As a Christian in a debate, appealing to mystery is not good enough. I think that idea of Alex sums up why these conversations will always leave the thinking unbeliever unsatisfied.
I never understood how this problem was compelling to anyone. God gave mankind freedom and choice. He let us choose our own destiny individually and as a whole. If there was no such thing as evil or suffering, there would be no such thing as "good" because you only understand something to be "good" because you know evil exists. In a world where everything was "good" all the time, you wouldn't make a word and a concept to describe "good" because it would just be normal and expected in every moment all the time, and we wouldn't need a word for the only thing we ever knew. I don't think people are really considering how mundane and banal and pointless our lives would be if we only ever knew a world without evil.
1. "God gave mankind freedom and choice" Suffering has occurred for millions of years before humans existed, and suffering will continue to exist even if humans go extinct. Some suffering is indeed caused by human freedom, but the vast majority (from a life on Earth perspective) is not human-related. 2. "If there was no such a thing as evil or suffering..." If you believe that God is the source of goodness itself, you've unintentionally stated that God is a contingent being. Meaning he cannot exist without evil and suffering also existing. Which also means that by the standard definition of God being a necessary non contingent being, you do not believe in the existence of a God. 3. "If a world where everything is "good" all the time" - That is how heaven on Earth is described in the Bible (Rev 21:14). Using you logic, you do not believe in the Biblical second Earthly heaven. Btw, I am not an atheist. I'm a dystheist meaning I believe in the existence of a God who holds different attributes than those ascribed by traditional theism. The problem with your argument here is that it is not Biblical and even refutes some key Biblical concepts.
@ 1. Reasserting that evil does indeed exist isn't an argument against a hypothetical world without evil, it's just a redundancy 2. This is you shadowboxing an argument that you yourself set up so you yourself could counter it. "If you think..." instead of responding to what I said. Biblically, God created everything. This included a fruit where mankind would gain the knowledge of good and evil. Knowledge that only God had. He gave mankind the choice to stay in ignorance in a world without evil and mankind ate the fruit. Now mankind exists in a fallen world separated from God. 3. The only people that will be in heaven are people who lived on Earth at one point... All of those people will have had knowledge and understanding and experience with evil. Those were some insanely weak attempts at a gotcha, I have to be honest.
“Good” is self sufficient, therefore your claim is false. We don’t need evil to understand good. God is GOOD, and everything He made was GOOD. Adam and Eve knew they were GOOD, they just decided to disobey God. By your logic, if we needed evil to understand what “good” is, why is God absent of evil, yet we still understand Him to be the epitome of “good”-PERFECTION?
When the new Earth is created, we’ll all be in a perpetual, endless state of “good,” where there is no evil and will never be again, so will our lives be “mundane,” “banal,” and “pointless” then? By your logic, yes, it will, which is blasphemous...
A lot of folks consider morality to be purely a cultural construct, and evil as to things like outliers to the consensus or sudden/extreme painful scenario or even entropy, nothingness. (And some funny believe evil exists at all, and only use it in thinks like the "problem if evil"). The author of a book I once read and very much looked forward to the sequel squashed my enthusiasm with a reply in an interview. He said while things could be labeled even, he didn't believe it existed as such, only in degrees of extreme selfishness. I can easily see selfishness as a result of evil, or even a symptom, but not as the "replacement" for lack of a better word. (And the sequel proved my lowered enthusiasm correct).
I will never understand how someone can believe that every peaceful Buddhist is going to Hell for eternity because they don't take Jesus as their savior.
Problem of evil proofs the existence of God because for starters if evil didn't exist no one would seek God or if evil didn't exist this world would be heaven
I disagree, only because u didn't really back your claim. I imagine many would seek God out even in the absence of evil. Gratitude and worthiness alone would have me seeking God in any point of my life where I'm aware of Him and sober.
@arcguardian I don't believe that what you said would apply to yourself in a world without evil. I say that because it would be a different world, and your reason for choosing God based on gratitude in what you just said seems to be based on what you know now and not what you would know in a world without evil. I also believe that we wouldn't have a choice in a world like that. We would only know good and most likely only know God.
I'm retired at 38, went from Grass to Grace. This video here reminds me of my transformation from a nobody to good home, honest wife, $175k biweekly and a good son full of love🤍🤍
I raised 805k and Christine Elizabeth Lerma is to be thanked. I got my self my dream car a just last weekend, My journey with her started after my best friend came back from New York and saw me suffering in dept then told me about her and how to change my life through her. Christine Elizabeth Lerma is the kind of person one needs in his or her life! I got a home, a good wife, and a beautiful daughter. Note!: this is not a promotion but me trying to make a point that no matter what happens, always have faith and keep living!!
I've always wanted to be involved for a long time but the volatility in the price has been very confusing to me. Although I have watched a lot of RUclips videos about it but I still find it hard to understand
Alex presupposes a meaningful universe and that suffering is objectively bad. Both cases are presupposing the Christian worldview of meaning and morality. If atheism was true, then the universe is just a place of blind and meaningless indifference... So not sure why Alex is complaining about the things that would only matter if atheism was false and Christianity is true....
For context, I'm not an atheist nor Christian. Here are my thoughts. Alex doesn't believe suffering is objectively bad. Just that if there is such a thing as objective badness, suffering is in that category. Why would one make that assumption? Because all creatures generally tend to try to move away from suffering towards pleasure. Sometimes even if it means going through some temporary pain to get an even greater amount of pleasure. Ex: exercising. No creature tends to go through some suffering for the ultimate goal of more suffering. Therefor a human observing this can come to the conclusion that if there is such a thing as objective good and bad, suffering is a bad. Even if someone (including Alex) presupposed that suffering is objectively bad, they wouldn't do so presupposing the Christian worldview, they'd be presupposing a theistic world view in which there are objective standards of goodness and badness. Christianity is only one of the many worldviews one could choose from. I think Alex and atheists have other problems to contend with. Namely their belief that free will doesn't exist. All of their actions betray this believe. You can't bid someone to cause less suffering by not eat meat (as Alex used to as a vegan advocate), if you don't believe people don't have free will and can use it change their course of actions.
