Watch the full episode: • Arguments For Atheism ... To support my work and get early access to videos, ad-free, visit / alexoc Main channel: / @cosmicskeptic
As an athiest, the problem of evil would only prove God isn’t good, or all good. But it doesn’t disprove that god exist, you can still have a God who doesn’t give a damn. Edit: this is not me defending Gods existence, I’m just saying logically God can’t be all good and the world we live in shows this, Christian’s have an uphill battle not only proving God exists, but also proving that God is all good.
Can God not have sufficient moral reasons to allow evil and suffering? I don't think we should easily throw out that possibility when we're talking about an omniscient agent. In fact, some sufferings are vital, if not very important for the existence of some virtues. For example, you can't have endurance without something to endure, and you can't have courage without something to fear. Also, you can't learn from your own mistakes or the mistakes from others if you can't make any, so we'd also be missing out on that kind of wisdom.
@@TheHuxleyAgnostic Well, no I think heaven would be a paradise where we have gained these virtues from necessary sufferings. So, any more suffering would be unnecessary.
@@theintelligentmilkjug944 Really? People change over their lifetimes on Earth. What makes you think they'll retain what they learned for an eternity? So, the garden of Eden was designed to fail? Having an eternity in Eden was never really an option, is what you're saying.
How does evolution constitute the problem of evil? Evolution doesn’t actually say anything about whether there’s a god, and therefore evil, or not, but it provides an explanation of the diversity of life regardless.
@@markoshun - Evolution occurs by natural selection. In many cases, the natural process of selection is a brutal and painful one. So given the overwhelming evidence for evolution, if we suppose that God exists and was in charge of creation, then we'd note that God used a brutal and painful method to drive the diversity of life on Earth. That seems like around half a billion years of the Problem of Evil playing out.
Honestly the logical problem of evil got done dirty here. There's plenty of logical justifications for allowing evil, but none of them are logically compatible with a triomni god. For instance having difficult life experiences to learn from isn't logically defensible if god could just create people with whatever knowledge he wanted them to have. Or just beam the knowledge into their head. A god being limited to normal animal methods of learning/teaching is ridiculous. The only way to try to get around this is the whole "mysterious ways" defense. Except that if you accept the mysterious ways defense as valid you have to completely reject all knowledge! Since you can't claim to know 2+2=4 or even that you exist in the first place, if you accept the logic that there could always be some unknown justification for any apparent logical contradiction. The mysterious ways defense is something even the religious would treat as obviously incoherent if one tried to apply it to any other area. God is only mysterious when theists have to deal with a contradiction, the rest of the time they presume they can know a bunch of stuff about gods nature and motivations.
as I just pointed out, this leaves out the creation of Satan, which of course just bumps things up a bit cause then you have to defend why God gave Satan free will...but at least then the apologists solve all the ensuing problem, they just blame it all on original sin. It would be so much easier to just concede that *if* God exists, it must be evil as well as good.
@@tameshrew469 sure, but what about suffering? It could allow someone or something to cause harm, but how does allowing it to persist promote free will?
@@tameshrew469 That doesn't work with an omnipotent god who has the option of just creating only morally perfect beings, who like himself will only freely choose good. Another way of phrasing this is "why create any beings that aren't akin to Jesus?". Also even if you were to accept that as a viable objection, it wouldn't make natural evil not still logically incompatible with an omnibenevolent god's existence.
@@vakusdrake3224Also the traditional view of Heaven entails that there is better world in which evil doesnt exist. So, the question is: Is there free will in Heaven? If the answer is yes, it is possible for God to create a world in which there is free will and evil doesnt exist. And if the answer is no, it is false that a world with evil is better than a world without it. In both cases, the free will defence is debunked.
The problem of evil more than anything points out that most Christians worship the wrong god, or their lack of reflection on what it means to define god as it fits into more buckets than their current one. Catholics and Presbyterians worships entirely different gods, not the same god with minor differences; metaphysical minute differences have enormous definitional consequences.
Imo the problem of evil is iron clad. There is no way out that leaves God intact. It's a true paradox you cannot have omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence and evil. You can have any combination of 3, but never all 4 at the same time.
@@michaelbuick6995 well, only omnibenevolence and evil contradict there. If you are all good, you cannot be evil. If you are all knowing or all powerful, you can certainly be evil.
@fettbub92 Well you could have an all loving omnipotent God who is not omniscient and therefore simply unaware. Or an all loving all knowing impotent God who is condemned to stand by and watch helplessly. Or you could as you pointed out have an indifferent or malevolent God. The problem of evil doesn't disprove any and all concepts of God but the modern "big 3" of monotheism usually hold to a "tri-omni" God, so that particular one cannot exist.
@@michaelbuick6995 the problem of evil only really applies to gods that are claimed to be good. This is strongest against gods like Yahweh, but falls apart against more human like gods such as Poseidon
If a god somehow existed, I wouldn't expect it to be utilitarian or altruistic. I wouldn't expect it to have any social behaviors whatsoever because those are the product of evolution that a being that simply existed in a void without precedent wouldn't have developed. Theists don't appreciate just how anthropomorphized their god is, even the idea that it would have social or moralistic behaviors is anthropomorphic.
I think the bible says that men were created in the picture of god so maybe it is the other way around and humans are that way because god is (One possible explanation)
@@CarlosMagnusson07 My point is basically why would a supernatural being that existed with no precedent have features such as emotions, social inclinations, and morality when those things are the byproduct of evolution and don't make sense in any other context? It's absolutely that god was created in the image of humans, that's why god is like humans.
@@juanausensi499 Why would a god have emotions at all? Emotions, as far as we know, are something that evolves in animals. But if somehow a god did have emotions, it would make more sense for them to be totally random and, yes, irrational. A mad god, an entity born of randomness and chaos, not the very human one portrayed in religions
Heaven kinda destroys any attempts at rebutting the problem of evil, I think. Is evil a product of free will? Does that then mean people don’t have free will in heaven? If not, then free will doesn’t have to entail evil. If so, then free will is unnecessary.
@@chemquests You can have a judgement without free will. For example, you can select good apples from bad apples, even if the apples aren't responsible. Of course, it doesn't work with a tri-omni god, because he is the creator of all apples, but, again, almost nothing works with that.
@@juanausensi499 The Christian religion is predicated on humans choosing sin and therefore deserving punishment. That is the entire reason the sacrifice of Jesus was supposedly necessary. I’ll take your point that one could construct a religion where judgment day isn’t an assessment of who deserves to be damned to hell, but that’s not a religion anyone practices.
@@juanausensi499 it’s impossible to deserve it if you have no freedom to do otherwise. As Hitchens said, made sick commanded to be well. It’s completely unjust.
The problem of evil really only applies to monotheostic gods that claim to have created everything, and claim moral superiority. The problem of evil doesnt really apply to Zues.
If you were to measure good and evil in the universe or potential multiverses you would find faint traces of both. So the divine creator is amoral at best.
I have a new theodicy against the Problem of Evil. The Theodicy of Procrastonation or Laziness. God knows about all the evil, can and wants to stop it, but He, being infinitely good at anything He does - including procrastinating - just can't be bothered to get off his lazy ass to actually do what he wants to do.
I like this one. Realizing I have a divine personality, and at the same time feeling no guilt over housework left undone while writing comments on RUclips. Thanks
Is supposed to be all good and all powerful and all knowing. Thor is just supposed to rid us off the Jotun. Evil is still a thing, but i have never seen a Jotun around. God 0:1 Thor.
"God 0:1 Thor." Thor _is_ a god (provided either exists). The Problem of Evil is the atheistic equivalent of Pascal's Wager. It's an absolute garbage argument.
@@JustifiedNonethelessthat’s maybe not what he meant tho? We use the word God as a noun too so him saying God0/thor1 is more of a jab at the Abrahamic god’s bad job at doing the shit he’s supposed to do….maybe. Also you’re correct that it’s a bad argument if you’re trying to disprove god in the abstract but pretty good for showing the blatant hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance of those that claim that eternal torture for finite sins (and frankly mostly things I’d consider non-sins like non-belief) is justice, slavery is freedom, and other kinds of abrahamic doublespeak.
Thor arguments are funny, but not intellectually effective. If you are interested there is a mountain if evidence for Jesus and very little for Thor. Kind of a false equivalency.
@@Oyabu... Atheists can and do exist in large numbers. Why? Is an excellent question. Acceptance of truth is volitional. The point at which we shut off the reasoning and accept a proposition as true is elective. I'd put my money there.
In speaking on the god that people argue on that there is an all loving god. Suffering should not even be on the map to begin with. And my problem with the free will part. I would rather have options that are all good then options that have a little bad in it. Its like asking if you want a cake or a pile of shit. That is free will buuuuut so is the option of you getting to pick a cake or a pie.
@@tonyolsson3880 the thing is it’s either complete free will or partial free will which isn’t true free will. Obviously we would all not want to go through suffering but ultimately suffering is a result of our choices and our sinful nature
@@wavyariocha3100 yeah but if god is all knowing then you have no free will. So for someone to say their god is all loving and all knowing. Then you have no free will, on top of them not caring about us seeing as our planet is extremely hard to liv in.
@@wavyariocha3100 very simple. If he knows what you are going to do your entire life, is it free will then? God made me knowing i would never believe or even join him. Knowing how something goes takes away the ability of free will. Schrodinger's cat if you will, if you know for a fact that the cat is alive or dead you can't have the mystery. Mystery is what gives something the absolute free will because anything can happen.
Ya but original sin would be evil wouldn't it? I dunno either but I incline towards saying ya it makes more sense that there is no God. Just my perspective 🤔
I hate that many persons often just grant that free will is a good thing. It kind of strikes me as bullshit to grant that. It's almost as if free will is so great and powerful and lovely that God himself bows to it. I find the whole thing ridiculous.
Do you just mean most people? Because humans generally desire autonomy and for values like heroism to mean something. Which they wouldn't if moral responsibility was thrown out the window.
@@jacknicholson2071 I don’t think actually having free will is important to fulfil those things you’ve addressed, you just need to feel as if you have free will. In essence we could feel exactly as we do now but not have free will. In my view that’s exactly the case with human beings currently but putting my view aside I don’t see why a God couldn’t dispense with free will and still let us feel all the heroism etc. It appears to me (and I could be very wrong of course after all I’m just an ape) that the only argument for a God giving us free will is some sort of narcissism like that God wants you to really show your love and adoration to him freely and that just seems like such a lowly quality for a supreme being to possess.
@@jacknicholson2071They desire it because they already existed in a system that necessitate the existence of such desires. Just like robots do not complain of being robots, if humanity existed without freewill(which I doubt exists), we wouldn’t know and wouldn’t care either. It’s absurd to think that some kind of evil exists because god wants to bring about some greater good like Heroism, yet the greater good (heroism) exists so it could be used against the evil that necessitated it. If there’s no logical problem with a WORD with GOD, no crime and no crime fighters, then why isn’t it the case ? Why must god create a world that gives rise to crime, so he could bring about the greater good like “crime fighters” ?
I should be surprised that the walls of text don't have anything to do with the video, improperly assess my point, say blatantly untrue things about attitudes people hold, all while assuming that I'm defending any particular conception of God or good. But I'm not.
free will is used as a defense. plantinga says that it is possible that god had to allow moral evils for a greater good of free will. he need not even argue that this is plausible to defend theism from a logical problem of evil merely show it is possible to show that there is no contradiction between a omnigod and evil
There is no Evil. For the actual ONE TRUE CREATOR is not divided. Nature is cannibalistic.... And this is the best look inside the nature of CREATION. ♥
The "seemingly pointless, gratuitous suffering" was in watching this video. It's a perfect example of thinking too much and being in love with your own thoughts. Darkness is the absence of light, cold is the absence of warmth, life is the absence of death, and evil is the absence of good. In a logically ordered universe, how else could it work? Even if God is all powerful how could he make an ordered universe any other way? Could God square a circle? Of course, He's all powerful, but that would be contrary to the order of the universe, so it makes no sense. The possibility of evil must always exist, otherwise you can't have good. Man's fall brought evil into the light.
Your argument fails because apparently he decided the order of the universe If he didn't then he's not all powerful Since he decided that the order of the universe was that evil must exist when he could have had only good thanks to his omnipotence then he's malevolent for allowing unnecessary suffering
@@drsatan9617 Nope, it doesn't even come close failing, you're just thinking one-dimensionally. Goodness isn’t meaningful if it exists in a vacuum, without the possibility of its opposite. In order for humans to genuinely choose good, the alternative-evil-must exist. This is the foundation of free will. If God had created a universe where only good existed, we wouldn’t have the ability to choose; we’d be automatons without the capacity for moral growth, love, or real goodness. The order of the universe, with its potential for both good and evil, is a reflection of God’s respect for human agency. Allowing for the possibility of evil doesn’t make God malevolent-it makes Him just. People forget that part. Yes, God is all-loving, but He's also just, which requires Him giving us free will. It's His very nature. He provides us with the tools and freedom to choose good or evil, making our moral actions significant.
@@kenpeters14011 Why does goodness need to be meaningful? 2 Meaning is a subjective measure. Meaningful to who and how? 3. Why would we need to choose good? Why is it necessary for god to give us that choice? Would he lose something that he objectively requires if he didn't? If so, then he isn't all powerful 4 If no evil was possible, there wouldn't be the need to choose between the two. You can't choose evil in heaven, so the goodness there exists in a vacuum and is therefore meaningless by your own logic. Rather one dimensional thinking 5 how can god be said to respect our agency if he punishes us for using that agency to reject him?
@@drsatan9617 These are pretty simple, boilerplate atheist questions that have clear theological answers. I'll take them one by one: 1. "Why does goodness need to be meaningful?" Goodness, in a moral framework, has meaning because it requires intentional choice. Without the ability to choose, actions lose moral weight - they become automatic, predetermined, and devoid of any real value. The concept of good is tied to free will because choosing goodness reflects a conscious decision to align with moral principles. Without free will, there is no moral growth, no character development, and no authentic virtue. 2. "Meaning is a subjective measure. Meaningful to who and how?" While meaning can be subjective, moral goodness - especially in a theistic worldview-has an objective basis. It's meaningful in relation to God's nature and the moral order He established. Goodness isn’t just about what feels meaningful to us as individuals; it’s about what aligns with the ultimate good, which, in a theistic framework, is God. So, it’s meaningful not just to humans, but to the order of creation itself. It's also worth noting that the Genesis creation story states that upon creation of each thing God saw it was, "good", and that man was, "very good." This tells us that God's creations and "good" are indelibly entwined, that there is a baseline, so to speak, of objective goodness that is immutably tied to God, and that we've stepped away from due to original sin. Aligning ourselves with that goodness, with that meaning, takes us in the right direction again. 3. "Why would we need to choose good? Why is it necessary for God to give us that choice?" The ability to choose good is necessary because it gives human beings moral agency - the capacity to grow, learn, and develop as moral creatures. Without the choice between good and evil, we wouldn’t have moral freedom, and without moral freedom, our actions wouldn’t be virtuous. God, in creating free beings, gives us the dignity of being more than programmed robots. If there were no freedom, there would be no love, no sacrifice, no true goodness, because all would be predetermined. God doesn't "need" us to choose good, but by giving us the choice, He allows for a higher form of existence where our actions have moral significance. 4. "If no evil was possible, there wouldn’t be the need to choose between the two. You can’t choose evil in heaven, so the goodness there exists in a vacuum and is therefore meaningless by your own logic." In heaven, the dynamics are different, it is not of this universe or this life. Heaven represents the culmination of moral and spiritual growth, where individuals have already chosen good, and their souls have been perfected. The goodness in heaven doesn’t exist in a vacuum - it’s the result of earthly life, where free will was exercised. In heaven, the absence of evil doesn’t diminish the meaning of goodness; rather, it signifies the completion of moral choices made in a world where evil was possible. So the logic isn’t one-dimensional - it’s recognizing the distinct phases of existence. 5. "How can God be said to respect our agency if He punishes us for using that agency to reject Him?" Respecting agency doesn’t mean there are no consequences for how we use that agency. As I said in my previous response, God is loving, but also just. God gives humans the freedom to choose, but with freedom comes responsibility. If someone uses their freedom to reject goodness or God, it’s not an infringement on their agency to face the consequences of that choice. Much like in human law, freedom comes with accountability - just because we are free to make certain decisions doesn’t mean we are exempt from the outcomes. God’s justice and mercy are seen in His respect for human agency, but also in the fact that He honors the choices we make, even when they lead us away from Him.
I think it's interesting to note that human beings only are the creature that they are because of our very specific evolutionary path. A path which, if different in any significant way, may have produced a dramatically different creature today. That includes removing all the terrors and Horrors that human beings have endured throughout the ages. If you got rid of those things, we wouldn't be what we are. If God has chosen to act within this universe only using Pathways which abide the natural laws that he said so that we could understand the universe, then the only way to produce a human being like us logically, is to have a species go through what we went through. Anything else and it would not be us, and maybe God just wanted us for whatever reason a God might want anything
Every creature is "the only creature that they are" because of their specific evolutionary paths If god is omnipotent, then logically, there are infinite ways to get a species like us that do not require pain, suffering, or even evolution
What I don't understand with any kind of justification for evil, as something necessary for whatever reason is, why do theists think that God is bound by any kind of necessity? Are there forces or structures that are above God and he has to comply with them? Furthermore even if it is so and in order to achieve beings with free will or whatever else, evil was indeed necessary, why did he create the world in the first place? If he knew that evil was unavoidable shouldn't he decide that creating a world in order to express his love is impossible and abandon the thought altogether?
