You saw nothing. -Kyle
@@TheCounselofTrent Sir yes sir.
@@TheCounselofTrent but how will we ever know if thesism is rational?!
22:48 Trent acknowledges animals may go to heaven. The most unexpectedly pleasant surprise of watching this channel. Thanks Trent 😁
It seems to me that the video could have ended when Trent pointed out that Woodford does not define evil. There is no way to define evil without a criterion to differentiate it from good. A criterion to distinguish good from evil is what we call a moral law. Any law must be given by an entity with authority over all mankind. This "law-giver" is what we call God.
As it stands, Woodford's concept of evil seems to be, "whatever I say it's evil." Then everyone should accept his law, because he is the voice of Goddess reason. Or, maybe, he himself is the God Reason.
Interestingly, the same can be said about the definition of "rational." Who decides what is and what is not rational?
Good points.
For what is evil without good?
And what is good without God?
@Koolguy Laws of nature describe what _is_ (descriptive: gravity, entropy, equal and opposite reaction for every action, etc.).
Moral laws prescribe what _ought_ to be (prescriptive: do _not_ kill, do _not_ steal, do _not_ cheat, etc.).
Such prescriptions must be issued by a Competent Authority who has the right to issue them.
A morally perfect Lawgiver meets this requirement.
Which is what we find in the Biblical account.
Which is why everyone, everywhere instinctively knows that some things are _really_ right, and some things are _really_ wrong.
Even if they don’t completely agree on what those things are.
And regardless of what they know or don’t know about God.
Because He has written His laws into our hearts.
“Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. So they show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts either accusing or defending them on the day when God will judge men’s secrets through Christ Jesus, as proclaimed by my gospel.” (Rom. 2:14-16)
@Koolguy Thanks for the clarification. In answer to your last question, the standard is the infinitely perfect character of an infinitely perfect God.
Our moral values flow from His morally perfect character, and our moral duties stem from his commands, which also flow from His perfect character.
IOW, something isn’t good because God commands it, and God doesn’t command something because _it_ is good.
Rather, He commands things because _He_ is good.
He is _the_ Good.
He is Goodness Himself.
His unchanging, infinitely perfect moral character just _is_ the standard of good.
We must have a stopping point for right and wrong, and _Who God is_ is as good as we will ever get.
“There is only one Good, that is God. Everything else is either good when it turns toward Him, or bad when it turns away from Him.”
CS Lewis
@koolguy5344 The laws of physics are not laws properly speaking. A law, in the traditional sense, is a guidance for behavior. The laws of physics are not meant to _guide_ the behavior of inanimate matter; they just describe it. Inanimate matter cannot choose to reject the laws of physics. The moral law, instead, applies to beings who can either follow or reject that guidance. For people to feel obligated to follow a law, they must be under the one authority that dictates it. E.g. I don't feel obligated by the laws of China, because I'm not under the authority of China's government. But I do feel obligated by the laws of the USA. You see? And I know that everybody in my situation is obligated by the same laws. If the universe is the US, those laws are universal. And they are objective, because, once passed and enacted, the subjects do not have a saying in what those laws must be: they either follow them or violate them (or, in a democracy, they can try to change them). And, because they are universal (within the US universe) and objective, I expect they will not be violated. But, if they are, I will expect that there will be undesirable consequences for the violators.
The laws of the countries, whether they are just or unjust, decide what is "good" and what is "bad" within their universes. You can say that it is "bad" to have an abortion for no reason in Afghanistan, but it is not bad in the US. You can say that it is bad to force women to wear burkas in the US, but it is not bad in Afghanistan. But you cannot say that chasing penguins in the park is good or bad in either place. Why? Because the law-givers in those countries didn't pass a law concerning the chase of penguins.
You can say that something is good or bad within a certain universe, if, and only if, there is a law-giver with authority over that universe, who has passed a law on the matter.
If the moral law is to be a real law in this sense, then it must be objective and universal. And to be objective and universal, it must be given by a law-giver over the universe of all human beings (for moral laws are meant for human beings). Unless somebody comes with an alternative, there is no other way for a moral law to exist without a law-giver with authority over all mankind.