It’s an enteral critique he’s working within the Christian world view and believes that an all loving and powerful creator as described on the bible isn’t compatible with suffering.
@ thats not true, because an internal critque means you HAVE TO accept the christian premise that 'all suffering has meaning'. Alex has a specific objection to animal suffering in the wild which is gratuitous and seems to not have any other meaning at all. he seems to be able to reason human need for suffering and then do an internal critique as he did in this video where he says he can understand that if a person sees it that way. Which is the right way to conduct an internal critique.
@@arno7303 thats a theist argument against the problem of evil. But no we’re in the bible does it say suffering is necessary. God is said to love in the bible per John 4:8 and love animals in genesis 1:25. And he is all powerful per Jeremiah. 32:27. He isn’t concerned with what Christian’s believe he’s assuming for sake of argument that god is real and the bible is the word of god. Suffering is necessary isn’t mentioned by god so therefor is just a belief some Christmas hold and isn’t. rooted in Christian world view via scripture it’s just some arbitrary belief. Alex also mentions in the video he is doing an internal critique.
This misrepresents Alex’s position. He isn’t presupposing that suffering is objectively bad - only that it exists and that we experience it as meaningful. You don’t need Christianity to acknowledge suffering or to question why a supposedly all-powerful, benevolent God would allow it. Even if atheism leads to a universe of "blind indifference," that doesn’t mean suffering suddenly stops mattering to conscious beings who experience it. Dismissing the problem of suffering by claiming it only matters "if Christianity is true" sidesteps the actual issue being raised
Suffering brings strength. JBP said that life is about suffering. We get to choose" how we suffer" (sometimes not) , but not "if we suffer" . Jesus even tells us that we will suffer , here in this world , but not in eternity with Him ! God bless you all , and praise the sweet , Holy name of Jesus Christ!
There's suffering because of sin. There's sin because of free will. God has a plan to ultimately use it all for good in the end. Is that not a good enough explanation when it comes to the problem of evil?
There are different senses of faith, but the proper narrow definition of faith is called “saving faith,” which is God’s gift of trust in and by the good news of Jesus Christ’s vicarious life, death, and resurrection for the sinful world condemned to hell and is under God’s holy wrath for our sins. This Gospel that gives saving trust/faith is given by holy baptism and the Word of the Gospel.
christianity portrays evil existing just so god can look good defeating it. which is a horrible existence when you think about it as we essentially exist to praise god for saving us from himself. if evil exists just so we appreciate the good then we cant fully appreciate the good as we are only choosing the good to escape the evil. with evil existing there is no room for free choice as the only choice is to choose good or remain suffering. i don’t know why we suffer, but i know if a god was responsible for it and the only reason he allows it is to make me appreciate him i would not support or worship said god.
The confusion I have in reading your long rant is that you say God is saving us from himself. That would assume God is evil then. If you assume God is evil then why is there anything good? Shouldn't everyone experience only evil?
@ thats assuming the bible is fact. if the bible is fact, god is objectively bad. lets start from the beginning; god creates adam and eve, god creates the tree with the fruit that has the knowledge of good and evil. for some reason god puts adam and eve in the same garden as the tree and tells them not to eat it despite being omnipotent and knowing what choices they will make before they make them. after they eat the apple, god decides EVERY HUMAN must pay for their crimes and condemns us all to lives of labor and suffering. how is punishing all of humanity for two peoples misdeeds fair or good? and lets talk about lucifer, god created him knowing he would rebel and he STILL punishes him and puts him in hell for ETERNITY instead of something more merciful like erasing him from existence and starting over. but apparently god would rather purposely create Lucifer as a scapegoat for all suffering instead of not putting his creations through the suffering in the first place. so yeah, according to the bible, god is evil. but thats only if the bible is true. which after reading the bible and studying its history its pretty apparent its false. i was a christian until i read a majority of the bible and couldn’t find any reasonable explanations for the absurdities found within it. like god commanding the deaths of children in 1 Samuel 15:3 and the endorsing of slavery. not a single christian i have talked to has given me a good explanation as to why slavery and child murder are okay in gods eyes.
5:13 The most frustrating Ruslan interruption of all times? He thought he was advertising, but he was actually doing something much worse?! Annoying me lol Peeeeeaaaaaace ✌🏽
Doesn’t evil come from free will, and God being good won’t violate free will? But God works evil for good, we just can’t see how right now, although we can in some ways, just not entirely. Maybe I’m just missing something
Yeah but some suffering doesn’t come from free will. But Christian’s can say that it all comes from sin in general so I don’t understand how atheists think this is a good argument
When ruslan asked him what his answer is to suffering at the end of the video you really see Alex struggling because he lacks something critical that we Christians have freely given to us and that's a hope beyond the last breath.
@@maxi_taxi1 the hope may be false. I don’t think Christian’s care if their faith is true or not. They just believe it is without holding it up to any substantial evidence test. But Alex holds that faith to an evidence test and it fails so for him, truth matters. Which is not the case for Christians. For Christisn’s faith matters.