Buddhism and Hindiuism have perfect answers for this question, but if all you know is the Abrahamic religions, you'll never find one that makes sense. Humans have free will or self determination, and when they perform actions that do not support the health of others (including animals and the Earth), it is evil without the Judeo-Christian baggage. There is no dark intelligence behind these egregious actions other than the ignorance of the individual. So then why does God or the Universe allow such actions to injure and kill others? The answer is that those effected by evil do so because they are ready for a lesson necessary for their specific growth. This only makes sense when you understand that life is governed by the Law of Karma, existing in a framework of reincarnation. Karma is the universal system of teaching us what is right and wrong. It can appear to be punitive, but it isn't. It effects people differently based on the level of consciousness of the individual (measured by compassion and intelligence). The more advanced you are, the more immediate the universe's response to your actions. On the other hand, those who are ostensibly evil may not get their lesson until the ensuing incarnations, dependent entirely on their readiness to grasp the lesson. The goal of life in this system is oneness with the all pervasive divine consciousness, which is achieved through stilling the mind leading to the realisation of the underlying reality of life. There is no heaven or hell, and there is certainly no 'Satan' other than what is projected by the mind.This material plane is really the shadow world of the deeper reality; a lacklustre simulacrum of your more essential life, which coexists with the mundane one you're experiencing now. The path to the deeper reality is mostly achieved through meditation and loving action, though it can sometimes occur spontaneously in life or upon death, all dependent on your ability to grasp it. I'd say good luck, but there is no such thing.
Ok. I suppose I will play, as the Devil’s advocate. The problem of Evil is the problem of being attached. The moment it is that you and not God become the creator, sharing in his mistakes, as God, you are the cause. Complete revocation of God is all that can be good.
Of course, it works. The issue is that you need to drop one of the three attributes of God: omnipotence, omniscience or omnibenevolence. Drop any of these, and you are done.
@@juanausensi499 , are those in the Bible, or was it that “if-God”, the quantum computing It, was before the slaughter and spraying of animal blood and chunking of animal brain?
The 'problem of evil' is useful for ensuring that responsibility for gratuitous suffering & death belongs to whichever caring, capable god is in question. Otherwise, you're welcome argue for a malevolent or indifferent god.
You won’t be able to win. What ought to be is the decision of God. What is is what God commands. Therefore, to exist is to fall victim. When God said, “Thou shalt surely die,” He gave you an excuse, the only reason to continue being to stop Him.
@@gristly_knuckle Commands, laws, rules, aren't themselves morality. They are only reflections of the morality of the lawmakers. We can argue a law is immoral (Jm Crw). We can argue not having a law is immoral (against slvry). How is a lawgiver who commands unaliving people for working, or doing chores, on weekends, moral? Or, declares their followers to be a superior race of "chosen people", and orders them to gncd everyone around them? Such a lawmaker sounds like it has the morals of Htlr.
I was actually thinking more along the lines of just because God IS omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent doesn't mean he OUGHT to be obligated to act on any of it.
@@TheHuxleyAgnostic i want to be the very best kind of person. It infuriates me that i cannot be one kind of person when he’s the best, then another kind of person when God changes his vacillating mind.
Why do human beings allow evil, even the supposed good assuming good isn’t relative? Does that make them not good? Haven’t heard a definitive answer for that… how can we fathom what He wants outside of the Bible that gives us the characterization of our God, if we don’t have full answers outside of educated assumptions about our neighbors or enemies? Everyone’s going to assume and come to their own realizations, and discern things based off the fruit given, but it’s still an assumption because we aren’t in their place nor are we truly capable of knowing outside of faith. Same applies to the goodness of God. If my 2yo son acts atrociously, violently, and hits someone he will get spanked. He was allowed to be good or bad. He chose bad, which doesn’t mean he’s evil and it doesn’t mean I’m not good for letting him choose. We are children with no more thank 100 or so years of biased life experience trying to apply our ever changing logic and spirituality to an endless creator. For the intelligence portrayed in this interview, it’s almost still child like if I can describe it that way, not to be offensive. We can understand “Your ways are not My ways”.
If Yahweh made man.... In his image, w his heart.... & Yahweh breaks his own commandments... Then by virtue of perfect CREATION, not only should Yahweh NOT punish his creation for breaking his commandments, HE SHOULD EXPECT & rejoice in his CREATIONS breaking his commandments.... because what is good for the FATHER is good for the SON. OTHERWISE, Yahweh proves himself to NOT BE the ONE TRUE CREATOR. Yahweh can break his law all he wants... but at the moment he does, he proves that this law is not ABSOLUTE or objective. Yahweh breaking his own law proves he is not the ONE TRUE CREATOR. The ONE TRUE CREATOR has the power to enact his will w out breaking his own laws. The ONE TRUE CREATOR is the primordial source of intellect & wisdom and would lead by example, not by hypocrisy. The ONE TRUE CREATOR has no need to make commandments. I realize that you have relinquished your divine sovereignty unto the theology of Abraham... and you would like to see me do the same to justify your decision. But I retain my divine sovereignty as I declare that ALL creations have direct access to the ONE TRUE CREATOR. ALL words are God's words. For there is no sound uttered without the empowerment of the breath of life from the CREATOR. ANY sentient being which makes demands or commands proves themselves to NOT BE the ONE TRUE CREATOR. for the ONE TRUE CREATOR has the power of CREATION.... & with such, has no need of demands. Creation is the expression of pure freedom. The ONE TRUE CREATOR would not place artifical limits, such as arbitrary demands externally... he would build those limits into the structure of CREATION ITSELF, such as the "speed of light". Yahweh is not the ONE TRUE CREATOR. IT IS NOT HIS CREATION. The Actual ONE TRUE CREATOR has nothing to be vengeful or jealous of, for ALL THINGS ARE HIS. That Yahweh is jealous & vengeful is more proof that he is NOT the ONE TRUE CREATOR. JESUS spoke out against the broken Theology of Abraham, and his followers killed him for it. They could not eradicate his story, so they integrated it into their dogmas in order to manipulate the masses into relinquishing their DIVINE SOVEREIGNTY unto the church. I do believe in the Christ Consciousness. But I do not capitulate to distortions of it imposed by Followers of Abraham. And my perception of Christ does not require the approval or validation of your perception... just as your perception does not require the validation of mine. The actual ONE TRUE CREATOR requires NOTHING FROM YOU. Every CREATION that we as CREATORS extend is a testament to HIS GREATNESS. CREATORS CREATING IS HIS WORSHIP, accepted. 😂😂😂 Followers of Abraham are a blood cult of Sin Worshippers.... who use sin to manipulate CO-CREATORS into relinquishing their DIVINE SOVEREIGNTY unto the church, using mass psychosis and mass Stockholm syndrome, through the dogma of the broken theology of Abraham. The ONE TRUE CREATOR is UNITED, NOT DIVIDED. ♥
Let's approach this from a different angle. What is the number one reason why people believe in God? I would argue it is through a personal feeling or experience of God. Logical arguments are simply weak in the face of a personal God experience. Once the attachment to that experience has been cracked, logical arguments such as the problem of evil can start to have effect.
I don't agree. The main reason is conformity. That's why children adopt the same religion as their parents. That explains the geographical distribution of religions, something that personal experience can't do.
@@juanausensi499 Conformity is very important. Yet too simplistic. Being born into a religion is not enough. it is the experience generated while in the 'fold' that cements it. Otherwise, they will eventually walk away; particularly as teenagers when they start to have their own thoughts and ask questions. it is the experience that short circuits all arguments of reason.
@@sbwetherbe Bhutan reports 100% buddhism in its population. Do you think everyone had a personal buddhist experience and that makes them not walk away?
This doesn't get talked about, but God (if he exists) controls all our positive and negative responses to everything. Most of the time we recognize evil from the negative responses we feel. The fawn dying in the forest alone from starvation is only evil since God gave us a negative response to that. God could have made that fawn dying feel great and we would want that to happen all the time. God could make being burned alive feel wonderful and we would seek to do that. It just seems like we are God's puppets.
But there are people who indeed find pain and cruelty "good", i.e. they have positive response to that. It rather seems to me that we have free will in "choosing" (by some as yet uknown mechanism) our reactions, which of course depends on our ethics. In fact we were sent to Earth to "know good from evil" and I certainly do not feel like a puppet on the string of some cruel god (I have to stress that Yahweh is not my god).
@@alena-qu9vj We are sent to earth to know good from evil? Then what is good and what is evil? How do we identify the difference besides our positive or negative responses? Even the people you mentioned don't like every pain and cruelty. Some people like deep messages or chocolate ice cream. I don't.
@@gabrielteo3636 YOU are here to learn what good and evil is FOR YOURSELF. You are responsible for your choises and decisions. It is up to you to learn the difference. There is no teacher or priest or book which can do it for you. No amount of useless questions will help you. You will be judged by your own deeds.
@@alena-qu9vj "YOU are here to learn what good and evil is FOR YOURSELF." Seems like good and bad are subjective. I decide what is good and bad. I agree with that.
Frankl saw meaning despite evil. Nothing can exist without its opposite. It's the structure of the world. If a benevolent God wanted it to be like this, I don't see a paradox.
So God might have good reasons for allowing unspeakable suffering to occur, he just won't tell us what those reasons are. You would think that a book containing his revealed word might address this, but it doesn't. The closest thing we have in the Bible is the story of Job, where, after Job endures loss and pain, God shows up and brags how powerful he is in comparison to Job. No hint of hidden "reasons" that would convince Job that his suffering had a higher purpose.
Incorrect. If god is omnipotent, then there can be no objective reason to include suffering Being omnipotent means that whatever he hoped to achieve by including evil could be achieved without evil The only reason for an omnipotent god to include suffering is because it wants things to suffer
@@drsatan9617 Rereading my original comment made me realize that the sarcasm that was meant in the first sentence didn't come through. I'm actually in total agreement with you. The point I was trying to make was that the apologetic defense of God having reasons to allow suffering doesn't work. If he has reasons, he should reveal them to us, thereby removing The Problem of Evil.
The bible says we are created BROKEN with every inclination towards evil. There's no free Will according to the Bible. You need jesus in your life to save you from your evil nature
eh... according to Daniel, the actual son of man would. but Jesus clearly wasn't the actual son of man. He could've been. Assuming he wasn't a liar, then he certainly thought so. But he didn't manage to bring about the Kingdom of God on earth.
It seems to me that the only way you can say that evil logically excludes the possibility of God is to point at certain instances of evil and say that they are unnecessary, and therefore the sort of evil that a good God would never allow. But this reasoning is circular. You're simply assuming that the evil you're witnessing is unnecessary, but that can only be true if there is no omnipotent benevolent God, so you must assume that such a God doesn't exist in order to say this evil is unnecessary and therefore God can't exist. Now, you- like me- may agree that much of the suffering we see does seem to be totally unnecessary, and most probably is totally unnecessary, and therefore there most probably is no such God, but that's not what we're saying. We're trying to logically exclude it, and we cannot do that without being circular.
If there is an omnipotent god, then all suffering is unnecessary Since whatever it hoped to achieve by including suffering could be achieved without it
@@drsatan9617that depends entirely on how you define omnipotence. If you Define omnipotence as the ability to make Square circles or stones so heavy he can't lift them, then yes you are correct, and God can simply poof into existence anything he wants in absolutely any state. But if it is the fact that God limits himself within this universe to following The Logical principles that govern this universe presumably so that creatures such as us can make sense of it) then any number of so-called evils would be absolutely necessary to arrive at a place where human beings could evolve to have a relationship with God. If God is a deistic sort of god, who simply set the laws of logic for the universe and arranged its initial state so that it would evolve in the way that he planned it to, then all the stuff that happens in the universe is necessary ( according to the laws of physics as he set them for our benefit) to arrive at specifically this point in time, which presumably God wanted us to arrive at for whatever reason. Why would God want creatures such as us specifically? I don't know. It would be impossible to know that without simply asking. It's like asking someone why they want to have a pug instead of a Great Dane. It's just because they do. Beings don't have to have logical reasons for Desiring things.
Couldnt pain and suffering is wat motivate us to act in the world? i mean like feeling hungry is kinda like a mild form of suffering in order to please our needs. Its just when we get stuck in our desires sh.t might turn into Evil. And for me the intuitive sense of morality is knocking on to our souls to act responsibly in the world. But i guess who is listening?
Was gonna say exactly this, totally agree. If everything is perfect, there's no reason to act at all. But the world is bound and rules by certain universal laws, maybe that's part of what God is, which if you don't follow, you'll probably die. But why is death a thing aswell, why not live forever? Same problem, what reason would you have to do Anything at all.
what about a hermit with no family friends who dies of a disease in a cave? who does that motivate? or what about a random deer who is killed in a forest fire with no witnesses. who does that motivate?
@@tameshrew469 a hermit chose that lifestyle, maybe it will motivate people to take a different path. The deer got unlucky, but surely that will keep other deer motivated to avoid the fire, and some humans will be motivated to help them, by preventing man made fires or giving care to individuals affected by the fire. If there was no fire, what motivation would anyone have? Basically any cases that inspire you are of people overcoming hardships, since they're a reality of life and those cases show that fighting and believing can have positive outcomes
@@tameshrew469 you could even ask that about cancer, what motivation does someone dying from cancer give anyone else? Well, for one living a healthier life, although that's not 100% effective, but what about people trying to come up with cures? Is it not motivation, even if it's for the money, it still is motivation.
@@duarteleonardo8352I'm sorry but that has to be the most stupid line of reasoning I've heard all year😂. So 10,000 people starve to death daily due to drought, famine diseases and this is supposedly motivation? Huh So what would you tell a rape victim who was perpetually grasped for 3 decades? It appears that the old saying is true, it only takes religion to make the most intelligent and humane of us to say and do the most wicked and foolish things 🤦🏿♂️ You are sad
The problem of evil can be exceptionally strong when using evangelical ideas of God. God is good by his nature. God is all powerful. God is all knowing. Before creation there was only God This type of God is a direct contradiction as they have created a world where evil can and does exist. It is no different than a god creating a object he can not lift. Or him causing an unstoppable force to run into an immoveable object. Such a God's existence is a contradiction. The only way to escape the contradiction is to change what God is believed to be.
Anybody not considering the subjectivity and relativity of our perception of "good" and "evil" just doesn 't know what they are speaking about - neither their audience.
@@alena-qu9vj id argue you could give objective definitions of good and evil. Good is anything that provides for a person, but not at the cost of another person. Evil is taking from another person, without consent. There will be caveats, but you will always have caveats.
@@fettbub92 Yua are a SUBJECT, everythihg you say is subjective by definition, there is no way around it. Is it so difficult to understand it? Your "definitions" are just funny, they are not only not "objective" but you would hardly find even a broader consensus for them. Is it evil to take a piece of bread from a person overflowing with food for a starving child without consent?
@@alena-qu9vj yes, it is evil to steal to eat, because it is without that person's consent. Sure, there can be reasonable exceptions, context matters greatly, that is where many subjective standards and exceptions are found. Not everyone agrees on the same exceptions, but they all agree taking from another without consent is an issus to address. Humans arent the only species that do this. To address your rather interesting first point, why engage in discussion then? Why debate if there isn't an object to settle? Why seek answers, if there arent any? Sure, there are the subjective answers we all have to find for ourselves, but there is more to that if we wish to live together; unless you are clinically anti-social, then this conversation is just an exercise in mental masturbation.
I have seen some comments and replies along the lines this doesn't prove god doesn't exit or disprove god. Two issues. First the claim is god of Christians is all good. That 'god' does not exit. The reasoning is its a contradiction. Every god that is claimed to be all good when descriptions of that god is not all good can not be true. Second is important for any actual theologians here. When presenting your claims, points, reasoning you need to keep in mind that you cant take for granted your idea being universal understood. You often take your reasoning to be universal but it is not. Its faulty not grounded in logic but what you feel about a "thing" is right. Replace your reasoning with generic x, y, and z and see if it pasts the most basic logic proofs. This is why anyone who watched Matt Dillahunty for a week can make you frustrated with issues like problem of evil. No one needs to disprove your all good god. You never proved it. No one should believe it without that basic proof. Even if you had reasoning and evidence enough to prove a god you haven't proved it is all good. It cant be assumed god is all good by default.
Do you really take for granted that God has the same definition of "good" as you - that is if you can present any consensually accepted definition of good anyway. Or in other words - do you think your definition of "good" is better than that of God?
@alena-qu9vj you make the claim not me. If you point to the bible for what is good that is using your definition of good. I am going to point to the evil crap in the same source to point out the contradiction in saying that God is not all good. You didn't read the second issue or it went over you. If you want to make a logical point, try it out as proof, not what you think sounds right in your head. If you have some other god that is all good than the ones presented go ahead. If God is good by some other definition because 'how wpuld I assume his good is my good', you would need to show it exists. That line of thinking doesn't flex like people think it does.
@alena-qu9vj you haven't pointed to anything. That was at end of my last comment. Stating how am I am assuming what is good to god? I am not. I never did. You are assuming in this. I am responding yo the claims made by those pointing to those gods. You can't seem to grasp that. As for some god that is all good based on what they think is good....ok that is not Christian biblical god. You have to have evidence for that god other wise it doesn't exist. What you are saying is no different then debating the real ethics of 40k warhammer. Actual worse because 40k has lore. You are just blowing smoke at the moment. I have never assumed any god is anything but responed to peoples claims about a god. I have never seen or heard anyone make a claim of an all good god by any standard we have. Go ahead and try if you want.