That law-giver with authority over all mankind is what believers call "God." Take away that law giver and you are left without a rationale for a moral law and, therefore, you cannot say what is good and what is bad. This is why an atheist does not have a rational basis to claim that something is good or something is bad. Therefore, an atheist cannot use the argument of the existence of evil: because they have no reason for deciding what is evil. That's why the argument that God doesn't exist because there is evil in the world is irrational (and, therefore, self-defeating).
@koolguy5344 It seems to me that you have a very common misunderstanding, prevalent among intelligent design supporters, of judging teleology as something exogenous, as something that is added to Creation. Teleology provides aim, meaning, purpose, not only to the universe as a whole, not only to its disparate parts, or groups of parts, nor even to the smallest known particle of matter. God creates all from nothing. So before the universe begins to exist there isn't even a particle of helium for God to work with. It could be construed as a "divine disadvantage" that humans have prime matter at their disposal to mold it according to their creative purpose. God must create even the prime matter out of nothing, even each electron in the atom must be designed in God's mind out of nothing, and given being (existence) out of nothing (with qualifications). From this teleology we can perceive the nature of things, the laws embedded in the most intimate parts of all beings. God does not create and then gives commands that are good because he is good. God's goodness is deeply embedded even in the remotest and unknown interstices of reality. God does not create and then makes things good. He creates "and sees that it was good." Before I wrote that the ex-nihilo (out of nothing) quality of God's creation must be qualified. Indeed, being cannot come from non-being. When we say "out of nothing" we don't mean "out of non-being": that would be a logical contradiction that goes against the very being of God, who is infinite being that subsists without the need of an essence to contain it. In conclusion, God "doesn't have a choice" but to share His own being with his creation, because there's no being outside of God. Hence, God's being must be present in absolutely everything, in every atom, and in every atomic sub-particle, and all the sub-sub-particles that remain to be discovered. That's why there's good (the being of God) present in absolutely everything. And, to rivet the idea, God "sees" that goodness in everything after each "day" of creation. (A quick caveat: God's being, being infinite, is not "reduced" or in any way affected by sharing it with his creation, because that is the meaning of "infinite": what, by virtue of lacking any boundaries or limits, can neither grow nor diminish).
After that, God doesn't have to (nor does) impart any laws or commands, as they are already in his creation, "written not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts."
Think about a human made invention, like the automobile. It's not like the manufacturer builds the car and then decides from an array of options each one of the recommendations and instructions in the owner's manual. If the car is built to work with gasoline, there's no point in wondering whether to write that in the instructions or something else, say, electricity. It's not like God creates man and then commands not to fornicate-humans are already "built" to work well (to achieve their ends) eschewing fornication.
You could very well say that God cannot dictate laws or issue commands against the moral order, because that would imply that his creation is defective, that he wasn't perfect and "the sum of all perfections."
Does this makes sense to you? Does it address your concern?
Thank you Trent, very informative 🙏
There are many flws at these arguments:
1.) "Faith is like trust and can be irracional and racional." No, faith is strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof. Which means, it is not the same as trust based on evidence.
2.) The problem of god's evil - it is here again. The same version of ad hominem attack as always around this problem:
- 2a: Stephen Woodford can call things evil since the most of the people would agree that some things are evil, because the word has the meaning which is clear to many people, especialy in cases of unbased suffering and killing.
- 2b: The point is "if the christian god exists, than he would be evil, which contradicts what this religion teaches" so it doesn' matter how it is in case o atheism. The simple fact, that he, as a human, can imagine a world without such evil, means the god could too and he can't create such world (than he is not almighty, or he doesn't care and he is not loving. Attacking Stephen's moral framework doesn't adress the point at all, but moves the topic to details of Stephen's morality and its base. And it repeats every time this topic comes. And if the believers realy get to the point when they have to sdress this point, we hear things like accepting genocide as moral, if this god said so, or if he was the one who killed the people. Which is disturbing.
3.) "If gratuitous evil exists, then God doesn't exist" - actualy, it is a strawman. Stephen was commenting Christian version of "all loving, all knowing and all powerful god". Not just any god. And the response to that, that it is the price we pay for a specific ecosystem, is comlplete ignoring those characteristics, because all powerful god could make such ecosystem, that doesn't require or even enable such evil, all knowing god would know the result during the creation and all loving god wouldn't want to create such ecosystem.