@CarvinHGoldstone In contemplating the notion of hope beyond our final breath, we are invited to ponder the profound implications of existence that transcends the confines of mortality. Much like the philosophical inquiries into the nature of time and eternity, this hope speaks to the fundamental human yearning for meaning and continuity. As we face the inevitable reality of death, the question arises: Is there something more that awaits us? The Christian worldview provides a compelling framework for understanding this hope, grounded in the resurrection of Christ-a transformative event that affirms not only life beyond death but the promise of our own resurrection. It is in this context that we can approach our final moments with a sense of peace, knowing that our existence is woven into a larger tapestry of divine purpose. Hope, then, becomes a powerful antidote to despair. It challenges us to embrace the possibility of life that stretches beyond the grave, urging us to invest in our relationships, our character, and our contributions to the world around us. The hope that awaits us is not a vague or nebulous prospect, but rather a beautifully tangible promise that beckons us to live fully and authentically, even in the face of our mortality. Thus, we should not shy away from these contemplations. Instead, let us engage fervently with the deep questions of existence, finding encouragement in the notion that our journey does not conclude with our last breath, but rather moves into a new and glorious chapter of being, one that affirms the ultimate triumph of love and life.
There are people who have had near death experiences that say “we choose” this life, this incarnation. You’d ask why would someone choose to experience bad/negative things, from the perspective of the self it doesn’t make any sense, but if there’s a part of us that is eternal/beyond the material (a soul/spirit/psyche/consciousness) then it would make sense as we take all our experiences and learning with us. Brian Cox describes that according to the laws of physics, in theory if we could build a spaceship that could travel at the speed of light that we could reach the andromeda galaxy in one minute, but to travel back to earth and tell everyone what you found, at least four million years would have passed. So maybe there are things we are not supposed to know.
If you a world existed with absolutely no suffering at all to include any type of fear, what would there to be excited about? There would be no spectrum of emotions.
@@brandnew7777 Still, your reply makes no sense; again, who are you to say what a world without suffering would look like? You live in a world with suffering. While a completely different problem, you could also use the same logic to attack the fine-tuning argument: who are you to say this is the only reality in which life can exist; it's the only reality you know.
Be careful with Alex, he is only 25 years old. This is only his first year with a full pre-frontal cortex. “A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.” - Proverbs 18:2
I think the Cancer imagery he mentioned may be closest. Humanity started in perfection, but chose to introduce the cancerous sin into the world as a result. Thus the value of is the treatment. Without the knowledge of fear, bravery had no value. I've seen it described much better than that, though I cannot recall the details. Alex' description of faith was beautiful, and heartbreaking an the more so due to his started inability to hold faith in Jesus.
when you say, why cant we just have bravery, or why cant god just stop the bad stuff or make us absolutely perfect from the start, youre asking for something entirely different than humanity.
The problem of evil presents a profound challenge to theism, particularly as articulated within the context of classical theism. At its core, the problem is succinctly expressed through the following formulation: If God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good, then why is there evil in the world? This contradiction raises significant philosophical and theological questions. From a logical standpoint, the existence of gratuitous suffering seems irreconcilable with a benevolent deity. The existence of evil, particularly moral evil inflicted by free agents and natural evil not directly caused by humans, prompts us to reconsider the attributes traditionally ascribed to God. Indeed, skeptics argue that the prevalence of suffering calls into question either God's existence or His nature. However, it is essential to recognize that the presence of evil does not negate the existence of God, but rather demands a deeper exploration of His nature and purposes. As I argue in my writings, one approach is to consider the greater good defense, which posits that God has morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil. This perspective suggests that some goods are only possible in the presence of evil, such as the development of virtues like courage and compassion. Moreover, the concept of free will plays a pivotal role in this discussion. The capacity for humans to make genuine moral choices inevitably leads to the potential for moral evil. A world with free agents capable of love and virtue is arguably more valuable than one devoid of such agency, even if it comes with the cost of possible suffering. In summary, the problem of evil is not an insurmountable barrier to theism, but rather an invitation to delve into the complexities of divine attributes, the nature of good and evil, and the ultimate purposes that may underlie our experiences of suffering. As we navigate this intricate landscape, it becomes evident that theistic belief can withstand the scrutiny posed by evil when one accounts for the broader contexts of divine intention and human freedom.
The problem of evil has already been solved. One solution: we are not in a position in which to objectively claim that God doesn’t have just reasons why He allows evil. Second solution: God is not a creature, which is subject to the law (ethics). God in His essence is holy, which secondarily means he is absolutely ethically pure but primarily means He transcends all ethics, concepts, so that creatures cannot properly compare Him to anything in creation or in our imaginations. Thus, God cannot be judged for He transcends over all things. If God could be judged, He would not be God but a creature.
I see a couple problems with this. 1. You may be right with what you say in your first solution. But to state that we cannot "objectively claim that God doesn't have just reasons why He allows evil" goes to show that God being good/evil/a mix of both is an unfalsifiable claim. If God's reasons are unknowable, there is no way to make the counterclaim "God does have just reasons for allowing evil" either. 2. If "God is not a creature that is subject to the law (ethics)", than saying God is good and holy is meaningless. If there is some objective law, then goodness specifically is a measure of abiding by that law. 3. "God in his essence is holy" - You run into the same problem as the one proposing the problem of evil. You cannot make that objective statement about God since that is not something you objectively know to be true. You probably believe you have good evidence to make this claim, but since all of these evidences are being interpreted through your subjective observation and experience, you cannot make that objective statement. The problem I see with these lines of arguments is that they may be true, but they inevitably lead to unfalsifiable claims.
@weidchar1646 The reasons that immediately come to mind of why God is good are twofold: 1. We would say that God means a Being with no potentialities, and evil is the absence of God, and therefore God cannot be evil 2. Divine Revelation says so The problem really comes down to natural evils since the problem of evil in the simple form has already been solved with humans in regard to what he said up above in his 1. As for natural evils, what we are normally talking about here would be animal suffering. And there are various ways to solve it. An interesting one is that the fall of some of the angels caused the animal suffering. The easiest one is not something that people find emotionally appealing, but that is logically sound wherein that you deny animal suffering is not evil, and claim that animals don’t suffer like we do since they aren’t rational beings.