If god knows everything then he knows the future. If he knows the future then it has already happened. If it has already happened then I have no free will. If I have no free will then I can not sin. Where's the flaw in this layman's argument?
That doesn’t line up. Knowing does not mean determined. A grand chess master knows my moves 20 moves before I do, but it doesn’t mean I am not free to make those choices
Your argument is as follows: 1) If God knows everything then he knows the future. 2) If God knows the future then it has already happened. 3) If the future has already happened then I have no free will. 4) If I have no free will then I cannot sin. 5) Therefore, I cannot sin. The first problem with this argument is that you haven't offered any justification for any of your premises. There are two other obvious problems with your argument, but I will let you defend your argument before I point them out.
@@Sir-Chancelot So what? How does that mean god doesnt know exactly what any chess player will ever do?! It is such an airtight argument in my opinion. So please keep trying to knock it down. A few chess players is not even close as an answer.
I see the flaw in the very undersanding of the word "future". Future from the God's angle of view is nothing static and definitive - it is just a bunch of possibilities and you create your future by your choices. We must never forget that we operate with words and words alone are not the real reality. God doesn 't answer for our making and your understanding of this word.
Knowing does not equal determined. Knowing the future does not mean it already happened. I know I have to go to work tomorrow, but the draft I must write is not already written. I know I am going to die, but yet I live.
The so-called "problem" wouldn't exist were it not for the claimed attributes of the theists', mainly Christian, God. To me the universe appears to be entirely God free.
Good overview, but you neglected to bring up Satan, which is the usual apologetic response against evolutionary arguments, since according the Bible none of that bad stuff happened before original sin.
Every now and then (and I haven't seen it all that often) someone will come along in a comments section and say something to the effect that the problem of evil only makes them believe in God more strongly. It's usually upon considering those who never stood a chance in life, or those who've done a fair bit of culpable damage and appear to have gotten away with it. I don't really know, but I get the impression it's from some of the younger commenters. Anyhow, who's to say that this sort of apparently paradoxical reaction, apprehension, intuition or insight (or whatever you similarly want to call it - if you're sympathetic) is not an authentic, profound "full-beinged' response? The skeptic or atheist or any unbeliever of course. They will deconstruct it and, like sucking all the juice out of an orange, declare the remaining pulp and skin to be nothing more than naive emotionalism and lack of logic. They will probably look into their book of fallacies and throw in something like the fallacy of credulity. And those skeptics/atheists unbelievers etc with an axe to grind will probably not be able to resist implying "Who are you going to believe: me or your lying heart and mind?"
1. “Evil exists so God would bring about the greater god”. If God is the greater good than which nothing greater can be conceived, then it is a contradiction to suggest that God wants to bring about a greater good. 2. If God allows crime so he could bring about greater goods like (crime fighters), then it’s absurd and circular reasoning to use the existence of crime fighters to justify the existence of CRIME. Why do evil exist ? Maybe God wants to bring about greater goods. Why must greater goods exist ? What’s the essence of having the greater goods ? In any possible world without evil and the greater good, would that reduce the status of God ?
The neverending irony of meat eaters attributing moral wrong to animal suffering. Also, when Joe talks about "the many ways God could have created..."; it's not clear on which modality he's talking about.
I think Alex is vegan but I could be wrong Joe was alluding the the gods alleged omnipotence, which would mean that it had infinite different ways to have created anything
Atheists have all these arguments and questions; read the Bible, God has answered them all. You may have to spend some time and really read the WHOLE Bible, but the answers are there.
Understanding of good cannot exist without contrast to its opposite, bad. To then say the existence of good cannot be without the existence of bad is a non-sequitur.
@@kevinjin3835 true and interesting but i was wondering what good is it if nobody can even feel it? Like if there were no sentient being to feel anything meaningful or to even ask the meaning of it all, would it still be possible for meaning to exist? Not to say many including me question if there is any meaning even while we do exist to question it.
@@kevinjin3835 if God is the standard of good then evil exists. But if there is no standard of good ( God) then evil is a nonsensical idea. We know in our hearts ( because we were made in the image of God) that evil exists,therefore we know God exists,but as the Holy Bible says ( just read Romans chapter 1) we are suppressing th3 truth in unrighteousness.
@jacksonelmore6227 not seeing how that's relevant. You're clearly talking about the biblical god So you're saying that god was wrong all the times he mentions evil in the bible The bible isn't his inerrant word?
I recommend watching a video by IMBeggar titled ON God, A.I., and the Problem of Evil, it’s a good video explaining why God would need to create a world with free will and why evil exists
@@drsatan9617 God is all powerful but limits his power through giving us our free will. If we didn’t have free will we wouldn’t be able to carry out our entire purpose on this earth, which is to have a relationship with our creator, this is all explained better in the video I recommended. If we didn’t have free will, things like love, our thoughts, and good deeds wouldn’t exist. We would just be robots void of emotion and although we would do good, it wouldn’t be recognized as good as we would be incapable of doing wrong.
@@wavyariocha3100 he decided upon our purpose and felt the need to give us free will when it wasn't necessary for him to do so Does god lose something he objectively needs if we don't have a relationship with him? If not, then insisting upon us having a relationship with him and making evil suffering possible for no other reason than to facilitate something that isn't necessarily is malevolent We could have free will without the ability to choose evil. Unless he objectively requires us to be able to choose evil, and if he does, then he's not all powerful
@@drsatan9617 You’re right God doesn’t need to have a relationship with us. But when he first created the earth and mankind he did not intend for us to go through the suffering we go through and all the evil of this world. God gave Adam and Eve the command of not eating from the apple, with our free will we chose to go against him and eat it anyways. Through eating the apple from the tree of knowledge we then admitted sin into the world as we would be knowledgeable of all the things we could do. The earth was supposed to be a place void of all the suffering and sin and that is why after judgement day it is said that God is going to restore the heavens and the earth and life will be the way God intended it to be. We can’t have free will without the ability to choose evil, that wouldn’t be true free will.
@@wavyariocha3100 if he didn't intend for us to suffer, but it happened anyway, then he's neither all-knowing or all-powerful Was it necessary for him to forbid the fruit? Or put it there in the first place? Would he have lost something he objectively needed if he did neither? If so, then he's not all powerful. If not, then choosing to do both when they were unnecessary and led to suffering is malevolent, and in either case, the god is unworthy of worship If god didn't want us to get that knowledge, he shouldn't have put the tree there. He apparently knew we'd eat from the tree and get the knowledge before he even put the tree there, but blames us for his own failings He made us how we were and put the tree there, knowing with 100% certainty that both would lead to the existence of evil and suffering. So it's all his fault Are there any other meaningless and illogical platitudes for me to effortlessly refute?
I researched gnosticism and I'm almost fully convinced that the God of the Old Testament is not the same God of the New Testament. Yahweh, the God of Israelites, is recorded in history as a Storm God and if you take each miracle performed by him, a Storm God would be able to perform, considering the occultists from Egypt managed to also turn the water from the river Nile into blood, the power of lesser deities can change this material world. Also, since Satan offered the whole world to Jesus if He bowed to him, that means that Satan already managed to control every other human except Jesus. So my question is, who stops Satan from changing the Storm God's story to be the real God's story, if Satans controls all humans except Jesus, he could have written whatever he wished, he's a deceiver after all, wouldn't this be one the Greatest deceives imaginable? To trick all christians into serving a fake God? I would argue after the coming of Jesus, he lost the power to stop humans from writing about Jesus, the Son of the ALL Loving God. I argue that the Father of Jesus has not shown Himself directly to humanity yet. I agree with the NT and I acknowledge everything from Jesus's story as truth, but I cannot see the OT God as all loving God, due to many exterminations of innocent people.
Also, I think it's contradictory to say humans had true free will before eating the forbidden fruit from the tree of knowledge. If humans truly had free will, could have they done any sin or have any ill intent? I think humans need to be able to think evil and choose to not do it rather than to not be possible at all. I always found it infuriating to know that I have to experience all my suffering because of 2 humans I never even met in person. Is this divine justice? To have the whole world in torment for the actions of 2 other humans? How can anyone EVER justify the suffering of innocents because of 2 wicked people? I love Jesus and the NT God and I hate the OT God like no ever hated anything in their life. In the OT I see too many contradictions, lack of morals and wickedness equal to other fake Gods during that era. I wish I could've believed the whole Bible, but I can't, I never could come to a good reasonable conclusion in my own terms.
Evil doesn't exist outside the human mind but we have observable evidence for one universe which appears fine-tuned for Life. For me, that points towards a Mind behind it all.
@@briansmith3791 I do find the idea that the entire universe (which is incomprehensibly vast) was created and fine tuned purely for our benefit to be rather optimistic. Of course the consensus of world experts in the various fields of cosmology and biology etc also do not accept "God" in any of their scientific hypotheses or papers. Which is more likely? God created the entire universe, or Mankind created God?
@@philharris5848 I'm not a theist. I believe the universe was created for the purposes of the Mind - New information via intelligent Life. Science can't say whether there is a Mind or not, the personal beliefs of scientists depends on their worldview. Yes, Mankind did create the Abrahamic God; universal fine-tuning precludes any such 'God'. There can be no physical interference in the universe, ruling out the Gods of Religion.
the existence of evil is the result of free will. sure god could force a perfect loving world but that would make us all just perfect heartless robots. love would mean nothing if it wasnt freely expressed by choice.
@@maggiebarrett7300 there doesnt have to be evil. free will just allows the possibility and we freely choose to indulge. i doubt there will be evil in heaven though because its a place for people who dont want to do evil
@@didickcheeseburger Well if there is free will but no evil in heaven, then your initial assertion that “evil is the result of free will” is false. And if “heaven is a place for people who don’t want to do evil”, why doesn’t a supposedly ‘loving’ god just create those who “don’t want to do evil”!
Kay ya but I go with the thinking that free will doesn't on its own make someone do evil. So whatever other factors are involved are God's fault if you'll excuse my saying so. To go into more detail if what makes the person do evil is his or her own evil nature then why did God make the person evil? Or if it's something outside the person that influences the person to do the evil thing then that's God's fault still isn't it? I dunno
@@maggiebarrett7300 You come to heaven only if you are mature and do good from your own free will - so there must not be evil in heaven. You learn to excersise your free will rightly here, on Earth, thats why the evil is here.
Evil exists so I can enjoy scaring it away. The difference between good and evil can be understood with a circle. The bull's eye of a dart board is good. The rest of the dart board is evil.
The basics of math is simply objectively existing amounts of things. I have an amount of fingers on one hand, an amount on the other, and an amount in total. It doesn't matter what language you use to describe it, it will be the same amount. Does this g0d have a learning disability?
@@TheHuxleyAgnostic LOL nah, just the followers maybe do. I just hear all the time that objective morality does not apply to god and to me that is like saying 2+2=4 does not apply to god.
Islamic answer is the one with the most sense. Evil exist because of free will. This life is basically a test for the afterlife. If you're good, you go to heaven and if you're evil, you go to hell. This also explain why good people have a hard life and died earlier while evil people have better life in general. It's a God test for humankind for you to deserve your eternal punishment/reward.
That answer doesn't really change the problem of evil. The only way to make the Islamic god make more sense if he loses one of the three qualities the Christian god has: omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence.
@@michaelbuick6995 It explain it. In Islam, there's no such thing as pointless suffering. In the grand scheme of thing, it's just a test to see how strong their willpower to do good is. For animal, they were excluded from any kind of test because they aren't human. Their suffering is just another test for human itself.
@noobeginner9838 That doesn't explain it. What about 2 year olds dying of untreatable cancer? That doesn't test anyone's willpower, since they are toddlers they don't have any, nor does it test ours since it's untreable it's beyond our power to do anything about it. It achieves nothing. It accomplishes nothing. And your rebuttal to animal suffering is nonsensical since it ignores animal suffering that occurs when humans are not around to see it, which is most of it.
I can see how god can have reason to allow his creations to suffer, but if we define evil as “against gods nature” then can he create something that’s against his nature? You may say evil exists only in the created world not in his presence, but A: he’s omnipresent and B: how did he conceive of evil in order to create it in the world?
I see "Satanists" as just as weak as the rest of the followers of Abraham, as they all believe God is DIVIDED INTO GOOD & EVIL... and they all worship sin. My divergence in Theism & theology is I do not believe in the concept of "EVIL & SIN". I believe in the True unity of the ONE TRUE CREATOR. The ONE true CREATOR has nothing to be jealous of, For all existence is an extension of his being. All words are HIS WORDS. ALL NAMES ARE HIS NAME. ALL THINGS ARE HIS THINGS. GOD IS NOT DIVIDED. GOD IS INSIDE US. I am the BRIGHTEST NIGHT. I am the DARKEST LIGHT. ... & I AM ASCENDING.
There are multiple sufficient responses to the problem of evil. If you don’t like them or don’t feel they’re emotionally satisfying that doesn’t mean they don’t work. His claim ignores the existence of eternity. If God does away with evil and then you’re in eternity without it then the existence of evil is mathematically essentially 0. His claims also assume Gods goals. Soul building, maximizing greater goods and Gods glory all work as well.
It's not just emotional problems it's like it just makes way more sense when you look at it from the side of its all just random chance then there is no good and evil there just happens to be one state of affairs which is convenient. But if there's God then either he doesn't love everyone or he's not all-powerful otherwise it just doesn't work man
@@George-ry6iw How does "random chance" make more sense in explaining everything required to get living beings who have the capacity to experience suffering? Why is there something rather than nothing? - random chance. Why did the universe begin to exist? - random chance. Why is the universe life permitting? - random chance. How did life evolve from non-living chemicals? - random chance. How did consciousness arise from unconscious matter? - random chance. Random chance doesn't satisfy any of the conditions required for the existence of living beings that can experience suffering.
The first two conditions I'm somewhat skeptical of. But I don't think it's out of the question for random chance to produce life. The consciousness part too is a bit tricky but that doesn't necessarily require a conscious God. But I kind of feel like we've strayed from the problem of evil. Evil is opposite of good sure but I don't think we need God to have a concept of good. Good is just like the way things should be from a human perspective so it works out but if you step out of your humanity and see things big picture there is no absolute good and evil. But I am not saying that nonsense a bunch of people say about "oh, good is relative" no, good is about loving what's right without considering yourself. I'm a very moral atheist, sir
@@George-ry6iw There seems to be a bit of a contradiction in your response. You claim that: "...there is no absolute good and evil". But you also claim that: "I am not saying that nonsense a bunch of people say about "oh, good is relative"". But if there is no objective morality then morality is subjective (relative) by logical consequence. You also claim that: "Good is just like the way things should be from a human perspective". But then you also claim that: "good is about loving what's right without considering yourself". But the way things "should" be is a matter of subjective opinion if there is no creator of human beings who intended for human beings to live and act a certain way. So you would have to consider yourself in defining the way things "should" be since that is nothing more than your subjective opinion.
Who can even tell something is wrong? What? You’re crazy. God made a mistake? He didn’t just give you the opportunity to reincarnate in Hell to earn a bigger eternal reward?
Bad argument against God's existence. The problem of evil is a problem only if God claims to be good , and we have to know what it means when he claimed to be good to say there's a problem of evil , so it is a theistic discussion . And It is pointless for an agnostic-atheist to care about this unless you're an idealist and affirm there are absolute truths , absolute moral for example , my first question would then be to prove it .
Its a false dilema. If bad stiff happening means God doesnt exist, what does it mean when goof stuff happens? Also a parent will allow there child to undergo a painful medical procedure, if it means saving the child life, and it doesnt make the parent evil. Bible says Gods basically doing the same, tempirarily allowing evil in order to cure sin
It's not a false dilemma. It doesn't say he doesn't exist It says he's either not all good or not all powerful Failable humans cannot be compared to omnipotent beings. That's a false equivalence logical fallacy An omnipotent parent can save the child without pain or better yet, create a world where lives are not in danger
9:08 “God could’ve created the world differently without suffering, and I can think of it, therefore it’s more possible that naturalism is true.” WEAK SAUCE; if God is all knowing and all good, you already concede that he can think of a better way than you can, and it would be for the highest good. If you keep intact God‘s attributes this argument of you imagining different scenarios is invalid from the get-go. Yes, God could’ve done differently, but he knows best therefore shush. This argument doesn’t even make Christian theism flinch at all.
‘We would expect God to create the world in a softer way’ what? Who would expect that you maybe I didn’t expect that. Why are you speaking for all of us as if it’s apparent it is not.
So you're saying he isn't all powerful? If he knows what's best and is omnipotent then he can achieve what's best without including evil or suffering If he can't then he's not all powerful If he can but chooses not to then he's malevolent There cant be any objective reason to include evil unless the god isn't omnipotent
@@drsatan9617 What if suffering and evil being here is the best outcome? If you concede God as all knowing then the argument is over. You may be able to imagine the world to be better without evil and suffering but if God is all knowing and all good you're just wrong. You disagree with our current reality which is okay but, you also aren't omni anything.