4.) First he mixes harm and evil, but those words are not the same. Than "He has to prove, that they are realy gratuitous" - it is just a variation of banging away any criticism of acts and contradictions of religions like this. If something seems to be positive, god is the cause. If it seems negative, who are we to judge God? It makes the proposition impossible to criticise. But it is no problem now, because God is supposed to be allmighty and therefore there is no need for any evil at all, because he can do whatever wolds he imagines. Therefore every evil is a problem. Because he is a creator who knew exactely the outcomes of his creation.
"atheist have to show, that evil and god are incompatible" - he has just shown it. No matter what the evil may serve to, it doesn't matter, since almighty god can do world without it. The point is, Christian god is said to be able to avoid that suffering without any loss of other qualities of the world and decides not to, which contradicts with "all loving atribute".
I think you're points are thought out but you are leaving something out that helps to solve this. The Fall. When we sinned, our good little world came crashing down. Evil came in. Disease came to humans, suffering came to humans. All because God respected our wishes to be away from Him. Sin is punishable by death, therefor Hell. Eternal death. At least that's what I believe Hell is. If God forced us to love him and vice versa is that love? Realistically no. The Fall is the main reason why "if God real why bad thing happen" struggles against Christianity. And your 7th point is especially problematic because it ESPECIALLY doesn't take the Fall into account. It was perfect for us humans. Then the Fall. WE (humans) caused our suffering. So your points would work but the Bible addresses it almost immediately.
@@idkbro-n5c Nope. God made us the way we had to do what we did. And the one lying was god, not the serpent. So the first sin was just god's fault. And he punished all people for his own mistake. And he caused them to suffer. No one wished to suffer. Punishing people who have done nothing wrong for god's mistake with death penalty or eternal torture, it is so evil - the most evil being at all seems to be god himself.
@@jakubholic8769 Biblical verse for that? It's pretty obvious that the serpent lies. I see no verses saying God lied. We made the choice to sin. Not His fault. And nothing wrong? We lie and do bad things ALL the time. So if you're atheist Hell is legit what you think it is. He doesn't send us to hell. We die and if we lived separate from God we get to stay that way. You're whole arguments is dumb and is that God is at fault for what WE do. Which is extremely wrong and unbiblical. What Adam and Eve did. You seem to just not want to take accountability and want to make humans look perfect but God bad. Why? Nobody is good. Nobody is perfect even in atheist standards. Give me verses for your argument or you just made it up for that dumb reason I mentioned.
@@jakubholic8769 Biblical verse for that? It's pretty obvious that the serpent lies. I see no verses saying God lied. We made the choice to sin. Not His fault. And nothing wrong? We lie and do bad things ALL the time. So if you're atheist Hell is legit what you think it is. He doesn't send us to hell. We die and if we lived separate from God we get to stay that way. You're whole arguments is dumb and is that God is at fault for what WE do. Which is extremely wrong and unbiblical. What Adam and Eve did. You seem to just not want to take accountability and want to make humans look perfect but God bad. Why? Nobody is good. Nobody is perfect even in atheist standards. Give me verses.
@@jakubholic8769Second account me here. I’ve been having many problems on my main account with my comments not appearing to me or any others. Can you see my responses above?
Love your work so much!
3:15 one way I conceive of "faith as trust" is trust in terms of people, not necessarily claims.
Atheists will say things like "i have an invisible dragon in my garage, you just have to have faith" in order to mock the idea of faith in a claim, while assuming that they're automatically a party that is worthy of being trusted. In essence, they subtly invite the theist to put the same trust in them as the theist does in God.
Atheists get accused of wanting to make themselves God, which many of them deny, but an example like this is fairly clear that they're trying to put themselves on the same field, if not unconsciously.
I have faith in God because I have good reason to trust the persons of God (God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit)
I have no reason to trust the person of an atheist who cannot get this conception of faith correctly and who, knowingly or not, wants to elevate themselves to the level of God.
You are begging the question. Until you put faith in God, you don't know he's God. Yet you claim that you can trust him because he's god.