@ Thanks for the reply. Let me probe you further. 1. On your first point, given the definition you gave, this would make sense. The question is, how did you come up with this definition of God? I ask this cuz from one perspective, that's an awfully quick and convenient definition to attach to "God" to rid him of being associated with evil. From my perspective, the only thing I can reliably state about what/who God is, is "the uncaused cause from which all else is derived from, who is sentient and powerful enough to create the universe. 2. The thing whose legitimacy is being questions with the problem of evil, is said "Divine revelation". Thus saying "Divine revelation" doesn't help someone who doesn't already believe in that revelation being divine and true. Part of the assumption from my part and most who bring up the problem of evil, is that if there is such thing as good and evil, we humans can generally rationally perceive it. I accept having this assumption and I will stick by it. 3. To your third point, I agree that the simplest version of the problem of evil can be solved with humans. I think for Alex and me too, it's not so much the problem of evil that is relevant, but more so the problem of great suffering. Sometimes those words are used interchangeably, but it's really the latter that is of concern. That aspect I don't think can be accounted for with just "humans are the ones doing bad", since intense suffering has always been present in life on Earth for millions of years before humans ever showed up. Even as humans exist, there is immense gratuitous suffering that occurs. Millions of people die of starvation each year (for virtually all of human history) due to non-human related natural events. You could suppose that this problem of suffering is due to angels as you state, but the problem here is that great suffering is embedded within the very fabric of reality on earth. Predation is necessitated by it. Animals evolve through it. Humans are around because of it. Survival of the fittest, the backbone of evolution, is the save as "destruction of the unfit" as Alex has said a couple times. By pretty much all the evidence we have, immense suffering is built into the system. If this immense suffering on human and animal part does not count as evil (if there is such a thing), I cannot trust myself to perceive reality and personally would not want to associate with the God who made that reality.
The problem here is that Alex is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. God knew that Ruslan would suffer and that he would do enough bad stuff to go to jail, and DESPITE IT ALL God still chose to have Ruslan exist. God desired Ruslan's existence even before the beginning of time because God knew that it was not hopeless. God knows that there is meaning in even an imperfect life and maybe that is something that should have a chance at existing and being redeemed. Maybe what we have now is meaningful enough to warrant a chance at existence despite evil and suffering. I don't think God would want to trade Ruslan in for another version.
It's a big mistake to compare chemotherapy with courage. Chemotheraphy is a physical treatment/ It's true that it's not intrinsically good, but it's not intrinsically evil either. It's like a gun or a knife. It always boils down to your will, how do you use it and why. So rather than comparing courage with chemotherapy, you should be comparing courage with the desire to live, which is intrinsically good. "If you could have been made who you are, without the suffering, that would have been a preferable life" Another big mistake. You cannot be "made" who you are because you are not a tool, you are a free willed individual. The reason this suffering is necessary is because we have chosen not to be who we could have been.
Alex misses the point that lessons can be passed from a father (of mistakes and/or misery) to a child to avoid those same mistakes or misery. In some sense that is a point of the Bible. Lesson 1: Don’t kill your brother over your pride. Work hard and be humble. You don’t have to kill your brother to learn the lesson.
Can I be real, I don't know who Alex O Conner is or why it's a big deal, like does the guy had beef with Ruslan or said something offensive about Christians?
Why debate dudes like this? He’s got it all figured out. Just tell him the gospel and move on. I’m pretty dumb and I can see why in this life we get to experience what is good and what is evil, then use our free will to pick a side. 🤷🏻♂️
@@brucewayne9639the argument is: if god is all good, all knowing and all powerful; evil cannot exist. If god knows evil will occur but cannot stop it he is not all powerful. If he knows but chooses not to stop it he is not all good. If he can stop it and wants to but doesn’t know if or when it will happen then he’s not all knowing
Bless God Summit Tickets Here: www.itickets.com/events/479802
Define "Evil"
As a Christian in a debate, appealing to mystery is not good enough. I think that idea of Alex sums up why these conversations will always leave the thinking unbeliever unsatisfied.
agreed, as a calvinist we believe we should argue from God as per Romans 1 and not to God
@ as a Calvinist don’t you appeal to mystery in understanding why God elects some to salvation?
I never understood how this problem was compelling to anyone. God gave mankind freedom and choice. He let us choose our own destiny individually and as a whole. If there was no such thing as evil or suffering, there would be no such thing as "good" because you only understand something to be "good" because you know evil exists. In a world where everything was "good" all the time, you wouldn't make a word and a concept to describe "good" because it would just be normal and expected in every moment all the time, and we wouldn't need a word for the only thing we ever knew. I don't think people are really considering how mundane and banal and pointless our lives would be if we only ever knew a world without evil.
God could give us the knowledge of evil without us needing to experience it. He chooses not to.
1. "God gave mankind freedom and choice" Suffering has occurred for millions of years before humans existed, and suffering will continue to exist even if humans go extinct. Some suffering is indeed caused by human freedom, but the vast majority (from a life on Earth perspective) is not human-related.
2. "If there was no such a thing as evil or suffering..." If you believe that God is the source of goodness itself, you've unintentionally stated that God is a contingent being. Meaning he cannot exist without evil and suffering also existing. Which also means that by the standard definition of God being a necessary non contingent being, you do not believe in the existence of a God.
3. "If a world where everything is "good" all the time" - That is how heaven on Earth is described in the Bible (Rev 21:14). Using you logic, you do not believe in the Biblical second Earthly heaven.
Btw, I am not an atheist. I'm a dystheist meaning I believe in the existence of a God who holds different attributes than those ascribed by traditional theism. The problem with your argument here is that it is not Biblical and even refutes some key Biblical concepts.