@@Nrev973He created heaven, and there won't be evil or suffering there, so your argument fails If the best outcome is a worse outcome than the conditions he lives in while he possesses the power to make better dimensions like heaven, then he isn't all powerful Now, if you are saying that he had no choice but to include suffering, then he isn't all powerful If god is omnipotent then there are infinite different ways to make a world better than earth Theists are such shallow thinkers
@@drsatan9617 Just because heaven is without suffering and evil does not mean the material world has to be identical. And besides Genesis already accounts for this, read your Bible bud. God made the world perfect, humans fucked it up. Again if God knows best because he literally knows everything, every critique would be like an ant criticizing a rocket scientist before the rocket is even finished. The ant cannot comprehend the mind of man, God is infinitely greater in knowledge so your criticisms fall flat if you truly take the these attributes seriously. You can disagree with God permitting human evil and think it’s dumb but that’s irrelevant when the entity you’re criticizing literally knows EVERYTHING.
It’s easy for us muslims. We don’t believe on an all good god. Our god is called the most good, since he allows evil to test us in this life. I think the problem of evil is more of a Christian problem compared to other major faiths.
@@drsatan9617 he doesn’t straight punish people by saying “I knew what you’ll do thus I’ll punish you” he wants us to be witnesses upon ourselves and acknowledge that whether we deserve punishment or not.
@@1sosukeaizen1 I didn't say anything about punishment, and you didn't address what I did say There's no point in any tests if you know everything He already knows if we 'will be witnesses upon ourselves'
@@1sosukeaizen1 and if he wanted us to be that way, it's in his power to make us that way If we don't live up to his standards, then it's his fault, since he already knew we wouldn't before he even made us and could have made us in such a way as we would but chose not to. Making it his fault, not ours
@@drsatan9617it flew over your head, he’s not testing us to know the results for himself. That’s the point!! the test is for us to make a choice, know that we made the choice and be responsible for it.
Another video marching past the 'a supernatural realm with supernatural beings exist' claim without so much as a backwards glance. I keep saying this... Could you imagine if science and engineering worked this way. The biggest red flag for these God claims is... They are always fought in philosophy and not science.
And I keep saying this - could you imagine if the verily human qualities - i.e. those qualities, which differ us from mechanical artifical intelligent robots - worked the "scientifical" way? All your "scientifical" brain is seemingly not able to apprehend the fact that "science" has no right to rule the entirety of the human life, which consists of many immaterial but still very pottent phenomena - such as emotions for instance.
@@alena-qu9vj God created everything and is monitoring everything but is silent in science and engineering. Odd, won't you say? One thing man has learned through the centuries... We absolutely suck at intuition.
Why should God intervene to prevent suffering when there are plenty of hands and feet to fix the problem. Are we just pushing off our responsibility onto sky Daddy to fix our problems? I think there are plenty of ways for a God to be good and there have lots of evil if youre creating people and giving them a mandate to be good and its on them if they dont listen. I dont think evil disproves God just maybe the Christian God. I dont believe in a God but I dont think the problem of evil is really a problem.
He has made you so that you will eat. Your eating is an act of destruction. No matter what you eat, death happens. God did that. I am his excuse. And I feel fat.
@ShawnsGaming Please help me understand your perspective on this. When an antelope is eaten alive so that the lion can survive, that processes involves suffering. You say that there are plenty of hands and feet to fix that problem, so how would you suggest people eliminate that animal suffering?
@@ShawnsGaming79 God created animals and they were even saved by being put onto the Ark. What do you mean they 'dont count'? Does Christianity deny the value of Animal Life? May I kick a dog? May I murder a dog? Are such acts permissable by Christianity? If not, why "don't animals count"?
As a non-Abrahamic true monotheist.... Yahweh is a desert war God of hypocrisy, not the ONE TRUE CREATOR. I don't believe in evil. I don't cenceive the ONE TRUE CREATOR to be "good". Good is a subjective observation. Bad exists... which is a subjective observation. Evil implies that GOD IS DIVIDED. Evil requires for a CREATION of GOD to be imperfect. AN IMPERFECT CREATION can only come from an imperfect CREATOR. Creation is the complete expression of pure FREEDOM. In which, there is the latentcy for every possibility & probability within CREATION. BAD & EVIL are often conflated. Evil & sin are a conceptual construct created by Religion. "Bad" is a common experience shared by all subjective perspectives. (Ppl) The common, inevitable experience of "bad" is co-opted by religion, which then juxtaposes their perception of SIN over it, in order to control the masses through mass psychosis & mass Stockholm syndrome.... By using the artificial projections of Sin & Evil as tools to convince SENTIENT SINGULARITIES to lend their DIVINE SOVEREIGNTY unto SYSTEMS and ESTABLISHMENTS which insidiously abuse this Gift to then forge chains of servitude to offer back. Those in POWER know that EVERYONE IS A FRACTAL EXTENSION OF THE GOD-HOOD.... And they do everything in their power to make sure we the ppl NEVER learn this.... The perception of a SENTIENT SINGULARITY (ppl) is the jewel of CREATION. Our consciousness is an extension of the OMNI-CONSCIOUSNESS. Every quanta of (our) experience fuels the life stream of the OMNI-VERSE. Morality can only exist in someone's mind... which Inherently makes it subjective... objective reality does not superimpose its objectivity on a subjective mind which objectively exists. A mind objectively existing does not interfere w the fact that the minds perception & perspective is RELATIVE. THERE IS OBJECTIVE REALITY. HOWEVER, ONES PERCEPTION OF THAT OBJECTIVE REALITY IS SUBJECTIVE. I AM THE BRIGHTEST NIGHT. I AM THE DARKEST LIGHT. ❤
As a Christian, I think there are three families of argument for the problem of evil: logical, evidential, and emotional. The first two are not such a big problem, but the third is always harder to deal with.
Not necessary for his being, necessary for creation of anything not God. Juxtaposition proves omniscience as self negation of the actual infinite one is logically impossible.
Why is it necessary? If something is necessary for a god to accomplish anything then it isn't omnipotent An omnipotent god can accomplish any outcome without any of its prerequisites If we want to achieve X we must do Y. An omnipotent being could achieve Y without doing X. If it can't then it's not all powerful If X isn't necessary to accomplish Y but the god does X anyway knowing in advance that it would cause suffering then it's malevolent
@@drsatan9617 Put it into physics, what was needed to occur for the universe to expand out of the singularity. Space(negation) needed to occur. Was space necessary for the singularity ? no, the singularity is the juxtaposition to space. So for you to exist apart from the singularity a juxtaposition was created by necessity for you, not for the singularity. So negation becomes an expression of omnipotence not the failure of it. The impossible logically speaking, negation within a singularity is the evidence of omnipotence. or you can say you are the singularity. which is not true because you have parts , measure and finite energy. And this also proves the singularity is good, because the negation of itself allows for your existence. unless you think your existence is evil.
@@Christus-totalisAn omnipotent god, could make the universe expand without needing an ything If something is necessary for a god to do anything then it isn't all powerful ,
Ok God doesn’t exist who’s responsible for evil now ? and start thinking in another word, the God of the Bible is the one who name it evil but, God doesn’t exist right !
@@drsatan9617 that’s a crazy way to live not having a real basis because now everything is a matter of opinion that eventually will bring caos and division like no other !
@@CarlosMagnusson07 nope, it just doesn’t like watching the philosophical equivalent of Alvin and the chipmunks. RUclipsrs have started this habit of speeding up their guests video, to cater to 12 year olds who can’t watch anything without a game feed displayed underneath.
@@jacobgingerhoffman7816 for one... appealing to subjectivity does not prove objectivity. 😂. I can think of someone who thinks r@pe is great... Yahweh... as he commands his followers to steal, r@pe & kill from non believers... in the Bible. Proof right in front of everyone.
@@jacobgingerhoffman7816 a seemingly homogeneous subjective perception does not somehow transmute into Objectivity... no matter how many subjective perspectives agree on an issue or not... 😂
@@jacobgingerhoffman7816 Yahweh approves of grapes ... proof in the Bible where he commands his followers to grape, steal & k ll from the non believers. 😂
@@jacobgingerhoffman7816 If Yahweh made man.... In his image, w his heart.... & Yahweh breaks his own commandments... Then by virtue of perfect CREATION, not only should Yahweh NOT punish his creation for breaking his commandments, HE SHOULD EXPECT & rejoice in his CREATIONS breaking his commandments.... because what is good for the FATHER is good for the SON. OTHERWISE, Yahweh proves himself to NOT BE the ONE TRUE CREATOR. Yahweh can break his law all he wants... but at the moment he does, he proves that this law is not ABSOLUTE or objective. Yahweh breaking his own law proves he is not the ONE TRUE CREATOR. The ONE TRUE CREATOR has the power to enact his will w out breaking his own laws. The ONE TRUE CREATOR is the primordial source of intellect & wisdom and would lead by example, not by hypocrisy. The ONE TRUE CREATOR has no need to make commandments. I realize that you have relinquished your divine sovereignty unto the theology of Abraham... and you would like to see me do the same to justify your decision. But I retain my divine sovereignty as I declare that ALL creations have direct access to the ONE TRUE CREATOR. ALL words are God's words. For there is no sound uttered without the empowerment of the breath of life from the CREATOR. ANY sentient being which makes demands or commands proves themselves to NOT BE the ONE TRUE CREATOR. for the ONE TRUE CREATOR has the power of CREATION.... & with such, has no need of demands. Creation is the expression of pure freedom. The ONE TRUE CREATOR would not place artifical limits, such as arbitrary demands externally... he would build those limits into the structure of CREATION ITSELF, such as the "speed of light". Yahweh is not the ONE TRUE CREATOR. IT IS NOT HIS CREATION. The Actual ONE TRUE CREATOR has nothing to be vengeful or jealous of, for ALL THINGS ARE HIS. That Yahweh is jealous & vengeful is more proof that he is NOT the ONE TRUE CREATOR. JESUS spoke out against the broken Theology of Abraham, and his followers killed him for it. They could not eradicate his story, so they integrated it into their dogmas in order to manipulate the masses into relinquishing their DIVINE SOVEREIGNTY unto the church. I do believe in the Christ Consciousness. But I do not capitulate to distortions of it imposed by Followers of Abraham. And my perception of Christ does not require the approval or validation of your perception... just as your perception does not require the validation of mine. The actual ONE TRUE CREATOR requires NOTHING FROM YOU. Every CREATION that we as CREATORS extend is a testament to HIS GREATNESS. CREATORS CREATING IS HIS WORSHIP, accepted. 😂😂😂 Followers of Abraham are a blood cult of Sin Worshippers.... who use sin to manipulate CO-CREATORS into relinquishing their DIVINE SOVEREIGNTY unto the church, using mass psychosis and mass Stockholm syndrome, through the dogma of the broken theology of Abraham. The ONE TRUE CREATOR is UNITED, NOT DIVIDED. ♥
If there is such a thing as "good" that is real and absolute, there must be basis for what is good. An absolute basis for good is one of the attributes of God. Therefore, the tip of the spear, "if God is good", is non existent. The supposed problem of evil is rendered impotent due to the fact that the premises assume God in order to say there is no God. These types of arguments are why, even if I did not have a personal relationship with Jesus, I could never be Atheist.
If I understand correctly, you’re saying that the premises in problem of evil arguments assume the existence of good. And since good can only be grounded in God, therefore they assume the existence of God. Can you clearly state which premise in the argument assumes the existence of Good? It looks like you quoted part of a premise (“if God is good”) but please quote the entire premise, not just a part of it. I’m going to show you something.
@@drsatan9617 The problem is just a problem, it does not conclude anything. The answer to the problem of evil requires evaluation of the nature of goodness and the current state of the lack of goodness. If God exists then an explanation seems due to square the omnipotence, omniscience, and goodness of God with the reality of evil. Establishing "good" is prior to offering an explanation to the current state of affairs.
Animals do not "suffer" in any morally significant way. I would be very interested to know what experiment has proven, to most experts, that animals suffer in a self-conscious way.
The notion that animals do not suffer, and even if they did suffer their “suffering” somehow doesn’t count, is one of the most repugnant things I’ve ever heard. And the idea of “proving” that animals suffer is so arrogantly hypocritical. There is nothing I can do to prove to others with 100% certainty that I am not just a thoughtless meat computer. We can only observe each other’s behaviors, not our experiences, and then give each other the common courtesy of believing we are each sentient due to that observed behavior. Animals can behave in a manner that is similar to a human experiencing immense suffering. Thus, animals most likely have the capacity to suffer, end of story.
@@tameshrew469 We know that babies are people with self-awareness, even if this capacity is not exercised at this stage of life. Therefore, it is at least as morally repulsive to harm a baby as it is to harm a sedated adult.
I feel you are misrepresenting the Christian idea of evil and why it exists in the world. Creation is in a fallen state, the existence of evil was not the original plan. Suffering may have existed, but not outright evil.
I can’t speak for everyone, but for me this seems sort of like a cop out. We have a being (God) who exists eternally, outside of time, and who creates the whole universe and every moment that will ever happen within it, all from that eternal perspective. Yet somehow this eternal omnipotent creator is surprised by the emergence of evil? Somehow evil wasn’t part of the divine plan? How is that possible? A response might be that we need to go through suffering and evil to build up our souls in some way. But if the creator was omnipotent from the start, why not create people in such a way that they wouldn’t need to be tempered by experiencing evil in the first place? Surely there’s no suffering in heaven, right, but despite the lack of suffering and evil that experience is probably meaningful in some way? I think that when people go far enough down this path we eventually get to ‘it’s a mystery’. But that *also* feels an awful lot like a cop out. If I wrote a book that claimed to explain why evil existed but there were massive holes in my explanation, then I don’t think anyone would find my handwaving the holes away by saying “it’s a mystery” satisfying. Why should the writers of the Bible get a pass here if none of us would be allowed that pass?
If it's not part of the original plan, then god is not all knowing. Remember the argument is that god is either: not all knowing, not all good, or not all powerful. If the plan didn't go according to his way, he wasn't all knowing.
Y'all got it all wrong. Before the Fall, there was no evil and suffering in the world. Evil and suffering were introduced because Eve listened to a talking snake (OK, I see the contradiction there), convinced her husband to eat of the Tree and thus sin, and God, showing mercy on them by not outright killing them as she said she would, instead punished all of creation forever but it was still Adam and Eve who introduced sin and evil to the world--OK, this makes no sense to me, but that's because I am using my pathetic human mind to try to understand something that's beyond human comprehension because it comes from the infinite mind of God. So there. It was Adam and Eve's fault.
It doesn't seem fair two people could affect the whole world, does it? It would only take one man pushing the button and he could destroy the earth. Yes, it's unfair that people's actions can affect others regardless if it's their fault or not. But sadly things just work like that. Take care
There is an argument that you can't blame the ignorant for disobeying when they didn't understand the full scope of what they were doing until after the act. It's also interesting to me the argument that God knew all along what they were going to do. After all there was in the garden a Tree of Life which would be entirely unnecessary unless the fall was coming and death was going to become a thing.
@@mmoreno7137 Moreover, it was God herself who put the damned tree in the garden in the first place. Bad God. Bad. More seriously, I wonder if, say, Jewish scholars today understand what the original Hebrew authors were really trying to say with this story. I'm certain the Christian version is a retcon to rationalize Jesus' otherwise meaningless death.
@@gristly_knuckle This actually isn't my view. Though I'm being a bit facetious, I'm paraphrasing the actual view of some fundamentalist Christians: a simple transgression resulted in all that is bad and evil in the world. I think it's sick.
As an athiest, the problem of evil would only prove God isn’t good, or all good. But it doesn’t disprove that god exist, you can still have a God who doesn’t give a damn.
Edit: this is not me defending Gods existence, I’m just saying logically God can’t be all good and the world we live in shows this, Christian’s have an uphill battle not only proving God exists, but also proving that God is all good.
All hail marduk
Can God not have sufficient moral reasons to allow evil and suffering? I don't think we should easily throw out that possibility when we're talking about an omniscient agent. In fact, some sufferings are vital, if not very important for the existence of some virtues. For example, you can't have endurance without something to endure, and you can't have courage without something to fear. Also, you can't learn from your own mistakes or the mistakes from others if you can't make any, so we'd also be missing out on that kind of wisdom.
@@theintelligentmilkjug944So, "heaven" will be exactly the same as Earth?
@@TheHuxleyAgnostic Well, no I think heaven would be a paradise where we have gained these virtues from necessary sufferings. So, any more suffering would be unnecessary.
@@theintelligentmilkjug944 Really? People change over their lifetimes on Earth. What makes you think they'll retain what they learned for an eternity?
So, the garden of Eden was designed to fail? Having an eternity in Eden was never really an option, is what you're saying.
Evolution is a double edged sword. Not only does it rewrite creationism, but it constitutes the most powerful form of the problem of evil
How does evolution constitute the problem of evil? Evolution doesn’t actually say anything about whether there’s a god, and therefore evil, or not, but it provides an explanation of the diversity of life regardless.
@@markoshun - Evolution occurs by natural selection. In many cases, the natural process of selection is a brutal and painful one.
So given the overwhelming evidence for evolution, if we suppose that God exists and was in charge of creation, then we'd note that God used a brutal and painful method to drive the diversity of life on Earth.
That seems like around half a billion years of the Problem of Evil playing out.
@@Moley1Moleo Ah, ok, got you. By all appearances, there isn’t a god behind it, but if there was, he’s got some explaining to do.
Evolution doesn't have a 'problem of evil'. Evil is just the things we don't want, and evolution produces them naturally.
Honestly the logical problem of evil got done dirty here. There's plenty of logical justifications for allowing evil, but none of them are logically compatible with a triomni god.
For instance having difficult life experiences to learn from isn't logically defensible if god could just create people with whatever knowledge he wanted them to have. Or just beam the knowledge into their head. A god being limited to normal animal methods of learning/teaching is ridiculous.