@WaterCat5 this sounds like a "which god" retort which is nonsensical
I also said I put faith in God because I have good reason to believe in God, established through reason.
@@newglof9558Could you elaborate? No, seriously. I'm not an atheist
@@newglof9558 Your last paragraph is correct. It is best to believe something based on reason.
However, this contradicts your original comment. When someone has a dragon in their garage, you should ask for proof if you think there's a reasonable chance. It has nothing to do with trust or faith. The fact that you have faith in God does nothing regarding the actual truth of his existence.
There's a reason why you don't ask for evidence of a dragon: because it's so unreasonable that you correctly assume it must be false. Atheists do the same thing with gods. If you want to convince an atheist, simply provide evidence. Yet Christians can't, which is why faith is brought in. Just admit you don't have any evidence pointing to God's existence. That's all most atheists want out of religious people.
@@newglof9558 You can use it that way, but you are going against a large number of Christians and arguably the Bible in doing so. The Bible does not say faith is trusting God because we have good evidence he exists and can reasonably believe he is speaking to us through the Bible. It says "faith is being sure of what we HOPE for, the conviction of things NOT SEEN". (Although admittedly I feel like the author of Hebrews is doing a bit of double speak here too, because he then goes on to give examples of people who trusted God after literally seeing his face, like Moses. Some of his example do though speak of their faith before they had any good reason to believe God existed, like Moses fleeing Egypt, so I'm not sure the author had some coherent and fully developed idea of faith either beyond "hey, if you trust what I'm telling you that's the same thing as trusting God, and is very virtuous!")
The Christians I know take this very seriously, to the point they would say that people that claim they know and can reason out that God exists from evidence DON'T have faith because they are basing their belief on unreliable human reason instead of the miraculous and unreasonable gift of faith from God.
Great vid trent thanks for making these videos God bless you
Trent, could you make a video about the popular interpretation in academia that Jesus was a failed apocalyptic prophet? And maybe talk about some other views challenging this, like that of N.T. Wright
I hope the debate happens!!
You're awesome Trent!
No you -Kyle
Well done! Thank you!
Incidentally, I think we might be able to look at Woodward, with his rationality and his reaching outside of himself for Truth, and his sympathy for earth;y suffering, as a kind of proof of God's existence, no?
Damn Trent, you the man. Every rebuttal you post the poor guys just look completely incompetent and uninformed.
Exactly. It's those who argue for mythical virgin birthers, zombie events, and ghost insemination who come across as competent and informed.
highroller 1207 Nothing wrong with believing those things if there is good reason to.
@@ComicRaptor8850 There is nothing wrong with any beliefs in and of themselves. It's actions that cause harm. There is nothing rational about any of those silly fantasy beliefs however.
@@highroller-jq3ix No, there is a plethora of evidence to support the reliability of the Church, New/Old Testament, and the doctrines of the faith when properly researched and understood. Not believing them is actually more silly upon the correct philosophical and evidential review.
@@RomanCatholicAspiringScholar Actually, that's entirely ridiculous and nonsensical. The Catholic Church is demonstrably a public and political fraud as well as a massive child sexual abuse ring. When properly researched and understood, the Catholic Church is an immoral, corrupt, heinous blight upon humanity.
I’d love to see you and Stephen have an in person discussion. His video here doesn’t delve too deep into the “problem of evil” argument, I think you two could have a very enlightening dialogue:)
There's a very obvious rebuttal to the "gratuitous evil" definition, specifically when he says that "no good whatsoever comes from it". I would ask him how he knows that. Its impossible for a person to know that nothing good can come from any given act of evil, because we don't know all possible outcomes.
We could also propose at the same time that each act of "gratuitous evil" is actually better than the alternative evil that it could have been, and we'd have the same amount of evidence to our claim as his.