@
1. Reasserting that evil does indeed exist isn't an argument against a hypothetical world without evil, it's just a redundancy
2. This is you shadowboxing an argument that you yourself set up so you yourself could counter it. "If you think..." instead of responding to what I said. Biblically, God created everything. This included a fruit where mankind would gain the knowledge of good and evil. Knowledge that only God had. He gave mankind the choice to stay in ignorance in a world without evil and mankind ate the fruit. Now mankind exists in a fallen world separated from God.
3. The only people that will be in heaven are people who lived on Earth at one point... All of those people will have had knowledge and understanding and experience with evil.
Those were some insanely weak attempts at a gotcha, I have to be honest.
“Good” is self sufficient, therefore your claim is false. We don’t need evil to understand good. God is GOOD, and everything He made was GOOD. Adam and Eve knew they were GOOD, they just decided to disobey God. By your logic, if we needed evil to understand what “good” is, why is God absent of evil, yet we still understand Him to be the epitome of “good”-PERFECTION?
When the new Earth is created, we’ll all be in a perpetual, endless state of “good,” where there is no evil and will never be again, so will our lives be “mundane,” “banal,” and “pointless” then? By your logic, yes, it will, which is blasphemous...
I will never understand how someone who doesnt believe in morality, having a problem with "evil".
A lot of folks consider morality to be purely a cultural construct, and evil as to things like outliers to the consensus or sudden/extreme painful scenario or even entropy, nothingness. (And some funny believe evil exists at all, and only use it in thinks like the "problem if evil").
The author of a book I once read and very much looked forward to the sequel squashed my enthusiasm with a reply in an interview. He said while things could be labeled even, he didn't believe it existed as such, only in degrees of extreme selfishness.
I can easily see selfishness as a result of evil, or even a symptom, but not as the "replacement" for lack of a better word. (And the sequel proved my lowered enthusiasm correct).
@@daltonbrasier5491 who doesn’t believe in morality?
@Carvin Alex doesn't believe in objective morality.
I will never understand how someone can believe that every peaceful Buddhist is going to Hell for eternity because they don't take Jesus as their savior.
@@daltonbrasier5491 so what morality does he believe in?
No grow anxious, God is going to stop all evil one day. All evil that might be you too.
A Very juvenile view
Problem of evil proofs the existence of God because for starters if evil didn't exist no one would seek God or if evil didn't exist this world would be heaven
I disagree, only because u didn't really back your claim. I imagine many would seek God out even in the absence of evil. Gratitude and worthiness alone would have me seeking God in any point of my life where I'm aware of Him and sober.
@arcguardian I don't believe that what you said would apply to yourself in a world without evil. I say that because it would be a different world, and your reason for choosing God based on gratitude in what you just said seems to be based on what you know now and not what you would know in a world without evil. I also believe that we wouldn't have a choice in a world like that. We would only know good and most likely only know God.
The existence of evil, at least conceptually, is necessary for us to know what good is like what CS Lewis argued.
I should have known the thing I couldn't remember was from Lewis, hahaha.
@@pguetan does this apply to God too?
@CarvinHGoldstone what are you asking exactly?
@@huh-kq1tp is the existence of evil also necessary for God to know what good is?
@@CarvinHGoldstone no why would it be
I'm retired at 38, went from Grass to Grace. This video here reminds me of my transformation from a nobody to good home, honest wife, $175k biweekly and a good son full of love🤍🤍
I'm highly inspired.
Please spill some sugar about the bi-weekly stuff you mentioned.
Big thanks to Mrs CHRISTINE ELIZABETH LERMA
She's a licensed broker here in the states 🇺🇸 and finance advisor.
I raised 805k and Christine Elizabeth Lerma is to be thanked. I got my self my dream car a just last weekend, My journey with her started after my best friend came back from New York and saw me suffering in dept then told me about her and how to change my life through her. Christine Elizabeth Lerma is the kind of person one needs in his or her life! I got a home, a good wife, and a beautiful daughter. Note!: this is not a promotion but me trying to make a point that no matter what happens, always have faith and keep living!!
I've always wanted to be involved for a long time but the volatility in the price has been very confusing to me. Although I have watched a lot of RUclips videos about it but I still find it hard to understand
Alex presupposes a meaningful universe and that suffering is objectively bad. Both cases are presupposing the Christian worldview of meaning and morality. If atheism was true, then the universe is just a place of blind and meaningless indifference... So not sure why Alex is complaining about the things that would only matter if atheism was false and Christianity is true....
For context, I'm not an atheist nor Christian. Here are my thoughts.
Alex doesn't believe suffering is objectively bad. Just that if there is such a thing as objective badness, suffering is in that category. Why would one make that assumption? Because all creatures generally tend to try to move away from suffering towards pleasure. Sometimes even if it means going through some temporary pain to get an even greater amount of pleasure. Ex: exercising. No creature tends to go through some suffering for the ultimate goal of more suffering. Therefor a human observing this can come to the conclusion that if there is such a thing as objective good and bad, suffering is a bad.
Even if someone (including Alex) presupposed that suffering is objectively bad, they wouldn't do so presupposing the Christian worldview, they'd be presupposing a theistic world view in which there are objective standards of goodness and badness. Christianity is only one of the many worldviews one could choose from.
I think Alex and atheists have other problems to contend with. Namely their belief that free will doesn't exist. All of their actions betray this believe. You can't bid someone to cause less suffering by not eat meat (as Alex used to as a vegan advocate), if you don't believe people don't have free will and can use it change their course of actions.
It’s an enteral critique he’s working within the Christian world view and believes that an all loving and powerful creator as described on the bible isn’t compatible with suffering.
@ thats not true, because an internal critque means you HAVE TO accept the christian premise that 'all suffering has meaning'.
Alex has a specific objection to animal suffering in the wild which is gratuitous and seems to not have any other meaning at all. he seems to be able to reason human need for suffering and then do an internal critique as he did in this video where he says he can understand that if a person sees it that way. Which is the right way to conduct an internal critique.