The only way to try to get around this is the whole "mysterious ways" defense. Except that if you accept the mysterious ways defense as valid you have to completely reject all knowledge!
Since you can't claim to know 2+2=4 or even that you exist in the first place, if you accept the logic that there could always be some unknown justification for any apparent logical contradiction.
The mysterious ways defense is something even the religious would treat as obviously incoherent if one tried to apply it to any other area. God is only mysterious when theists have to deal with a contradiction, the rest of the time they presume they can know a bunch of stuff about gods nature and motivations.
as I just pointed out, this leaves out the creation of Satan, which of course just bumps things up a bit cause then you have to defend why God gave Satan free will...but at least then the apologists solve all the ensuing problem, they just blame it all on original sin. It would be so much easier to just concede that *if* God exists, it must be evil as well as good.
what about free will though? that to me seems at least a plausible thing greater good god might have had to allow evil for
@@tameshrew469 sure, but what about suffering? It could allow someone or something to cause harm, but how does allowing it to persist promote free will?
@@tameshrew469 That doesn't work with an omnipotent god who has the option of just creating only morally perfect beings, who like himself will only freely choose good. Another way of phrasing this is "why create any beings that aren't akin to Jesus?".
Also even if you were to accept that as a viable objection, it wouldn't make natural evil not still logically incompatible with an omnibenevolent god's existence.
@@vakusdrake3224Also the traditional view of Heaven entails that there is better world in which evil doesnt exist. So, the question is: Is there free will in Heaven? If the answer is yes, it is possible for God to create a world in which there is free will and evil doesnt exist. And if the answer is no, it is false that a world with evil is better than a world without it. In both cases, the free will defence is debunked.
The problem of evil more than anything points out that most Christians worship the wrong god, or their lack of reflection on what it means to define god as it fits into more buckets than their current one. Catholics and Presbyterians worships entirely different gods, not the same god with minor differences; metaphysical minute differences have enormous definitional consequences.
For all we know, Yahweh could be an impostor that did not create anything and just took credit.
Imo the problem of evil is iron clad. There is no way out that leaves God intact. It's a true paradox you cannot have omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence and evil. You can have any combination of 3, but never all 4 at the same time.
@@michaelbuick6995 well, only omnibenevolence and evil contradict there. If you are all good, you cannot be evil. If you are all knowing or all powerful, you can certainly be evil.
@fettbub92 Well you could have an all loving omnipotent God who is not omniscient and therefore simply unaware. Or an all loving all knowing impotent God who is condemned to stand by and watch helplessly. Or you could as you pointed out have an indifferent or malevolent God.
The problem of evil doesn't disprove any and all concepts of God but the modern "big 3" of monotheism usually hold to a "tri-omni" God, so that particular one cannot exist.
@@michaelbuick6995 the problem of evil only really applies to gods that are claimed to be good. This is strongest against gods like Yahweh, but falls apart against more human like gods such as Poseidon
If a god somehow existed, I wouldn't expect it to be utilitarian or altruistic. I wouldn't expect it to have any social behaviors whatsoever because those are the product of evolution that a being that simply existed in a void without precedent wouldn't have developed. Theists don't appreciate just how anthropomorphized their god is, even the idea that it would have social or moralistic behaviors is anthropomorphic.
I think the bible says that men were created in the picture of god so maybe it is the other way around and humans are that way because god is
(One possible explanation)
@@CarlosMagnusson07 My point is basically why would a supernatural being that existed with no precedent have features such as emotions, social inclinations, and morality when those things are the byproduct of evolution and don't make sense in any other context? It's absolutely that god was created in the image of humans, that's why god is like humans.
@@CarlosMagnusson07 That only means that God has no power over his own emotions, so making him an irrational God.
@@juanausensi499 Why would a god have emotions at all? Emotions, as far as we know, are something that evolves in animals. But if somehow a god did have emotions, it would make more sense for them to be totally random and, yes, irrational. A mad god, an entity born of randomness and chaos, not the very human one portrayed in religions
@@IshmaelPrice Emotions don't make sense for a being that is everything that is. Emotions about what, if he is the only thing that exists?
Heaven kinda destroys any attempts at rebutting the problem of evil, I think. Is evil a product of free will? Does that then mean people don’t have free will in heaven? If not, then free will doesn’t have to entail evil. If so, then free will is unnecessary.
Free will doesn’t exist so heaven/hell don’t exist if you can’t have judgement
@@chemquests You can have a judgement without free will. For example, you can select good apples from bad apples, even if the apples aren't responsible. Of course, it doesn't work with a tri-omni god, because he is the creator of all apples, but, again, almost nothing works with that.
@@juanausensi499 The Christian religion is predicated on humans choosing sin and therefore deserving punishment. That is the entire reason the sacrifice of Jesus was supposedly necessary. I’ll take your point that one could construct a religion where judgment day isn’t an assessment of who deserves to be damned to hell, but that’s not a religion anyone practices.
@@chemquests But why not just punish us if that if what we deserve? That would be justice, and not doing that would be injustice.
@@juanausensi499 it’s impossible to deserve it if you have no freedom to do otherwise. As Hitchens said, made sick commanded to be well. It’s completely unjust.
Alex you need to have David Bentley Hart on
And get treated like he did with Peter Hitchens. Right.
The problem of evil really only applies to monotheostic gods that claim to have created everything, and claim moral superiority. The problem of evil doesnt really apply to Zues.
Correct.
If you were to measure good and evil in the universe or potential multiverses you would find faint traces of both. So the divine creator is amoral at best.
I have a new theodicy against the Problem of Evil.
The Theodicy of Procrastonation or Laziness.
God knows about all the evil, can and wants to stop it, but He, being infinitely good at anything He does - including procrastinating - just can't be bothered to get off his lazy ass to actually do what he wants to do.
I like this one. Realizing I have a divine personality, and at the same time feeling no guilt over housework left undone while writing comments on RUclips. Thanks
Is supposed to be all good and all powerful and all knowing. Thor is just supposed to rid us off the Jotun. Evil is still a thing, but i have never seen a Jotun around. God 0:1 Thor.
"God 0:1 Thor."
Thor _is_ a god (provided either exists).
The Problem of Evil is the atheistic equivalent of Pascal's Wager. It's an absolute garbage argument.
@@JustifiedNonethelessthat’s maybe not what he meant tho? We use the word God as a noun too so him saying God0/thor1 is more of a jab at the Abrahamic god’s bad job at doing the shit he’s supposed to do….maybe.
Also you’re correct that it’s a bad argument if you’re trying to disprove god in the abstract but pretty good for showing the blatant hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance of those that claim that eternal torture for finite sins (and frankly mostly things I’d consider non-sins like non-belief) is justice, slavery is freedom, and other kinds of abrahamic doublespeak.
Thor arguments are funny, but not intellectually effective. If you are interested there is a mountain if evidence for Jesus and very little for Thor. Kind of a false equivalency.
@@OneofHisFollowers mountain of evidence for jesus 😮 how cam atheists dare still exist? Or do you mean as a mere mortal named jesus?
@@Oyabu... Atheists can and do exist in large numbers. Why? Is an excellent question. Acceptance of truth is volitional. The point at which we shut off the reasoning and accept a proposition as true is elective. I'd put my money there.
In speaking on the god that people argue on that there is an all loving god. Suffering should not even be on the map to begin with. And my problem with the free will part. I would rather have options that are all good then options that have a little bad in it. Its like asking if you want a cake or a pile of shit. That is free will buuuuut so is the option of you getting to pick a cake or a pie.
@@tonyolsson3880 the thing is it’s either complete free will or partial free will which isn’t true free will. Obviously we would all not want to go through suffering but ultimately suffering is a result of our choices and our sinful nature
@@wavyariocha3100 yeah but if god is all knowing then you have no free will. So for someone to say their god is all loving and all knowing. Then you have no free will, on top of them not caring about us seeing as our planet is extremely hard to liv in.
@@tonyolsson3880 how would we not have free will if God is all knowing?
@@wavyariocha3100 very simple. If he knows what you are going to do your entire life, is it free will then? God made me knowing i would never believe or even join him. Knowing how something goes takes away the ability of free will. Schrodinger's cat if you will, if you know for a fact that the cat is alive or dead you can't have the mystery. Mystery is what gives something the absolute free will because anything can happen.
If this All-loving god created all manners of evil on this earth, from diseases to hurricanes; I wonder what would an All-hating god would do.
Hell. So there you are.
@@juanausensi499Well an all-loving God appearantly allows Hell, too. So, even worse.
@@yobro-eg3ic Agreed. Only believers say their God is good.
Who is the guy on the right
Maybe evil is a punishment for original sin, Idunno.
Ya but original sin would be evil wouldn't it? I dunno either but I incline towards saying ya it makes more sense that there is no God. Just my perspective 🤔
I hate that many persons often just grant that free will is a good thing. It kind of strikes me as bullshit to grant that. It's almost as if free will is so great and powerful and lovely that God himself bows to it. I find the whole thing ridiculous.
Do you just mean most people? Because humans generally desire autonomy and for values like heroism to mean something. Which they wouldn't if moral responsibility was thrown out the window.
@@jacknicholson2071 I don’t think actually having free will is important to fulfil those things you’ve addressed, you just need to feel as if you have free will. In essence we could feel exactly as we do now but not have free will. In my view that’s exactly the case with human beings currently but putting my view aside I don’t see why a God couldn’t dispense with free will and still let us feel all the heroism etc. It appears to me (and I could be very wrong of course after all I’m just an ape) that the only argument for a God giving us free will is some sort of narcissism like that God wants you to really show your love and adoration to him freely and that just seems like such a lowly quality for a supreme being to possess.
@@jacknicholson2071They desire it because they already existed in a system that necessitate the existence of such desires.
Just like robots do not complain of being robots, if humanity existed without freewill(which I doubt exists), we wouldn’t know and wouldn’t care either.
It’s absurd to think that some kind of evil exists because god wants to bring about some greater good like Heroism, yet the greater good (heroism) exists so it could be used against the evil that necessitated it.
If there’s no logical problem with a WORD with GOD, no crime and no crime fighters, then why isn’t it the case ?
Why must god create a world that gives rise to crime, so he could bring about the greater good like “crime fighters” ?
I should be surprised that the walls of text don't have anything to do with the video, improperly assess my point, say blatantly untrue things about attitudes people hold, all while assuming that I'm defending any particular conception of God or good. But I'm not.
free will is used as a defense. plantinga says that it is possible that god had to allow moral evils for a greater good of free will. he need not even argue that this is plausible to defend theism from a logical problem of evil merely show it is possible to show that there is no contradiction between a omnigod and evil
There is no Evil.
For the actual ONE TRUE CREATOR is not divided.
Nature is cannibalistic....
And this is the best look inside the nature of CREATION. ♥
Wtf are you babbling about? 😂
The "seemingly pointless, gratuitous suffering" was in watching this video. It's a perfect example of thinking too much and being in love with your own thoughts. Darkness is the absence of light, cold is the absence of warmth, life is the absence of death, and evil is the absence of good. In a logically ordered universe, how else could it work? Even if God is all powerful how could he make an ordered universe any other way? Could God square a circle? Of course, He's all powerful, but that would be contrary to the order of the universe, so it makes no sense. The possibility of evil must always exist, otherwise you can't have good. Man's fall brought evil into the light.
Your argument fails because apparently he decided the order of the universe
If he didn't then he's not all powerful
Since he decided that the order of the universe was that evil must exist when he could have had only good thanks to his omnipotence then he's malevolent for allowing unnecessary suffering
@@drsatan9617 Nope, it doesn't even come close failing, you're just thinking one-dimensionally. Goodness isn’t meaningful if it exists in a vacuum, without the possibility of its opposite. In order for humans to genuinely choose good, the alternative-evil-must exist. This is the foundation of free will. If God had created a universe where only good existed, we wouldn’t have the ability to choose; we’d be automatons without the capacity for moral growth, love, or real goodness. The order of the universe, with its potential for both good and evil, is a reflection of God’s respect for human agency. Allowing for the possibility of evil doesn’t make God malevolent-it makes Him just. People forget that part. Yes, God is all-loving, but He's also just, which requires Him giving us free will. It's His very nature. He provides us with the tools and freedom to choose good or evil, making our moral actions significant.
@@kenpeters14011 Why does goodness need to be meaningful?
2 Meaning is a subjective measure. Meaningful to who and how?
3. Why would we need to choose good? Why is it necessary for god to give us that choice? Would he lose something that he objectively requires if he didn't? If so, then he isn't all powerful
4 If no evil was possible, there wouldn't be the need to choose between the two. You can't choose evil in heaven, so the goodness there exists in a vacuum and is therefore meaningless by your own logic. Rather one dimensional thinking
5 how can god be said to respect our agency if he punishes us for using that agency to reject him?
@@drsatan9617 These are pretty simple, boilerplate atheist questions that have clear theological answers. I'll take them one by one:
1. "Why does goodness need to be meaningful?"
Goodness, in a moral framework, has meaning because it requires intentional choice. Without the ability to choose, actions lose moral weight - they become automatic, predetermined, and devoid of any real value. The concept of good is tied to free will because choosing goodness reflects a conscious decision to align with moral principles. Without free will, there is no moral growth, no character development, and no authentic virtue.
2. "Meaning is a subjective measure. Meaningful to who and how?"
While meaning can be subjective, moral goodness - especially in a theistic worldview-has an objective basis. It's meaningful in relation to God's nature and the moral order He established. Goodness isn’t just about what feels meaningful to us as individuals; it’s about what aligns with the ultimate good, which, in a theistic framework, is God. So, it’s meaningful not just to humans, but to the order of creation itself. It's also worth noting that the Genesis creation story states that upon creation of each thing God saw it was, "good", and that man was, "very good." This tells us that God's creations and "good" are indelibly entwined, that there is a baseline, so to speak, of objective goodness that is immutably tied to God, and that we've stepped away from due to original sin. Aligning ourselves with that goodness, with that meaning, takes us in the right direction again.
3. "Why would we need to choose good? Why is it necessary for God to give us that choice?"
The ability to choose good is necessary because it gives human beings moral agency - the capacity to grow, learn, and develop as moral creatures. Without the choice between good and evil, we wouldn’t have moral freedom, and without moral freedom, our actions wouldn’t be virtuous. God, in creating free beings, gives us the dignity of being more than programmed robots. If there were no freedom, there would be no love, no sacrifice, no true goodness, because all would be predetermined. God doesn't "need" us to choose good, but by giving us the choice, He allows for a higher form of existence where our actions have moral significance.
4. "If no evil was possible, there wouldn’t be the need to choose between the two. You can’t choose evil in heaven, so the goodness there exists in a vacuum and is therefore meaningless by your own logic."
In heaven, the dynamics are different, it is not of this universe or this life. Heaven represents the culmination of moral and spiritual growth, where individuals have already chosen good, and their souls have been perfected. The goodness in heaven doesn’t exist in a vacuum - it’s the result of earthly life, where free will was exercised. In heaven, the absence of evil doesn’t diminish the meaning of goodness; rather, it signifies the completion of moral choices made in a world where evil was possible. So the logic isn’t one-dimensional - it’s recognizing the distinct phases of existence.
5. "How can God be said to respect our agency if He punishes us for using that agency to reject Him?"
Respecting agency doesn’t mean there are no consequences for how we use that agency. As I said in my previous response, God is loving, but also just. God gives humans the freedom to choose, but with freedom comes responsibility. If someone uses their freedom to reject goodness or God, it’s not an infringement on their agency to face the consequences of that choice. Much like in human law, freedom comes with accountability - just because we are free to make certain decisions doesn’t mean we are exempt from the outcomes. God’s justice and mercy are seen in His respect for human agency, but also in the fact that He honors the choices we make, even when they lead us away from Him.
I think it's interesting to note that human beings only are the creature that they are because of our very specific evolutionary path. A path which, if different in any significant way, may have produced a dramatically different creature today. That includes removing all the terrors and Horrors that human beings have endured throughout the ages. If you got rid of those things, we wouldn't be what we are. If God has chosen to act within this universe only using Pathways which abide the natural laws that he said so that we could understand the universe, then the only way to produce a human being like us logically, is to have a species go through what we went through. Anything else and it would not be us, and maybe God just wanted us for whatever reason a God might want anything
Every creature is "the only creature that they are" because of their specific evolutionary paths
If god is omnipotent, then logically, there are infinite ways to get a species like us that do not require pain, suffering, or even evolution
Schimod should face turek in a debate
What I don't understand with any kind of justification for evil, as something necessary for whatever reason is, why do theists think that God is bound by any kind of necessity? Are there forces or structures that are above God and he has to comply with them? Furthermore even if it is so and in order to achieve beings with free will or whatever else, evil was indeed necessary, why did he create the world in the first place? If he knew that evil was unavoidable shouldn't he decide that creating a world in order to express his love is impossible and abandon the thought altogether?