This wouldn’t be convincing to a proselytizing atheist, but the idea a human can rationally judge God, is a strange form of egomania. When I entered college, though I didn’t want to take a course on the Bible (I was at a completely secular university) I had a tight academic schedule, had to take a Freshman Seminar (a course mainly to ensure Freshman were trained well in writing) but the only topic available in my schedule was a seminar on the Bible. In the course we studied 1) Genesis and 2) Job. Though it was a secular course, both books impacted my understanding deeply of the Judeo Christian belief system. From Job, it made complete sense that it was absurd for a human to think he can sit in judgment over God. To do so was clearly a form of egomania, and profoundly irrational. Simply from a logical standpoint, whether you believed in God or not, it simply could not make sense for a human to believe he could judge God. At that point I was atheist, but still understood the absurdity of the concept of a human judging a god that was as all-encompassing as God is described in the Bible. When you are talking with someone who thinks it makes sense to judge God - even just theoretically, as an atheist or agnostic - if that is a person you are talking with, you are in a “Casting pearls before swine” situation.
"This wouldn’t be convincing to a proselytizing atheist, but the idea a human can rationally judge God, is a strange form of egomania."
Actually no, it's a consequence of believing that morality can be regarded as objective and of not giving God a free pass just "because he's God!" Most Christians don't actually believe morality is objective and that moral facts exist though.
Grab a cup of coffee, watch my man Trent knock down Drago / Lang / a side of beef. What a blessing.
Beautifully reasoned.
it doesn't HAVE to be rational. we are not mere physical beings. and didn't pascal already address this naive argument centuries ago?
Yes. The only rational position is to accept the existence of a God. Atheism poses some degree of eternal risk for quite literally zero reward. It’s hard to get more irrational than posing risk to yourself for no reason.
I need Trent to do a full cover of Faith!
In before the thumbnail typo is fixed
Thanks much for this video.
I love your videos, but the thumbnail has a typo
Tracking. Thanks Fr John. -Kyle
@@TheCounselofTrent I knew you must've been behind the mistake hahaha
@@FrJohnBrownSJ 😂 solid burn. If God real why Fr burn Kyle?🤪
@@halleylujah247because it’s funny?
I have trouble taking Stephen seriously. As far as “logic rational skeptic” RUclipsrs go, he’s probably C- tier.
It’s supremely ironic to me that a finite, limited little carbon blob that is only alive for a tiny fraction of temporal time can rear up on its hind legs and proclaim that an infinite, all-good, all-powerful, _and all-knowing_ Creator and Sustainer of everything that exists can’t possibly exist Himself, because he, the hairless little biped named Steven Woodford can’t see any reason for the evils that exist.
So, do you have a reason why such a supernatural creature exists? And does it bother you that you had to avoid the first question?
@@CalebScott1991 Why something instead of nothing?
@@apubakeralpuffdaddy392 What's nothing?
@@CalebScott1991 complete non existance
@@apubakeralpuffdaddy392 And how does this "nothing" prove your VERY specific supernatural created exists?
Hey Trent. Thank you so much for this video. Please is it possible if you could make a video explaining the transcendentals and how "good is convertible with being?" I think it's somewhere of an unsaid rule that we theists use but some(including me) might not fully understand. I hope you see this comment, please like it if you do!
I genuinely don't get the "atheism is rational" arguments they make. Like, as far as I'm concerned, just a generic form of Deism (or some kind of "Agnostic Deism," perhaps) would be more rational than atheism. Maybe it's just my STEM brain thinking this.
Personally, it's using my senses to distinguish truth from false and good from bad. I don't have nor require answers for everything, from the mundane to the existential. This framework seems pretty rational to me.
I agree, even when I walked on the border between religious and atheism, agnosticism just made more sense, cause there's basically no way to disprove the concept of God.
@@lordfarquaad8601I mean, atheism makes the claim that "God for sure does not exist", even as we speak there's a million things we don't get about our universe, so how someone can claim with 100% certainty that an higher being (that some would call God) does not exist doesn't make sense to me, especially when most people would in the same heartbeat accept that there's probably life somewhere else in the universe. Maybe I simply do not understand your position.
@@anangelsdiaries Atheism isn't a monolith. Some say there isn't a God, I say I don't know if there is one. What's true of all atheists, however, is our lack of religion.
@@anangelsdiaries These days the line between Atheism and Agnosticism is very thin. They are used virtually interchangeably for what ever reason which makes it complicated. Most "atheists" don't think god for sure doesn't exist.