@@arno7303 thats a theist argument against the problem of evil. But no we’re in the bible does it say suffering is necessary. God is said to love in the bible per John 4:8 and love animals in genesis 1:25. And he is all powerful per Jeremiah. 32:27. He isn’t concerned with what Christian’s believe he’s assuming for sake of argument that god is real and the bible is the word of god. Suffering is necessary isn’t mentioned by god so therefor is just a belief some Christmas hold and isn’t. rooted in Christian world view via scripture it’s just some arbitrary belief. Alex also mentions in the video he is doing an internal critique.
This misrepresents Alex’s position. He isn’t presupposing that suffering is objectively bad - only that it exists and that we experience it as meaningful. You don’t need Christianity to acknowledge suffering or to question why a supposedly all-powerful, benevolent God would allow it. Even if atheism leads to a universe of "blind indifference," that doesn’t mean suffering suddenly stops mattering to conscious beings who experience it. Dismissing the problem of suffering by claiming it only matters "if Christianity is true" sidesteps the actual issue being raised
Suffering brings strength. JBP said that life is about suffering. We get to choose" how we suffer" (sometimes not) , but not "if we suffer" . Jesus even tells us that we will suffer , here in this world , but not in eternity with Him ! God bless you all , and praise the sweet , Holy name of Jesus Christ!
Buddha also made the observation that suffering is a part of life. Anyone can come to this conclusion if they sit and contemplate life.
There's suffering because of sin. There's sin because of free will. God has a plan to ultimately use it all for good in the end. Is that not a good enough explanation when it comes to the problem of evil?
@@JDthegamer209 We came in like lambs and will rule like wolves.” - Francesco Borgia, Third Jesuit Superior General
There are different senses of faith, but the proper narrow definition of faith is called “saving faith,” which is God’s gift of trust in and by the good news of Jesus Christ’s vicarious life, death, and resurrection for the sinful world condemned to hell and is under God’s holy wrath for our sins.
This Gospel that gives saving trust/faith is given by holy baptism and the Word of the Gospel.
christianity portrays evil existing just so god can look good defeating it. which is a horrible existence when you think about it as we essentially exist to praise god for saving us from himself. if evil exists just so we appreciate the good then we cant fully appreciate the good as we are only choosing the good to escape the evil. with evil existing there is no room for free choice as the only choice is to choose good or remain suffering. i don’t know why we suffer, but i know if a god was responsible for it and the only reason he allows it is to make me appreciate him i would not support or worship said god.
The confusion I have in reading your long rant is that you say God is saving us from himself. That would assume God is evil then. If you assume God is evil then why is there anything good? Shouldn't everyone experience only evil?
@ thats assuming the bible is fact. if the bible is fact, god is objectively bad. lets start from the beginning; god creates adam and eve, god creates the tree with the fruit that has the knowledge of good and evil. for some reason god puts adam and eve in the same garden as the tree and tells them not to eat it despite being omnipotent and knowing what choices they will make before they make them. after they eat the apple, god decides EVERY HUMAN must pay for their crimes and condemns us all to lives of labor and suffering. how is punishing all of humanity for two peoples misdeeds fair or good? and lets talk about lucifer, god created him knowing he would rebel and he STILL punishes him and puts him in hell for ETERNITY instead of something more merciful like erasing him from existence and starting over. but apparently god would rather purposely create Lucifer as a scapegoat for all suffering instead of not putting his creations through the suffering in the first place. so yeah, according to the bible, god is evil. but thats only if the bible is true. which after reading the bible and studying its history its pretty apparent its false. i was a christian until i read a majority of the bible and couldn’t find any reasonable explanations for the absurdities found within it. like god commanding the deaths of children in 1 Samuel 15:3 and the endorsing of slavery. not a single christian i have talked to has given me a good explanation as to why slavery and child murder are okay in gods eyes.
That is well said by a second grader.
@ im not the one who believes in fairytales
@@MunchGawdemwhat about the fairy tale of magical nothingness starting the world?
Isn't one answer to evil a consequence of the Fall? Doesn't it also remind us that we sin and need a savior?
5:13 The most frustrating Ruslan interruption of all times? He thought he was advertising, but he was actually doing something much worse?! Annoying me lol Peeeeeaaaaaace ✌🏽
just skip past it... Peeeeeaaaaaace ✌🏽
Alittle prideful about it 🙂↕️
Doesn’t evil come from free will, and God being good won’t violate free will? But God works evil for good, we just can’t see how right now, although we can in some ways, just not entirely.
Maybe I’m just missing something
Yeah but some suffering doesn’t come from free will. But Christian’s can say that it all comes from sin in general so I don’t understand how atheists think this is a good argument
Cancer? Earthquakes,
@@WhosKind yeah Christians can say that it comes from sin
Mark 16:9 is forged
@@WhosKind what the heck does that have anything to do with what I’ve been saying?
When ruslan asked him what his answer is to suffering at the end of the video you really see Alex struggling because he lacks something critical that we Christians have freely given to us and that's a hope beyond the last breath.
@@maxi_taxi1 the hope may be false. I don’t think Christian’s care if their faith is true or not. They just believe it is without holding it up to any substantial evidence test. But Alex holds that faith to an evidence test and it fails so for him, truth matters. Which is not the case for Christians. For Christisn’s faith matters.
@CarvinHGoldstone In contemplating the notion of hope beyond our final breath, we are invited to ponder the profound implications of existence that transcends the confines of mortality. Much like the philosophical inquiries into the nature of time and eternity, this hope speaks to the fundamental human yearning for meaning and continuity.
As we face the inevitable reality of death, the question arises: Is there something more that awaits us? The Christian worldview provides a compelling framework for understanding this hope, grounded in the resurrection of Christ-a transformative event that affirms not only life beyond death but the promise of our own resurrection. It is in this context that we can approach our final moments with a sense of peace, knowing that our existence is woven into a larger tapestry of divine purpose.