Wow brother well put👏
Buddhism and Hindiuism have perfect answers for this question, but if all you know is the Abrahamic religions, you'll never find one that makes sense. Humans have free will or self determination, and when they perform actions that do not support the health of others (including animals and the Earth), it is evil without the Judeo-Christian baggage. There is no dark intelligence behind these egregious actions other than the ignorance of the individual. So then why does God or the Universe allow such actions to injure and kill others? The answer is that those effected by evil do so because they are ready for a lesson necessary for their specific growth. This only makes sense when you understand that life is governed by the Law of Karma, existing in a framework of reincarnation. Karma is the universal system of teaching us what is right and wrong. It can appear to be punitive, but it isn't. It effects people differently based on the level of consciousness of the individual (measured by compassion and intelligence). The more advanced you are, the more immediate the universe's response to your actions. On the other hand, those who are ostensibly evil may not get their lesson until the ensuing incarnations, dependent entirely on their readiness to grasp the lesson. The goal of life in this system is oneness with the all pervasive divine consciousness, which is achieved through stilling the mind leading to the realisation of the underlying reality of life. There is no heaven or hell, and there is certainly no 'Satan' other than what is projected by the mind.This material plane is really the shadow world of the deeper reality; a lacklustre simulacrum of your more essential life, which coexists with the mundane one you're experiencing now. The path to the deeper reality is mostly achieved through meditation and loving action, though it can sometimes occur spontaneously in life or upon death, all dependent on your ability to grasp it. I'd say good luck, but there is no such thing.
Ok. I suppose I will play, as the Devil’s advocate. The problem of Evil is the problem of being attached. The moment it is that you and not God become the creator, sharing in his mistakes, as God, you are the cause. Complete revocation of God is all that can be good.
Of course, it works. The issue is that you need to drop one of the three attributes of God: omnipotence, omniscience or omnibenevolence. Drop any of these, and you are done.
@@juanausensi499 , are those in the Bible, or was it that “if-God”, the quantum computing It, was before the slaughter and spraying of animal blood and chunking of animal brain?
The 'problem of evil' is useful for ensuring that responsibility for gratuitous suffering & death belongs to whichever caring, capable god is in question. Otherwise, you're welcome argue for a malevolent or indifferent god.
Maybe I'm wrong but does "the problem of evil" conflict with "deriving an ought from an is?"
For those who claim it's an objective fact that we ought not do evil, but then argue for doing evil, yeah.
You won’t be able to win. What ought to be is the decision of God. What is is what God commands. Therefore, to exist is to fall victim. When God said, “Thou shalt surely die,” He gave you an excuse, the only reason to continue being to stop Him.
@@gristly_knuckle Commands, laws, rules, aren't themselves morality. They are only reflections of the morality of the lawmakers. We can argue a law is immoral (Jm Crw). We can argue not having a law is immoral (against slvry). How is a lawgiver who commands unaliving people for working, or doing chores, on weekends, moral? Or, declares their followers to be a superior race of "chosen people", and orders them to gncd everyone around them? Such a lawmaker sounds like it has the morals of Htlr.
I was actually thinking more along the lines of just because God IS omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent doesn't mean he OUGHT to be obligated to act on any of it.
@@TheHuxleyAgnostic i want to be the very best kind of person. It infuriates me that i cannot be one kind of person when he’s the best, then another kind of person when God changes his vacillating mind.
Why do human beings allow evil, even the supposed good assuming good isn’t relative? Does that make them not good? Haven’t heard a definitive answer for that… how can we fathom what He wants outside of the Bible that gives us the characterization of our God, if we don’t have full answers outside of educated assumptions about our neighbors or enemies? Everyone’s going to assume and come to their own realizations, and discern things based off the fruit given, but it’s still an assumption because we aren’t in their place nor are we truly capable of knowing outside of faith. Same applies to the goodness of God. If my 2yo son acts atrociously, violently, and hits someone he will get spanked. He was allowed to be good or bad. He chose bad, which doesn’t mean he’s evil and it doesn’t mean I’m not good for letting him choose.
We are children with no more thank 100 or so years of biased life experience trying to apply our ever changing logic and spirituality to an endless creator.
For the intelligence portrayed in this interview, it’s almost still child like if I can describe it that way, not to be offensive. We can understand
“Your ways are not My ways”.
I love Joe Schmid. He's like a 28 oz cup of gas station cappuccino.
If Yahweh made man....
In his image, w his heart....
& Yahweh breaks his own commandments...
Then by virtue of perfect CREATION, not only should Yahweh NOT punish his creation for breaking his commandments, HE SHOULD EXPECT & rejoice in his CREATIONS breaking his commandments.... because what is good for the FATHER is good for the SON.
OTHERWISE, Yahweh proves himself to NOT BE the ONE TRUE CREATOR.
Yahweh can break his law all he wants... but at the moment he does, he proves that this law is not ABSOLUTE or objective.
Yahweh breaking his own law proves he is not the ONE TRUE CREATOR.
The ONE TRUE CREATOR has the power to enact his will w out breaking his own laws.
The ONE TRUE CREATOR is the primordial source of intellect & wisdom and would lead by example, not by hypocrisy.
The ONE TRUE CREATOR has no need to make commandments. I realize that you have relinquished your divine sovereignty unto the theology of Abraham... and you would like to see me do the same to justify your decision. But I retain my divine sovereignty as I declare that ALL creations have direct access to the ONE TRUE CREATOR.
ALL words are God's words. For there is no sound uttered without the empowerment of the breath of life from the CREATOR.
ANY sentient being which makes demands or commands proves themselves to NOT BE the ONE TRUE CREATOR. for the ONE TRUE CREATOR has the power of CREATION.... & with such, has no need of demands.
Creation is the expression of pure freedom. The ONE TRUE CREATOR would not place artifical limits, such as arbitrary demands externally... he would build those limits into the structure of CREATION ITSELF, such as the "speed of light".
Yahweh is not the ONE TRUE CREATOR. IT IS NOT HIS CREATION.
The Actual ONE TRUE CREATOR has nothing to be vengeful or jealous of, for ALL THINGS ARE HIS. That Yahweh is jealous & vengeful is more proof that he is NOT the ONE TRUE CREATOR.
JESUS spoke out against the broken Theology of Abraham, and his followers killed him for it. They could not eradicate his story, so they integrated it into their dogmas in order to manipulate the masses into relinquishing their DIVINE SOVEREIGNTY unto the church.
I do believe in the Christ Consciousness. But I do not capitulate to distortions of it imposed by Followers of Abraham. And my perception of Christ does not require the approval or validation of your perception... just as your perception does not require the validation of mine.
The actual ONE TRUE CREATOR requires NOTHING FROM YOU. Every CREATION that we as CREATORS extend is a testament to HIS GREATNESS. CREATORS CREATING IS HIS WORSHIP, accepted. 😂😂😂
Followers of Abraham are a blood cult of Sin Worshippers.... who use sin to manipulate CO-CREATORS into relinquishing their DIVINE SOVEREIGNTY unto the church, using mass psychosis and mass Stockholm syndrome, through the dogma of the broken theology of Abraham.
The ONE TRUE CREATOR is UNITED, NOT DIVIDED. ♥
Let's approach this from a different angle. What is the number one reason why people believe in God? I would argue it is through a personal feeling or experience of God. Logical arguments are simply weak in the face of a personal God experience. Once the attachment to that experience has been cracked, logical arguments such as the problem of evil can start to have effect.
I don't agree. The main reason is conformity. That's why children adopt the same religion as their parents. That explains the geographical distribution of religions, something that personal experience can't do.
@@juanausensi499 Conformity is very important. Yet too simplistic. Being born into a religion is not enough. it is the experience generated while in the 'fold' that cements it. Otherwise, they will eventually walk away; particularly as teenagers when they start to have their own thoughts and ask questions. it is the experience that short circuits all arguments of reason.
@@sbwetherbe Bhutan reports 100% buddhism in its population. Do you think everyone had a personal buddhist experience and that makes them not walk away?
My mistake. I thought we were talking about 'high demand religions'. low demand religions, such as Buddhism, don't require you to reject science.
@@sbwetherbe Catholicism too
This doesn't get talked about, but God (if he exists) controls all our positive and negative responses to everything. Most of the time we recognize evil from the negative responses we feel. The fawn dying in the forest alone from starvation is only evil since God gave us a negative response to that. God could have made that fawn dying feel great and we would want that to happen all the time. God could make being burned alive feel wonderful and we would seek to do that. It just seems like we are God's puppets.
But there are people who indeed find pain and cruelty "good", i.e. they have positive response to that. It rather seems to me that we have free will in "choosing" (by some as yet uknown mechanism) our reactions, which of course depends on our ethics. In fact we were sent to Earth to "know good from evil" and I certainly do not feel like a puppet on the string of some cruel god (I have to stress that Yahweh is not my god).
@@alena-qu9vj We are sent to earth to know good from evil? Then what is good and what is evil? How do we identify the difference besides our positive or negative responses? Even the people you mentioned don't like every pain and cruelty. Some people like deep messages or chocolate ice cream. I don't.
@@gabrielteo3636 YOU are here to learn what good and evil is FOR YOURSELF. You are responsible for your choises and decisions. It is up to you to learn the difference. There is no teacher or priest or book which can do it for you. No amount of useless questions will help you. You will be judged by your own deeds.
Free will doesn’t exist so this entire discussion is moot
@@alena-qu9vj "YOU are here to learn what good and evil is FOR YOURSELF." Seems like good and bad are subjective. I decide what is good and bad. I agree with that.
Frankl saw meaning despite evil. Nothing can exist without its opposite. It's the structure of the world. If a benevolent God wanted it to be like this, I don't see a paradox.
An omnipotent god could make good without evil
A benevolent god wouldn't want evil for any reason
@@drsatan9617 How can you make good without evil?
@@MS-fg8qo an omnipotent being can do anything. Or it's not omnipotent
So God might have good reasons for allowing unspeakable suffering to occur, he just won't tell us what those reasons are.
You would think that a book containing his revealed word might address this, but it doesn't. The closest thing we have in the Bible is the story of Job, where, after Job endures loss and pain, God shows up and brags how powerful he is in comparison to Job. No hint of hidden "reasons" that would convince Job that his suffering had a higher purpose.
Incorrect. If god is omnipotent, then there can be no objective reason to include suffering
Being omnipotent means that whatever he hoped to achieve by including evil could be achieved without evil
The only reason for an omnipotent god to include suffering is because it wants things to suffer
@@drsatan9617 Rereading my original comment made me realize that the sarcasm that was meant in the first sentence didn't come through.
I'm actually in total agreement with you.
The point I was trying to make was that the apologetic defense of God having reasons to allow suffering doesn't work. If he has reasons, he should reveal them to us, thereby removing The Problem of Evil.
@@dmsexton888 I'm real bad at reading sarcasm lol
The bible says we are created BROKEN with every inclination towards evil. There's no free Will according to the Bible. You need jesus in your life to save you from your evil nature
eh... according to Daniel, the actual son of man would. but Jesus clearly wasn't the actual son of man. He could've been. Assuming he wasn't a liar, then he certainly thought so. But he didn't manage to bring about the Kingdom of God on earth.
It seems to me that the only way you can say that evil logically excludes the possibility of God is to point at certain instances of evil and say that they are unnecessary, and therefore the sort of evil that a good God would never allow. But this reasoning is circular. You're simply assuming that the evil you're witnessing is unnecessary, but that can only be true if there is no omnipotent benevolent God, so you must assume that such a God doesn't exist in order to say this evil is unnecessary and therefore God can't exist.
Now, you- like me- may agree that much of the suffering we see does seem to be totally unnecessary, and most probably is totally unnecessary, and therefore there most probably is no such God, but that's not what we're saying. We're trying to logically exclude it, and we cannot do that without being circular.
If there is an omnipotent god, then all suffering is unnecessary
Since whatever it hoped to achieve by including suffering could be achieved without it
@@drsatan9617that depends entirely on how you define omnipotence. If you Define omnipotence as the ability to make Square circles or stones so heavy he can't lift them, then yes you are correct, and God can simply poof into existence anything he wants in absolutely any state. But if it is the fact that God limits himself within this universe to following The Logical principles that govern this universe presumably so that creatures such as us can make sense of it) then any number of so-called evils would be absolutely necessary to arrive at a place where human beings could evolve to have a relationship with God. If God is a deistic sort of god, who simply set the laws of logic for the universe and arranged its initial state so that it would evolve in the way that he planned it to, then all the stuff that happens in the universe is necessary ( according to the laws of physics as he set them for our benefit) to arrive at specifically this point in time, which presumably God wanted us to arrive at for whatever reason. Why would God want creatures such as us specifically? I don't know. It would be impossible to know that without simply asking. It's like asking someone why they want to have a pug instead of a Great Dane. It's just because they do. Beings don't have to have logical reasons for Desiring things.
Couldnt pain and suffering is wat motivate us to act in the world? i mean like feeling hungry is kinda like a mild form of suffering in order to please our needs. Its just when we get stuck in our desires sh.t might turn into Evil. And for me the intuitive sense of morality is knocking on to our souls to act responsibly in the world. But i guess who is listening?
Was gonna say exactly this, totally agree. If everything is perfect, there's no reason to act at all. But the world is bound and rules by certain universal laws, maybe that's part of what God is, which if you don't follow, you'll probably die. But why is death a thing aswell, why not live forever? Same problem, what reason would you have to do Anything at all.
what about a hermit with no family friends who dies of a disease in a cave? who does that motivate?
or what about a random deer who is killed in a forest fire with no witnesses. who does that motivate?
@@tameshrew469 a hermit chose that lifestyle, maybe it will motivate people to take a different path. The deer got unlucky, but surely that will keep other deer motivated to avoid the fire, and some humans will be motivated to help them, by preventing man made fires or giving care to individuals affected by the fire. If there was no fire, what motivation would anyone have?
Basically any cases that inspire you are of people overcoming hardships, since they're a reality of life and those cases show that fighting and believing can have positive outcomes
@@tameshrew469 you could even ask that about cancer, what motivation does someone dying from cancer give anyone else? Well, for one living a healthier life, although that's not 100% effective, but what about people trying to come up with cures? Is it not motivation, even if it's for the money, it still is motivation.
@@duarteleonardo8352I'm sorry but that has to be the most stupid line of reasoning I've heard all year😂. So 10,000 people starve to death daily due to drought, famine diseases and this is supposedly motivation? Huh
So what would you tell a rape victim who was perpetually grasped for 3 decades?
It appears that the old saying is true, it only takes religion to make the most intelligent and humane of us to say and do the most wicked and foolish things 🤦🏿♂️
You are sad
The problem of evil can be exceptionally strong when using evangelical ideas of God.
God is good by his nature.
God is all powerful.
God is all knowing.
Before creation there was only God
This type of God is a direct contradiction as they have created a world where evil can and does exist.
It is no different than a god creating a object he can not lift. Or him causing an unstoppable force to run into an immoveable object.
Such a God's existence is a contradiction. The only way to escape the contradiction is to change what God is believed to be.
Only God is good
The creation is a juxtaposition by necessity as God cannot recreate himself.
But why was it necessary?
If anything is necessary for a god then it's not omnipotent
Anybody not considering the subjectivity and relativity of our perception of "good" and "evil" just doesn 't know what they are speaking about - neither their audience.
@@alena-qu9vj id argue you could give objective definitions of good and evil. Good is anything that provides for a person, but not at the cost of another person.
Evil is taking from another person, without consent.
There will be caveats, but you will always have caveats.
@@fettbub92 Yua are a SUBJECT, everythihg you say is subjective by definition, there is no way around it. Is it so difficult to understand it?
Your "definitions" are just funny, they are not only not "objective" but you would hardly find even a broader consensus for them. Is it evil to take a piece of bread from a person overflowing with food for a starving child without consent?
@@alena-qu9vj yes, it is evil to steal to eat, because it is without that person's consent. Sure, there can be reasonable exceptions, context matters greatly, that is where many subjective standards and exceptions are found. Not everyone agrees on the same exceptions, but they all agree taking from another without consent is an issus to address. Humans arent the only species that do this.
To address your rather interesting first point, why engage in discussion then? Why debate if there isn't an object to settle? Why seek answers, if there arent any? Sure, there are the subjective answers we all have to find for ourselves, but there is more to that if we wish to live together; unless you are clinically anti-social, then this conversation is just an exercise in mental masturbation.
I have seen some comments and replies along the lines this doesn't prove god doesn't exit or disprove god. Two issues. First the claim is god of Christians is all good. That 'god' does not exit. The reasoning is its a contradiction. Every god that is claimed to be all good when descriptions of that god is not all good can not be true. Second is important for any actual theologians here. When presenting your claims, points, reasoning you need to keep in mind that you cant take for granted your idea being universal understood. You often take your reasoning to be universal but it is not. Its faulty not grounded in logic but what you feel about a "thing" is right. Replace your reasoning with generic x, y, and z and see if it pasts the most basic logic proofs. This is why anyone who watched Matt Dillahunty for a week can make you frustrated with issues like problem of evil. No one needs to disprove your all good god. You never proved it. No one should believe it without that basic proof. Even if you had reasoning and evidence enough to prove a god you haven't proved it is all good. It cant be assumed god is all good by default.
Do you really take for granted that God has the same definition of "good" as you - that is if you can present any consensually accepted definition of good anyway. Or in other words - do you think your definition of "good" is better than that of God?
@alena-qu9vj you make the claim not me. If you point to the bible for what is good that is using your definition of good. I am going to point to the evil crap in the same source to point out the contradiction in saying that God is not all good.
You didn't read the second issue or it went over you. If you want to make a logical point, try it out as proof, not what you think sounds right in your head.
If you have some other god that is all good than the ones presented go ahead. If God is good by some other definition because 'how wpuld I assume his good is my good', you would need to show it exists. That line of thinking doesn't flex like people think it does.
@@pfc_church Where did I point to the Bible pray? No use in a discussion when you discuss with yourself, not with what I say.