Justice, Forgiveness, and Mercy starves to death without evil
I love how atheists always try to attack Christianity, for they know, deep down, that's the only true religion. You never see them use Hinduism or something like that to "make their points". That will always serve to prove how true Christianity is, when is the sole target of wicked men.
Because the atheists you interact with are all Western atheists who are usually brought up Christian. Christianity is all we know. We also live in a society where self-professed devout Christians are throwing their support behind widely reviled people like DeSantis and Trump.
Clearly you don't know a SINGLE atheist that fights against other religions. Like what. Just because we are in the west and surrounded by Christianity WAY more than any other religion means your religion is automatically true? That's terrible logic even from the perspective of another theist.
@@Dock284 all serious critics goes with Christianity.. all other religion are so lame even to take them serious
@@Yesunimwokozi1
I wouldn’t say so.
Several atheists take issue with different religions based on their regional impact; for example, an atheist in a Muslim majority area would generally critique Islam. Same for a Hindu area.
However, to say that other religions are “stupid” apart from Christianity is a bit of a stretch.
I’m an agnostic myself, who takes issue with a lot of theist Hindu claims. I also find the philosophical doctrines in Hinduism quite teaching, nonetheless.
For example, the Vedas talk about the origins of the universe, and assert that there is a singular “creator”. The Nasadiya sukta is quite beautiful, and provides room for agnosticism. It focuses on questions of purpose, the reason for existence, the reason for creation, and surrenders that “only He can know. Or perhaps even He does not know”.
I’m not defending any particular religion, but only to not dismiss others simply because they are not Christianity.
@@ahampurushahasmi6040 somehow I agree with you... But isn't it true that alll serious scholarly critics is against Christianity?? Why all focus on Christianity ?? There are PHDs critics of christianity like bart erham and he is a BIBLE SCHOLAR.. 😁.. someone trians PHD in order to critique.. speaks alot . Hindusim is mixture of all things...so many won't even bother ..
"In this moment I am euphoric. Not because of some phony god's blessing, but because I am enlightened by my intelligence." - Darwin 3:16
If everyone watch your channel, the world would be a better place.
Trent does great work defending against atheists. He's one of the best I've seen at that.
How does someone know what is good or evil without God?
They don't, it is impossible for it to not be subjective if there is no powerful authority above humans.
I don’t believe this but most who see good and evil existing without God mostly view it from a utilitarian view or the effects of said action on others/society.
If someone used that to prove any other god existing, would you convert and decide it makes sense?
Maybe go do some research on metaethics before asking ridiculous questions like this. 🙄
How does someone know TV dinners are crappy without having eaten some of Bobby Flay's cooking?
I'm surprised he didn't say "Faith is wish making" because that's how little they understand the word.
Kudos to Trent for actually going into the topic of how God might bring good from evil, but for me I've always thought that complaining to a perfect being about being created in an imperfect world is like a beggar complaining to someone who gave him five dollars about not getting thirty dollars. You could always complain about something, but it's not like you have a right to anything better. The only reason you even exist (or got the five dollars) is because of the benevolent individual's kindness. You have no reason to expect anything more.
Ever read "I have no mouth and I must scream"? Existence can be a very negative thing.
@@greengandalf9116 Which is certainly not our case. God gave us _something_ so let's rejoice with what we've got.
@@crusaderACR tell that to the three year old, that god kills painfully over one year by using cancer. Why shall it rejoice? Why shall the parents rejoice?
@@TgfkaTrichter Very Calvinist of you to suppose God directly decided to inflict bad things on people.
Before you ask, no bad things don't happen as a way to "test" us. It grinds my gears how so many Christians insist on that.
In your example
1. That child had no fault
2. That child's parents' had no fault
3. No one is being tested or given a lesson
You have to remember that, yes, God has an ultimate plan, at the end of the world. To suppose God has a plan that includes individual tragedies is the wrong way to see it. The World is geared towards the Good Ending, but your life may not be. Though if it isn't, God will at least make sure to repay your pain with riches in Heaven.
A small number of Christians do see it that way though. If you meet a Calvinist or a "Reformed", run. Limited atonement and their way to see predestination is not only unbiblical, it's outright cruel. If God is like the Calvinist God then I'm with you - I want nothing to do with that God.