Hope, then, becomes a powerful antidote to despair. It challenges us to embrace the possibility of life that stretches beyond the grave, urging us to invest in our relationships, our character, and our contributions to the world around us. The hope that awaits us is not a vague or nebulous prospect, but rather a beautifully tangible promise that beckons us to live fully and authentically, even in the face of our mortality.
Thus, we should not shy away from these contemplations. Instead, let us engage fervently with the deep questions of existence, finding encouragement in the notion that our journey does not conclude with our last breath, but rather moves into a new and glorious chapter of being, one that affirms the ultimate triumph of love and life.
@@CarvinHGoldstone 🤦♂️
4:00
Would this statement be applicable to the case of Junko Furuta?
I find zero beauty in it. I would love to hear a response.
Suffering…. Not everyone in the end benefits from suffering. It amazes me why Christians don’t seem to see that.
Suffering always benefits us if we choose to suffer for God’s glory and honor. Otherwise yes, not everyone benefits from suffering.
There are people who have had near death experiences that say “we choose” this life, this incarnation. You’d ask why would someone choose to experience bad/negative things, from the perspective of the self it doesn’t make any sense, but if there’s a part of us that is eternal/beyond the material (a soul/spirit/psyche/consciousness) then it would make sense as we take all our experiences and learning with us.
Brian Cox describes that according to the laws of physics, in theory if we could build a spaceship that could travel at the speed of light that we could reach the andromeda galaxy in one minute, but to travel back to earth and tell everyone what you found, at least four million years would have passed. So maybe there are things we are not supposed to know.
We wouldn't even experience pleasure or love without suffering. There would be no mystery or excitement.
How would you know that? You live in a life filled with suffering. Who are you to say how we'd feel if there wasn't any?
If you a world existed with absolutely no suffering at all to include any type of fear, what would there to be excited about? There would be no spectrum of emotions.
@@brandnew7777 I don't want to sound mean, but you might want to proofread what you write before you reply. Your reply is incoherent.
@@experimental605 sorry I have a life and multi task. It's definitely not incoherent. I missed one word. *If you live in a world.
@@brandnew7777 Still, your reply makes no sense; again, who are you to say what a world without suffering would look like? You live in a world with suffering. While a completely different problem, you could also use the same logic to attack the fine-tuning argument: who are you to say this is the only reality in which life can exist; it's the only reality you know.
Be careful with Alex, he is only 25 years old. This is only his first year with a full pre-frontal cortex.
“A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.” - Proverbs 18:2
The strength of a sword is dependent upon how much the steel is tempered and worked.
I think the Cancer imagery he mentioned may be closest.
Humanity started in perfection, but chose to introduce the cancerous sin into the world as a result. Thus the value of is the treatment.
Without the knowledge of fear, bravery had no value.
I've seen it described much better than that, though I cannot recall the details.
Alex' description of faith was beautiful, and heartbreaking an the more so due to his started inability to hold faith in Jesus.
when you say, why cant we just have bravery, or why cant god just stop the bad stuff or make us absolutely perfect from the start, youre asking for something entirely different than humanity.
The problem of evil presents a profound challenge to theism, particularly as articulated within the context of classical theism. At its core, the problem is succinctly expressed through the following formulation: If God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good, then why is there evil in the world? This contradiction raises significant philosophical and theological questions.
From a logical standpoint, the existence of gratuitous suffering seems irreconcilable with a benevolent deity. The existence of evil, particularly moral evil inflicted by free agents and natural evil not directly caused by humans, prompts us to reconsider the attributes traditionally ascribed to God. Indeed, skeptics argue that the prevalence of suffering calls into question either God's existence or His nature.
However, it is essential to recognize that the presence of evil does not negate the existence of God, but rather demands a deeper exploration of His nature and purposes. As I argue in my writings, one approach is to consider the greater good defense, which posits that God has morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil. This perspective suggests that some goods are only possible in the presence of evil, such as the development of virtues like courage and compassion.
Moreover, the concept of free will plays a pivotal role in this discussion. The capacity for humans to make genuine moral choices inevitably leads to the potential for moral evil. A world with free agents capable of love and virtue is arguably more valuable than one devoid of such agency, even if it comes with the cost of possible suffering.
In summary, the problem of evil is not an insurmountable barrier to theism, but rather an invitation to delve into the complexities of divine attributes, the nature of good and evil, and the ultimate purposes that may underlie our experiences of suffering. As we navigate this intricate landscape, it becomes evident that theistic belief can withstand the scrutiny posed by evil when one accounts for the broader contexts of divine intention and human freedom.
The problem of evil has already been solved.
One solution: we are not in a position in which to objectively claim that God doesn’t have just reasons why He allows evil.
Second solution: God is not a creature, which is subject to the law (ethics). God in His essence is holy, which secondarily means he is absolutely ethically pure but primarily means He transcends all ethics, concepts, so that creatures cannot properly compare Him to anything in creation or in our imaginations. Thus, God cannot be judged for He transcends over all things. If God could be judged, He would not be God but a creature.
I see a couple problems with this.
1. You may be right with what you say in your first solution. But to state that we cannot "objectively claim that God doesn't have just reasons why He allows evil" goes to show that God being good/evil/a mix of both is an unfalsifiable claim. If God's reasons are unknowable, there is no way to make the counterclaim "God does have just reasons for allowing evil" either.
2. If "God is not a creature that is subject to the law (ethics)", than saying God is good and holy is meaningless. If there is some objective law, then goodness specifically is a measure of abiding by that law.
3. "God in his essence is holy" - You run into the same problem as the one proposing the problem of evil. You cannot make that objective statement about God since that is not something you objectively know to be true. You probably believe you have good evidence to make this claim, but since all of these evidences are being interpreted through your subjective observation and experience, you cannot make that objective statement.