@alena-qu9vj you haven't pointed to anything. That was at end of my last comment.
Stating how am I am assuming what is good to god? I am not. I never did. You are assuming in this. I am responding yo the claims made by those pointing to those gods. You can't seem to grasp that. As for some god that is all good based on what they think is good....ok that is not Christian biblical god. You have to have evidence for that god other wise it doesn't exist.
What you are saying is no different then debating the real ethics of 40k warhammer. Actual worse because 40k has lore. You are just blowing smoke at the moment.
I have never assumed any god is anything but responed to peoples claims about a god. I have never seen or heard anyone make a claim of an all good god by any standard we have. Go ahead and try if you want.
Is "evil" the right word? It's suffering of the innocents, be it by free will, or dumb bad luck.
The problem of evil doesn't disprove God's existence. The Bible supports that by his design/permission evil exists for God to destroy it.
I don't think you followed the argument then, if he did design/permit it, then he can't be all good.
If god knows everything then he knows the future. If he knows the future then it has already happened. If it has already happened then I have no free will. If I have no free will then I can not sin. Where's the flaw in this layman's argument?
That doesn’t line up.
Knowing does not mean determined. A grand chess master knows my moves 20 moves before I do, but it doesn’t mean I am not free to make those choices
Your argument is as follows:
1) If God knows everything then he knows the future.
2) If God knows the future then it has already happened.
3) If the future has already happened then I have no free will.
4) If I have no free will then I cannot sin.
5) Therefore, I cannot sin.
The first problem with this argument is that you haven't offered any justification for any of your premises.
There are two other obvious problems with your argument, but I will let you defend your argument before I point them out.
@@Sir-Chancelot So what? How does that mean god doesnt know exactly what any chess player will ever do?!
It is such an airtight argument in my opinion. So please keep trying to knock it down. A few chess players is not even close as an answer.
I see the flaw in the very undersanding of the word "future". Future from the God's angle of view is nothing static and definitive - it is just a bunch of possibilities and you create your future by your choices. We must never forget that we operate with words and words alone are not the real reality. God doesn 't answer for our making and your understanding of this word.
Knowing does not equal determined. Knowing the future does not mean it already happened. I know I have to go to work tomorrow, but the draft I must write is not already written. I know I am going to die, but yet I live.
The so-called "problem" wouldn't exist were it not for the claimed attributes of the theists', mainly Christian, God. To me the universe appears to be entirely God free.
Good overview, but you neglected to bring up Satan, which is the usual apologetic response against evolutionary arguments, since according the Bible none of that bad stuff happened before original sin.
For a start it’s a stupid question. So totally dumb it’s not even worth discussing.
Every now and then (and I haven't seen it all that often) someone will come along in a comments section and say something to the effect that the problem of evil only makes them believe in God more strongly.
It's usually upon considering those who never stood a chance in life, or those who've done a fair bit of culpable damage and appear to have gotten away with it. I don't really know, but I get the impression it's from some of the younger commenters.
Anyhow, who's to say that this sort of apparently paradoxical reaction, apprehension, intuition or insight (or whatever you similarly want to call it - if you're sympathetic) is not an authentic, profound "full-beinged' response?
The skeptic or atheist or any unbeliever of course. They will deconstruct it and, like sucking all the juice out of an orange, declare the remaining pulp and skin to be nothing more than naive emotionalism and lack of logic. They will probably look into their book of fallacies and throw in something like the fallacy of credulity.
And those skeptics/atheists unbelievers etc with an axe to grind will probably not be able to resist implying "Who are you going to believe: me or your lying heart and mind?"
1. “Evil exists so God would bring about the greater god”.
If God is the greater good than which nothing greater can be conceived, then it is a contradiction to suggest that God wants to bring about a greater good.
2. If God allows crime so he could bring about greater goods like (crime fighters), then it’s absurd and circular reasoning to use the existence of crime fighters to justify the existence of CRIME.
Why do evil exist ? Maybe God wants to bring about greater goods.
Why must greater goods exist ? What’s the essence of having the greater goods ?
In any possible world without evil and the greater good, would that reduce the status of God ?
@forall1796 Great points.
The neverending irony of meat eaters attributing moral wrong to animal suffering. Also, when Joe talks about "the many ways God could have created..."; it's not clear on which modality he's talking about.
I think Alex is vegan but I could be wrong
Joe was alluding the the gods alleged omnipotence, which would mean that it had infinite different ways to have created anything
Atheists have all these arguments and questions; read the Bible, God has answered them all. You may have to spend some time and really read the WHOLE Bible, but the answers are there.
If evil exists,what is your standard of good?
How far down does the abyss go?
@@t2nexx561 it's turtles, all the way down.
Understanding of good cannot exist without contrast to its opposite, bad. To then say the existence of good cannot be without the existence of bad is a non-sequitur.
@@kevinjin3835 true and interesting but i was wondering what good is it if nobody can even feel it? Like if there were no sentient being to feel anything meaningful or to even ask the meaning of it all, would it still be possible for meaning to exist? Not to say many including me question if there is any meaning even while we do exist to question it.
@@kevinjin3835 if God is the standard of good then evil exists. But if there is no standard of good ( God) then evil is a nonsensical idea. We know in our hearts ( because we were made in the image of God) that evil exists,therefore we know God exists,but as the Holy Bible says ( just read Romans chapter 1) we are suppressing th3 truth in unrighteousness.
There is no evil, all is inherently good
It’s such an atheist thing to say, to debate the idea of evil
So then god was wrong all those times he mentions evil in the bible
@@drsatan9617 depends what you mean by god, sounds like you define god very narrowly, to respond with that
@@jacksonelmore6227 the god of the bible
@@drsatan9617 god transcends the Bible, yet you’d insist
@jacksonelmore6227 not seeing how that's relevant. You're clearly talking about the biblical god
So you're saying that god was wrong all the times he mentions evil in the bible
The bible isn't his inerrant word?
I recommend watching a video by IMBeggar titled ON God, A.I., and the Problem of Evil, it’s a good video explaining why God would need to create a world with free will and why evil exists
If a god needs to do anything to achieve a specific outcome then it isn't all powerful
@@drsatan9617 God is all powerful but limits his power through giving us our free will. If we didn’t have free will we wouldn’t be able to carry out our entire purpose on this earth, which is to have a relationship with our creator, this is all explained better in the video I recommended. If we didn’t have free will, things like love, our thoughts, and good deeds wouldn’t exist. We would just be robots void of emotion and although we would do good, it wouldn’t be recognized as good as we would be incapable of doing wrong.
@@wavyariocha3100 he decided upon our purpose and felt the need to give us free will when it wasn't necessary for him to do so
Does god lose something he objectively needs if we don't have a relationship with him? If not, then insisting upon us having a relationship with him and making evil suffering possible for no other reason than to facilitate something that isn't necessarily is malevolent
We could have free will without the ability to choose evil. Unless he objectively requires us to be able to choose evil, and if he does, then he's not all powerful
@@drsatan9617 You’re right God doesn’t need to have a relationship with us. But when he first created the earth and mankind he did not intend for us to go through the suffering we go through and all the evil of this world. God gave Adam and Eve the command of not eating from the apple, with our free will we chose to go against him and eat it anyways. Through eating the apple from the tree of knowledge we then admitted sin into the world as we would be knowledgeable of all the things we could do. The earth was supposed to be a place void of all the suffering and sin and that is why after judgement day it is said that God is going to restore the heavens and the earth and life will be the way God intended it to be. We can’t have free will without the ability to choose evil, that wouldn’t be true free will.
@@wavyariocha3100 if he didn't intend for us to suffer, but it happened anyway, then he's neither all-knowing or all-powerful
Was it necessary for him to forbid the fruit? Or put it there in the first place? Would he have lost something he objectively needed if he did neither? If so, then he's not all powerful. If not, then choosing to do both when they were unnecessary and led to suffering is malevolent, and in either case, the god is unworthy of worship
If god didn't want us to get that knowledge, he shouldn't have put the tree there. He apparently knew we'd eat from the tree and get the knowledge before he even put the tree there, but blames us for his own failings
He made us how we were and put the tree there, knowing with 100% certainty that both would lead to the existence of evil and suffering. So it's all his fault
Are there any other meaningless and illogical platitudes for me to effortlessly refute?
I researched gnosticism and I'm almost fully convinced that the God of the Old Testament is not the same God of the New Testament. Yahweh, the God of Israelites, is recorded in history as a Storm God and if you take each miracle performed by him, a Storm God would be able to perform, considering the occultists from Egypt managed to also turn the water from the river Nile into blood, the power of lesser deities can change this material world.
Also, since Satan offered the whole world to Jesus if He bowed to him, that means that Satan already managed to control every other human except Jesus. So my question is, who stops Satan from changing the Storm God's story to be the real God's story, if Satans controls all humans except Jesus, he could have written whatever he wished, he's a deceiver after all, wouldn't this be one the Greatest deceives imaginable? To trick all christians into serving a fake God?
I would argue after the coming of Jesus, he lost the power to stop humans from writing about Jesus, the Son of the ALL Loving God. I argue that the Father of Jesus has not shown Himself directly to humanity yet. I agree with the NT and I acknowledge everything from Jesus's story as truth, but I cannot see the OT God as all loving God, due to many exterminations of innocent people.
Also, I think it's contradictory to say humans had true free will before eating the forbidden fruit from the tree of knowledge. If humans truly had free will, could have they done any sin or have any ill intent? I think humans need to be able to think evil and choose to not do it rather than to not be possible at all. I always found it infuriating to know that I have to experience all my suffering because of 2 humans I never even met in person. Is this divine justice? To have the whole world in torment for the actions of 2 other humans? How can anyone EVER justify the suffering of innocents because of 2 wicked people? I love Jesus and the NT God and I hate the OT God like no ever hated anything in their life. In the OT I see too many contradictions, lack of morals and wickedness equal to other fake Gods during that era. I wish I could've believed the whole Bible, but I can't, I never could come to a good reasonable conclusion in my own terms.
God doesn't have free will.
Once I become and win the victory, I will accomplish the central desire, becoming God. I will then decide.
Evil is the same as God, both are a product of the human mind.
Evil doesn't exist outside the human mind but we have observable evidence for one universe which appears fine-tuned for Life. For me, that points towards a Mind behind it all.
@@briansmith3791 I do find the idea that the entire universe (which is incomprehensibly vast) was created and fine tuned purely for our benefit to be rather optimistic. Of course the consensus of world experts in the various fields of cosmology and biology etc also do not accept "God" in any of their scientific hypotheses or papers. Which is more likely? God created the entire universe, or Mankind created God?
@@philharris5848 I'm not a theist. I believe the universe was created for the purposes of the Mind - New information via intelligent Life. Science can't say whether there is a Mind or not, the personal beliefs of scientists depends on their worldview. Yes, Mankind did create the Abrahamic God; universal fine-tuning precludes any such 'God'. There can be no physical interference in the universe, ruling out the Gods of Religion.
the existence of evil is the result of free will. sure god could force a perfect loving world but that would make us all just perfect heartless robots. love would mean nothing if it wasnt freely expressed by choice.
So is there free will in heaven; if so, according to you there must be evil in heaven.
@@maggiebarrett7300 there doesnt have to be evil. free will just allows the possibility and we freely choose to indulge. i doubt there will be evil in heaven though because its a place for people who dont want to do evil
@@didickcheeseburger Well if there is free will but no evil in heaven, then your initial assertion that “evil is the result of free will” is false. And if “heaven is a place for people who don’t want to do evil”, why doesn’t a supposedly ‘loving’ god just create those who “don’t want to do evil”!
Kay ya but I go with the thinking that free will doesn't on its own make someone do evil. So whatever other factors are involved are God's fault if you'll excuse my saying so. To go into more detail if what makes the person do evil is his or her own evil nature then why did God make the person evil? Or if it's something outside the person that influences the person to do the evil thing then that's God's fault still isn't it? I dunno
@@maggiebarrett7300 You come to heaven only if you are mature and do good from your own free will - so there must not be evil in heaven. You learn to excersise your free will rightly here, on Earth, thats why the evil is here.
May Allah guide you fellow human
PoE is only a problem if you posit a goodly god that can communicate with us
Ya but who seriously believes in any other God?
@@George-ry6iw it's more that I don't think we'd definite other entities as 'God'
Using the same logic the existence of beauty love and goodness shows there is a good God.
beauty is in the eye of the beholder, there are different forms of love, and goodness is subjective.
@@worldwithouttime I will allow people to decide for themselves.
No, that doesn't follow. The correct inversion would be that the existence of beauty, love and goodness shows that a purely evil deity doesn't exist.
Yeah… no
No it doesn't
huh, how?
He’s an Arsenal fan…..enough…I believe him
Evil exists so I can enjoy scaring it away.
The difference between good and evil can be understood with a circle. The bull's eye of a dart board is good. The rest of the dart board is evil.
And God can't do a thing to change that.
That's how the problem of evil is solved: you need to drop one of three omnipowers of God.
I just want to ask a simple question. Is math still objective if god exists and 2+2 does not equal 4 for god?
The basics of math is simply objectively existing amounts of things. I have an amount of fingers on one hand, an amount on the other, and an amount in total. It doesn't matter what language you use to describe it, it will be the same amount. Does this g0d have a learning disability?
@@TheHuxleyAgnostic LOL nah, just the followers maybe do. I just hear all the time that objective morality does not apply to god and to me that is like saying 2+2=4 does not apply to god.
Denying the existence of God is just another way I express my being mad but not angry at God.
@@gristly_knuckle ???????? what?
@@macmac1022 to really not want God to exist is foolish; yet, the way I am required to believe in God insults me.
Islamic answer is the one with the most sense.
Evil exist because of free will. This life is basically a test for the afterlife. If you're good, you go to heaven and if you're evil, you go to hell.
This also explain why good people have a hard life and died earlier while evil people have better life in general. It's a God test for humankind for you to deserve your eternal punishment/reward.
That doesn't explain pointless suffering. Or animal suffering.
That answer doesn't really change the problem of evil. The only way to make the Islamic god make more sense if he loses one of the three qualities the Christian god has: omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence.
Free will clearly doesn’t exist so Abrahamic religions can’t be valid
@@michaelbuick6995 It explain it. In Islam, there's no such thing as pointless suffering. In the grand scheme of thing, it's just a test to see how strong their willpower to do good is.
For animal, they were excluded from any kind of test because they aren't human. Their suffering is just another test for human itself.
@noobeginner9838 That doesn't explain it. What about 2 year olds dying of untreatable cancer? That doesn't test anyone's willpower, since they are toddlers they don't have any, nor does it test ours since it's untreable it's beyond our power to do anything about it. It achieves nothing. It accomplishes nothing.
And your rebuttal to animal suffering is nonsensical since it ignores animal suffering that occurs when humans are not around to see it, which is most of it.
If you remove God then you still have evil and then you are stuck defining evil so there must be an objective standard either way outside of mankind.
Ffs...
The Problem of Evil is the atheistic equivalent of Pascal's Wager. It's an absolute garbage argument.
God has sufficient reason for evil to exist.
I can see how god can have reason to allow his creations to suffer, but if we define evil as “against gods nature” then can he create something that’s against his nature? You may say evil exists only in the created world not in his presence, but A: he’s omnipresent and B: how did he conceive of evil in order to create it in the world?
Because God has a dark sense of humor & doesn’t care about your fake morality.
Whoa man lay off on the edge juice
I see "Satanists" as just as weak as the rest of the followers of Abraham, as they all believe God is DIVIDED INTO GOOD & EVIL... and they all worship sin.
My divergence in Theism & theology is I do not believe in the concept of "EVIL & SIN". I believe in the True unity of the ONE TRUE CREATOR.
The ONE true CREATOR
has nothing to be jealous of,
For all existence is an extension of his being.
All words are HIS WORDS.
ALL NAMES ARE HIS NAME.
ALL THINGS ARE HIS THINGS.
GOD IS NOT DIVIDED.
GOD IS INSIDE US.
I am the BRIGHTEST NIGHT.
I am the DARKEST LIGHT.
... & I AM ASCENDING.
You're a loony
There are multiple sufficient responses to the problem of evil. If you don’t like them or don’t feel they’re emotionally satisfying that doesn’t mean they don’t work. His claim ignores the existence of eternity. If God does away with evil and then you’re in eternity without it then the existence of evil is mathematically essentially 0. His claims also assume Gods goals. Soul building, maximizing greater goods and Gods glory all work as well.
“His claim ignores the existence of eternity”
What claim are you referring to?
It's not just emotional problems it's like it just makes way more sense when you look at it from the side of its all just random chance then there is no good and evil there just happens to be one state of affairs which is convenient. But if there's God then either he doesn't love everyone or he's not all-powerful otherwise it just doesn't work man
@@George-ry6iw How does "random chance" make more sense in explaining everything required to get living beings who have the capacity to experience suffering?
Why is there something rather than nothing? - random chance.
Why did the universe begin to exist? - random chance.
Why is the universe life permitting? - random chance.
How did life evolve from non-living chemicals? - random chance.
How did consciousness arise from unconscious matter? - random chance.
Random chance doesn't satisfy any of the conditions required for the existence of living beings that can experience suffering.
The first two conditions I'm somewhat skeptical of. But I don't think it's out of the question for random chance to produce life. The consciousness part too is a bit tricky but that doesn't necessarily require a conscious God. But I kind of feel like we've strayed from the problem of evil. Evil is opposite of good sure but I don't think we need God to have a concept of good. Good is just like the way things should be from a human perspective so it works out but if you step out of your humanity and see things big picture there is no absolute good and evil. But I am not saying that nonsense a bunch of people say about "oh, good is relative" no, good is about loving what's right without considering yourself. I'm a very moral atheist, sir
@@George-ry6iw There seems to be a bit of a contradiction in your response.