@@crusaderACR we should all be thanfull, that the christian god does not exist. Also the story with the sick child does not end with its death. Depending on which version of Christianity someone believes, then the story could go on. If the parents of this child, after praying to god every day that their child will be saved, will lose their believe in god, then they will go to hell, cause they dared to question a god, just because this god killed their child. There seems to be no limit to gods malice.
Woodford seems to ignore centuries of religious systematic theology to make his points. How can theism be irrational if there are multiple academic fields are knowledge stretching back 2 to 3 thousands of years with endless amount of inner-religious debates, theories, and more? It's not like a group of people just blindly believed in something. Christianity, for example, is filled to the brim with diverse opinions and views, thus showing the capacity to reason, think, meditate, and rationalize. No serious Christian or religious thinker would say that atheists can't reason, so why say that theists can't reason when there is centuries of theological thought being expressed throughout the ages?
I find atheists amusing and mostly a bit sad for not allowing themselves to look past their blinkers. A human being trying to comprehend God and God’s purpose is a bit like an ant trying to understand humans with their limited ant worldview.
I'm an atheist, I wasn't there when the universe was made, so I don't know how it happened. Where did I go wrong? How do I take my blinkers down around that statement?
The problem is god allowing things such as children dying of cancer before getting a chance at life. Sure MAYBE god could have some moral reason we can't understand but being an all loving god he should tell us that reason. He is god he could do it in a way we can all understand.
Exactly. Quetzalcoatl is inscrutable! His knowledge beyond ours! His mysteries are not for us to know! We cannot disprove Quetzalcoatl!
Oh wait? You don't believe that's the one true god? I find your lack of belief in Quetzalcoatl amusing and a bit sad. You say you don't find evidence of this god, or reason for the human sacrifices, but you can't see the truth. A human trying to comprehend God (meaning Quetzalcoatl) and His purpose is a bit like an ant trying to understand humans with their limited ant worldview.
Then don’t make claims about God. Of ant kind, for any reason. You can’t have it both ways, dude.
This argument of evil is very weird when most of the people spreading it then tried to instate a totalitarian state where a "bigger entity" tries to protect you from yourself and then makes everyone miserable and in turn evil spreads. Then I feel happy for the gift of free will. The free will to follow God's way or not. Then again if we cause so many man made deaths it just proves that there is indeed a flaw that God's teachings has warned us about and its the concecuences of us going away from God.
Atheism doesn’t have any force as it once appeared to have. That initial scare is gone.
That’s because theists actually took a second look at all they were saying and realized it was complete nonsense.
I actually blame this current generation of theists. We dropped the ball with our intellectual tradition.
For instance, consider the rich intellectual tradition of the Catholic Church, do you think atheism would have thrived in the time of Thomas Aquinas or in the great scholastic era of the Catholic Church? It would have been laughable.
Anyway, I am happy our generation is slowly picking up the ball again, hence, the rapid decline of atheism.
Rapid decline of atheism? Maybe in some countries but in most of the world religion is at a high decline. Bigger than ever seen before. Not sure what makes you think atheism is declining when there are more atheist now than ever and the number is still increasing even if it's slow.
@@Dock284
That’s the interesting part of all this. The decline of religion (mostly in Europe) doesn’t mean an increase in atheism.
Most people who leave religion aren’t necessarily becoming atheists, they still believe there is a God and are now embracing some vague form of spirituality.
They are the none affiliated or just “nones” as we refer to them.
That’s where our struggle and our attention should be right now. Atheism isn’t of much concern as it once was.
@@Dock284 I'm afraid what you're saying is not correct. According to Pew Research, the World Economic Forum and other researchers Unbelief in general and Atheism in particular are facing a great decline worldwide.
Nonbelief peaked around 1970, when it comprehended almost 20% of the world's population and 1/3 of the world was under Communism, which preaches State Atheism. During that period Atheists were around 163M, 4% of the world's population. Yes, because Unaffiliated does not necessarily mean Atheist. It is estimated that between 70 and 80% of unafiliated people have some kind of religious belief. Atheists are a minority even among the Unaffiliated.