The problem I see with these lines of arguments is that they may be true, but they inevitably lead to unfalsifiable claims.
Imagine thinking this solved the problem of evil 😂
@weidchar1646
The reasons that immediately come to mind of why God is good are twofold:
1. We would say that God means a Being with no potentialities, and evil is the absence of God, and therefore God cannot be evil
2. Divine Revelation says so
The problem really comes down to natural evils since the problem of evil in the simple form has already been solved with humans in regard to what he said up above in his 1. As for natural evils, what we are normally talking about here would be animal suffering. And there are various ways to solve it. An interesting one is that the fall of some of the angels caused the animal suffering. The easiest one is not something that people find emotionally appealing, but that is logically sound wherein that you deny animal suffering is not evil, and claim that animals don’t suffer like we do since they aren’t rational beings.
@@shogunshogun evil God anyone? You propose God allows evil for his pleasure ultimately.
@ Thanks for the reply. Let me probe you further.
1. On your first point, given the definition you gave, this would make sense. The question is, how did you come up with this definition of God? I ask this cuz from one perspective, that's an awfully quick and convenient definition to attach to "God" to rid him of being associated with evil. From my perspective, the only thing I can reliably state about what/who God is, is "the uncaused cause from which all else is derived from, who is sentient and powerful enough to create the universe.
2. The thing whose legitimacy is being questions with the problem of evil, is said "Divine revelation". Thus saying "Divine revelation" doesn't help someone who doesn't already believe in that revelation being divine and true. Part of the assumption from my part and most who bring up the problem of evil, is that if there is such thing as good and evil, we humans can generally rationally perceive it. I accept having this assumption and I will stick by it.
3. To your third point, I agree that the simplest version of the problem of evil can be solved with humans. I think for Alex and me too, it's not so much the problem of evil that is relevant, but more so the problem of great suffering. Sometimes those words are used interchangeably, but it's really the latter that is of concern. That aspect I don't think can be accounted for with just "humans are the ones doing bad", since intense suffering has always been present in life on Earth for millions of years before humans ever showed up. Even as humans exist, there is immense gratuitous suffering that occurs. Millions of people die of starvation each year (for virtually all of human history) due to non-human related natural events. You could suppose that this problem of suffering is due to angels as you state, but the problem here is that great suffering is embedded within the very fabric of reality on earth. Predation is necessitated by it. Animals evolve through it. Humans are around because of it. Survival of the fittest, the backbone of evolution, is the save as "destruction of the unfit" as Alex has said a couple times. By pretty much all the evidence we have, immense suffering is built into the system. If this immense suffering on human and animal part does not count as evil (if there is such a thing), I cannot trust myself to perceive reality and personally would not want to associate with the God who made that reality.
The problem here is that Alex is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. God knew that Ruslan would suffer and that he would do enough bad stuff to go to jail, and DESPITE IT ALL God still chose to have Ruslan exist. God desired Ruslan's existence even before the beginning of time because God knew that it was not hopeless. God knows that there is meaning in even an imperfect life and maybe that is something that should have a chance at existing and being redeemed.
Maybe what we have now is meaningful enough to warrant a chance at existence despite evil and suffering. I don't think God would want to trade Ruslan in for another version.
Says who?
So he created a being to suffer and serve him and the being is supposed to be soooo gratefulllll
Let's talk about god's desiresssss you guyssssss
@ Would you rather they never exist? Who are you to say this? Life is a gift worth having because hope still exists.
@@clankzh841 you have to be alive to receive the gift 🤯
In a reality created by God without suffering, I think Alex might eventually choose to start complaining 😅
Redemption. What evil thought they could get away with, God redeems. In other words evil does not win in Gods plan.
Redemption is a slavery term
Be aware of scammers in the comment section!
It's a big mistake to compare chemotherapy with courage. Chemotheraphy is a physical treatment/ It's true that it's not intrinsically good, but it's not intrinsically evil either. It's like a gun or a knife. It always boils down to your will, how do you use it and why. So rather than comparing courage with chemotherapy, you should be comparing courage with the desire to live, which is intrinsically good.
"If you could have been made who you are, without the suffering, that would have been a preferable life"
Another big mistake. You cannot be "made" who you are because you are not a tool, you are a free willed individual. The reason this suffering is necessary is because we have chosen not to be who we could have been.
Alex misses the point that lessons can be passed from a father (of mistakes and/or misery) to a child to avoid those same mistakes or misery.
In some sense that is a point of the Bible.
Lesson 1: Don’t kill your brother over your pride. Work hard and be humble. You don’t have to kill your brother to learn the lesson.
Can I be real, I don't know who Alex O Conner is or why it's a big deal, like does the guy had beef with Ruslan or said something offensive about Christians?
The survivorship bias from this guy is off the charts.
@Alex O'conner "GOD IS LOVE" 1 john 4:16, love is not particle - "DO EVERYTHING IN LOVE" 1 corinthians 16:14
Alex is such a fraud that it is not even funny. His analogies are very low tier.
whats the worldview of atheist people about suffering??
Why debate dudes like this? He’s got it all figured out. Just tell him the gospel and move on.
I’m pretty dumb and I can see why in this life we get to experience what is good and what is evil, then use our free will to pick a side. 🤷🏻♂️
Evil and suffering have nothing to do with rather God exist or not.
Define evil
@DanielMorgan404 evil: morally wrong or bad.
@@brucewayne9639 who's moral standard?
@@myjunedayyaGot ‘em 😅
@@brucewayne9639the argument is: if god is all good, all knowing and all powerful; evil cannot exist. If god knows evil will occur but cannot stop it he is not all powerful. If he knows but chooses not to stop it he is not all good. If he can stop it and wants to but doesn’t know if or when it will happen then he’s not all knowing
What about Deuteronomy 28?
Great video
Define -
"Evil "