Since the 70's Nonbelief saw a collapse in percentaces: from almost 20% in 1970 it fell to less than 16% in 2020, and it is expected to fall to 13% in 2050. If the trend continues unalterated, nonbelievers will be less than 10% before 2100.
In these 50 years world population has doubled, from 3.6B to around 8B people. Atheists went from 163M people, or 4%, in 1970 to less than 140M, or 2%, in 2020. It was one of the only two groups which fell in absolute numbers, together with Shintoism.
The main reason for this is that Unaffiliated people have a tendency not to have children, or have one at most. At the same time Christian women have on average 2 or 3 children and Muslim women often go beyond 4. So while Christians will go from 2B in 2010 to around 3B in 2050 and Muslims will go from 1.5B in 2010 to 2.7B in 2050 the Unaffiliated will only go from 1.13B in 2010 to 1.23B in 2050. They will increase in absolute numbers, mostly due to deconversions, but in 2050 the world's population will be around 10B people, meaning that Unaffiliated people will inevitably fall behind, because their growth rate is too slow. Also, always according to Pew Research, around 2040 the Unaffiliated will stop growing in absolute numbers as well, making their decline even more prominent. Deconversions will no longer keep their numbers up. In Asia the Unaffiliated are expected to lose tens of millions of "units", mostly in China, Korea and Japan.
Nonbelief is only rising slightly in the West today, but mostly in countries which are experiencing a population drop, especially in Europe. I live in one of these countries. Meanwhile there have never been so many religious people. So no, in most of the world religion is not facing a decline; the data suggests that, unless something epocal happens, the opposite will be true.
@@charlesudoh6034 I guess the decline has much to do with extremely bad theology. If every kid at church had The bible and Augustine's City of God or Mere Christianity, they would still be Christian.
@@Tzimiskes3506
I do agree. However, I would argue that we are getting back on the right path.
Trent, would you consider doing a rebuttal to the Intelligence Squared debate w) Hitchens and Fry? Someone competent needs to address this
Screen fills with rainbows when Rationality Rules brings up gratuitous evil. What did he mean by this?
My guess is that he thought it was aesthetically pleasing. The whole thing looked AI generated, so there’s even the possibility that a machine made that decision. -Kyle
@@TheCounselofTrentHave you debated mindshift. I am recently new to your channel his arguments foe atheism are very compelling.
As an agnostic I find Trent to be genuine instead of disingenuous, and very thoughtful. I do have to question his definition of Evil as the absence of good. Something that can easily be measured in degrees of harmfulness can not merely be an "absence".
Are there degrees of goodness? If so then there must be degrees of “no-good”.
I agree. This always strikes me as a wholly self-serving way of thinking about good and bad for theists, and one which is completely at odds with how people actually think about them.
@@Kountdown003 I disagree with your logic. Absence = 0. No-Good = 0-Good. 0= nothing. There are no degrees of 0. There are no degrees of nothing.
@@Kountdown003 Yeah, that's literally a contradiction in terms. Either there is something or there is not something. That's an exhaustive dichotomy.
It’s so cringe that atheists try to copyright concepts like rationality or skepticism.
Yet you believe, without any evidence, that God walked around town for thirty years and then died and became a zombie and then the graves opened and the corpses and skeletons rose out and "appeared to many" and all of that happened without any of the locals noticing.
@@EvilXtianity shush, child.
@@EvilXtianity quiet, mythicist.
@@EvilXtianity why would people have noticed this, if all the resurrected people looked normal?
@@Tzimiskes3506
_" quiet, mythicist."_
If you have evidence that the Bible figure known as Jesus existed, provide it.
However, it is an absolute fact that there is literally no contemporaneous evidence that Jesus ever existed.
Paul made up the Jesus fiction in 48 AD after the Daniel 9:25 prophesy failed to fulfill.
Shouldn't we expect that if God was walking around town for thirty years that the locals would have noticed?
Fun fact: none of the Gospel authors witnessed Jesus.
good job!
I'm pretty sure if the British accent didn't exist that atheism wouldn't have gone anywhere in the 2000s.
There always have been atheists. With the technological advancement demystifying more and more of the world, atheism was bound to grow, regardless of the accents atheists.
Nice video, well done
Thank you very much! -Kyle