You claim that: "...there is no absolute good and evil".
But you also claim that: "I am not saying that nonsense a bunch of people say about "oh, good is relative"".
But if there is no objective morality then morality is subjective (relative) by logical consequence.
You also claim that: "Good is just like the way things should be from a human perspective".
But then you also claim that: "good is about loving what's right without considering yourself".
But the way things "should" be is a matter of subjective opinion if there is no creator of human beings who intended for human beings to live and act a certain way. So you would have to consider yourself in defining the way things "should" be since that is nothing more than your subjective opinion.
It is absurd to divide people into good and evil.
People are either charming or tedious.
Oscar Wilde
I guess the Judge is charming.
Who can even tell something is wrong? What? You’re crazy. God made a mistake? He didn’t just give you the opportunity to reincarnate in Hell to earn a bigger eternal reward?
Bad argument against God's existence.
The problem of evil is a problem only if God claims to be good , and we have to know what it means when he claimed to be good to say there's a problem of evil , so it is a theistic discussion .
And It is pointless for an agnostic-atheist to care about this unless you're an idealist and affirm there are absolute truths , absolute moral for example , my first question would then be to prove it .
It's not an argument against gods existence. If you want to concede that your god is not all god then it could still exist
Human are egoist bunch of goon who think everything in this world revolves around them. Cat be like “meow” and Fox goes…what did the fox says?
Its a false dilema. If bad stiff happening means God doesnt exist, what does it mean when goof stuff happens?
Also a parent will allow there child to undergo a painful medical procedure, if it means saving the child life, and it doesnt make the parent evil. Bible says Gods basically doing the same, tempirarily allowing evil in order to cure sin
It's not a false dilemma. It doesn't say he doesn't exist
It says he's either not all good or not all powerful
Failable humans cannot be compared to omnipotent beings. That's a false equivalence logical fallacy
An omnipotent parent can save the child without pain or better yet, create a world where lives are not in danger
9:08 “God could’ve created the world differently without suffering, and I can think of it, therefore it’s more possible that naturalism is true.” WEAK SAUCE; if God is all knowing and all good, you already concede that he can think of a better way than you can, and it would be for the highest good. If you keep intact God‘s attributes this argument of you imagining different scenarios is invalid from the get-go. Yes, God could’ve done differently, but he knows best therefore shush. This argument doesn’t even make Christian theism flinch at all.
‘We would expect God to create the world in a softer way’ what? Who would expect that you maybe I didn’t expect that. Why are you speaking for all of us as if it’s apparent it is not.
So you're saying he isn't all powerful?
If he knows what's best and is omnipotent then he can achieve what's best without including evil or suffering
If he can't then he's not all powerful
If he can but chooses not to then he's malevolent
There cant be any objective reason to include evil unless the god isn't omnipotent
@@drsatan9617 What if suffering and evil being here is the best outcome? If you concede God as all knowing then the argument is over. You may be able to imagine the world to be better without evil and suffering but if God is all knowing and all good you're just wrong. You disagree with our current reality which is okay but, you also aren't omni anything.
@@Nrev973He created heaven, and there won't be evil or suffering there, so your argument fails
If the best outcome is a worse outcome than the conditions he lives in while he possesses the power to make better dimensions like heaven, then he isn't all powerful
Now, if you are saying that he had no choice but to include suffering, then he isn't all powerful
If god is omnipotent then there are infinite different ways to make a world better than earth
Theists are such shallow thinkers
@@drsatan9617
Just because heaven is without suffering and evil does not mean the material world has to be identical. And besides Genesis already accounts for this, read your Bible bud. God made the world perfect, humans fucked it up.
Again if God knows best because he literally knows everything, every critique would be like an ant criticizing a rocket scientist before the rocket is even finished. The ant cannot comprehend the mind of man, God is infinitely greater in knowledge so your criticisms fall flat if you truly take the these attributes seriously. You can disagree with God permitting human evil and think it’s dumb but that’s irrelevant when the entity you’re criticizing literally knows EVERYTHING.
It’s easy for us muslims. We don’t believe on an all good god. Our god is called the most good, since he allows evil to test us in this life. I think the problem of evil is more of a Christian problem compared to other major faiths.
Then Allah must not be all knowing. There is no reason to test anyone if you already know the outcome
@@drsatan9617 he doesn’t straight punish people by saying “I knew what you’ll do thus I’ll punish you” he wants us to be witnesses upon ourselves and acknowledge that whether we deserve punishment or not.
@@1sosukeaizen1 I didn't say anything about punishment, and you didn't address what I did say
There's no point in any tests if you know everything
He already knows if we 'will be witnesses upon ourselves'
@@1sosukeaizen1 and if he wanted us to be that way, it's in his power to make us that way
If we don't live up to his standards, then it's his fault, since he already knew we wouldn't before he even made us and could have made us in such a way as we would but chose not to. Making it his fault, not ours
@@drsatan9617it flew over your head, he’s not testing us to know the results for himself. That’s the point!! the test is for us to make a choice, know that we made the choice and be responsible for it.
Another video marching past the 'a supernatural realm with supernatural beings exist' claim without so much as a backwards glance.
I keep saying this... Could you imagine if science and engineering worked this way.
The biggest red flag for these God claims is... They are always fought in philosophy and not science.
And I keep saying this - could you imagine if the verily human qualities - i.e. those qualities, which differ us from mechanical artifical intelligent robots - worked the "scientifical" way? All your "scientifical" brain is seemingly not able to apprehend the fact that "science" has no right to rule the entirety of the human life, which consists of many immaterial but still very pottent phenomena - such as emotions for instance.
@@alena-qu9vj God created everything and is monitoring everything but is silent in science and engineering. Odd, won't you say?
One thing man has learned through the centuries... We absolutely suck at intuition.
Why should God intervene to prevent suffering when there are plenty of hands and feet to fix the problem. Are we just pushing off our responsibility onto sky Daddy to fix our problems? I think there are plenty of ways for a God to be good and there have lots of evil if youre creating people and giving them a mandate to be good and its on them if they dont listen. I dont think evil disproves God just maybe the Christian God. I dont believe in a God but I dont think the problem of evil is really a problem.
He has made you so that you will eat. Your eating is an act of destruction. No matter what you eat, death happens. God did that. I am his excuse. And I feel fat.
@ShawnsGaming Please help me understand your perspective on this. When an antelope is eaten alive so that the lion can survive, that processes involves suffering. You say that there are plenty of hands and feet to fix that problem, so how would you suggest people eliminate that animal suffering?
@@chad969 Animals dont count?
@@ShawnsGaming79 God created animals and they were even saved by being put onto the Ark. What do you mean they 'dont count'? Does Christianity deny the value of Animal Life? May I kick a dog? May I murder a dog? Are such acts permissable by Christianity? If not, why "don't animals count"?
@@ShawnsGaming79 Humans are animals.
As a non-Abrahamic true monotheist.... Yahweh is a desert war God of hypocrisy, not the ONE TRUE CREATOR. I don't believe in evil. I don't cenceive the ONE TRUE CREATOR to be "good". Good is a subjective observation.
Bad exists... which is a subjective observation. Evil implies that GOD IS DIVIDED. Evil requires for a CREATION of GOD to be imperfect.
AN IMPERFECT CREATION can only come from an imperfect CREATOR.
Creation is the complete expression of pure FREEDOM. In which, there is the latentcy for every possibility & probability within CREATION.
BAD & EVIL are often conflated.
Evil & sin are a conceptual construct created by Religion.
"Bad" is a common experience shared by all subjective perspectives. (Ppl)
The common, inevitable experience of "bad" is co-opted by religion, which then juxtaposes their perception of SIN over it, in order to control the masses through mass psychosis & mass Stockholm syndrome....
By using the artificial projections of Sin & Evil as tools to convince SENTIENT SINGULARITIES to lend their DIVINE SOVEREIGNTY unto SYSTEMS and ESTABLISHMENTS which insidiously abuse this Gift to then forge chains of servitude to offer back.
Those in POWER know that EVERYONE IS A FRACTAL EXTENSION OF THE GOD-HOOD.... And they do everything in their power to make sure we the ppl NEVER learn this....
The perception of a SENTIENT SINGULARITY (ppl) is the jewel of CREATION.
Our consciousness is an extension of the OMNI-CONSCIOUSNESS.
Every quanta of (our) experience fuels the life stream of the OMNI-VERSE.
Morality can only exist in someone's mind... which Inherently makes it subjective...
objective reality does not superimpose its objectivity on a subjective mind which objectively exists.
A mind objectively existing does not interfere w the fact that the minds perception & perspective is RELATIVE.
THERE IS OBJECTIVE REALITY.
HOWEVER, ONES PERCEPTION OF THAT OBJECTIVE REALITY IS SUBJECTIVE.
I AM THE BRIGHTEST NIGHT.
I AM THE DARKEST LIGHT. ❤
As a Christian, I think there are three families of argument for the problem of evil: logical, evidential, and emotional. The first two are not such a big problem, but the third is always harder to deal with.
Not necessary for his being, necessary for creation of anything not God.
Juxtaposition proves omniscience as self negation of the actual infinite one is logically impossible.
Why is it necessary?
If something is necessary for a god to accomplish anything then it isn't omnipotent
An omnipotent god can accomplish any outcome without any of its prerequisites
If we want to achieve X we must do Y. An omnipotent being could achieve Y without doing X. If it can't then it's not all powerful
If X isn't necessary to accomplish Y but the god does X anyway knowing in advance that it would cause suffering then it's malevolent
@@drsatan9617
Put it into physics, what was needed to occur for the universe to expand out of the singularity. Space(negation) needed to occur. Was space necessary for the singularity ? no, the singularity is the juxtaposition to space.
So for you to exist apart from the singularity a juxtaposition was created by necessity for you, not for the singularity.
So negation becomes an expression of omnipotence not the failure of it. The impossible logically speaking, negation within a singularity is the evidence of omnipotence.
or you can say you are the singularity. which is not true because you have parts , measure and finite energy.
And this also proves the singularity is good, because the negation of itself allows for your existence. unless you think your existence is evil.
@@Christus-totalisAn omnipotent god, could make the universe expand without needing an ything
If something is necessary for a god to do anything then it isn't all powerful ,
Ok God doesn’t exist who’s responsible for evil now ?
and start thinking in another word, the God of the Bible is the one who name it evil but, God doesn’t exist right !
No one is. It's just a sad fact of life
@@drsatan9617 that’s a crazy way to live not having a real basis because now everything is a matter of opinion that eventually will bring caos and division like no other !
Problem of evil is actually Good argument for God
A good argument for an evil god, sure.
Abd Isaish 45:7, that's right in line with REAL Abrahamic theology
@@I-am-Hrut IF THAT'S GOOD ARGUMENT U AGREE ,THEN ATHEISM IS DEAD
It's an argument for a god who is either partially malevolent or cannot help but allow evil no way around that
@@Yesunimwokozi1 SO YOU WORSHIP AN EVIL GOD?
Another sped up video. Unwatchable.
Bro does your brain work in slow motion? Btw you can set the speed on 0.75
@@CarlosMagnusson07 nope, it just doesn’t like watching the philosophical equivalent of Alvin and the chipmunks. RUclipsrs have started this habit of speeding up their guests video, to cater to 12 year olds who can’t watch anything without a game feed displayed underneath.
@@Jules-hn6unit's not sped up. He's actually on meth
@@phillystevesteak6982 😂
This conversation is assuming the axiom of absolute, objective morality.
Why wouldn't it. I don't think anyone of any character can hold a view where rape is good.
Such a person is insane.
@@jacobgingerhoffman7816 for one... appealing to subjectivity does not prove objectivity. 😂. I can think of someone who thinks r@pe is great... Yahweh... as he commands his followers to steal, r@pe & kill from non believers... in the Bible. Proof right in front of everyone.
@@jacobgingerhoffman7816 a seemingly homogeneous subjective perception does not somehow transmute into Objectivity... no matter how many subjective perspectives agree on an issue or not... 😂
@@jacobgingerhoffman7816 Yahweh approves of grapes ... proof in the Bible where he commands his followers to grape, steal & k ll from the non believers. 😂
@@jacobgingerhoffman7816 If Yahweh made man....
In his image, w his heart....
& Yahweh breaks his own commandments...
Then by virtue of perfect CREATION, not only should Yahweh NOT punish his creation for breaking his commandments, HE SHOULD EXPECT & rejoice in his CREATIONS breaking his commandments.... because what is good for the FATHER is good for the SON.
OTHERWISE, Yahweh proves himself to NOT BE the ONE TRUE CREATOR.
Yahweh can break his law all he wants... but at the moment he does, he proves that this law is not ABSOLUTE or objective.
Yahweh breaking his own law proves he is not the ONE TRUE CREATOR.
The ONE TRUE CREATOR has the power to enact his will w out breaking his own laws.
The ONE TRUE CREATOR is the primordial source of intellect & wisdom and would lead by example, not by hypocrisy.
The ONE TRUE CREATOR has no need to make commandments. I realize that you have relinquished your divine sovereignty unto the theology of Abraham... and you would like to see me do the same to justify your decision. But I retain my divine sovereignty as I declare that ALL creations have direct access to the ONE TRUE CREATOR.
ALL words are God's words. For there is no sound uttered without the empowerment of the breath of life from the CREATOR.
ANY sentient being which makes demands or commands proves themselves to NOT BE the ONE TRUE CREATOR. for the ONE TRUE CREATOR has the power of CREATION.... & with such, has no need of demands.
Creation is the expression of pure freedom. The ONE TRUE CREATOR would not place artifical limits, such as arbitrary demands externally... he would build those limits into the structure of CREATION ITSELF, such as the "speed of light".
Yahweh is not the ONE TRUE CREATOR. IT IS NOT HIS CREATION.
The Actual ONE TRUE CREATOR has nothing to be vengeful or jealous of, for ALL THINGS ARE HIS. That Yahweh is jealous & vengeful is more proof that he is NOT the ONE TRUE CREATOR.
JESUS spoke out against the broken Theology of Abraham, and his followers killed him for it. They could not eradicate his story, so they integrated it into their dogmas in order to manipulate the masses into relinquishing their DIVINE SOVEREIGNTY unto the church.
I do believe in the Christ Consciousness. But I do not capitulate to distortions of it imposed by Followers of Abraham. And my perception of Christ does not require the approval or validation of your perception... just as your perception does not require the validation of mine.
The actual ONE TRUE CREATOR requires NOTHING FROM YOU. Every CREATION that we as CREATORS extend is a testament to HIS GREATNESS. CREATORS CREATING IS HIS WORSHIP, accepted. 😂😂😂
Followers of Abraham are a blood cult of Sin Worshippers.... who use sin to manipulate CO-CREATORS into relinquishing their DIVINE SOVEREIGNTY unto the church, using mass psychosis and mass Stockholm syndrome, through the dogma of the broken theology of Abraham.
The ONE TRUE CREATOR is UNITED, NOT DIVIDED. ♥
If there is such a thing as "good" that is real and absolute, there must be basis for what is good. An absolute basis for good is one of the attributes of God. Therefore, the tip of the spear, "if God is good", is non existent. The supposed problem of evil is rendered impotent due to the fact that the premises assume God in order to say there is no God. These types of arguments are why, even if I did not have a personal relationship with Jesus, I could never be Atheist.
If I understand correctly, you’re saying that the premises in problem of evil arguments assume the existence of good. And since good can only be grounded in God, therefore they assume the existence of God. Can you clearly state which premise in the argument assumes the existence of Good? It looks like you quoted part of a premise (“if God is good”) but please quote the entire premise, not just a part of it. I’m going to show you something.
The problem of evil doesn't conclude that there is no god
Just that if there is one, it's not all powerful or not all goof
@@drsatan9617 The problem is just a problem, it does not conclude anything. The answer to the problem of evil requires evaluation of the nature of goodness and the current state of the lack of goodness. If God exists then an explanation seems due to square the omnipotence, omniscience, and goodness of God with the reality of evil. Establishing "good" is prior to offering an explanation to the current state of affairs.
@@OneofHisFollowers incorrect.
It concludes that god is either not all powerful or not all good
What explanations do you propose?
Animals do not "suffer" in any morally significant way. I would be very interested to know what experiment has proven, to most experts, that animals suffer in a self-conscious way.
do babies suffer in any morally significant way?
I don't see why something has to suffer in a self conscious way for it's suffering to be morally significant
What experiment has proven that animals don’t suffer in any morally significant way?
The notion that animals do not suffer, and even if they did suffer their “suffering” somehow doesn’t count, is one of the most repugnant things I’ve ever heard.
And the idea of “proving” that animals suffer is so arrogantly hypocritical. There is nothing I can do to prove to others with 100% certainty that I am not just a thoughtless meat computer. We can only observe each other’s behaviors, not our experiences, and then give each other the common courtesy of believing we are each sentient due to that observed behavior.
Animals can behave in a manner that is similar to a human experiencing immense suffering. Thus, animals most likely have the capacity to suffer, end of story.
@@tameshrew469
We know that babies are people with self-awareness, even if this capacity is not exercised at this stage of life. Therefore, it is at least as morally repulsive to harm a baby as it is to harm a sedated adult.
I feel you are misrepresenting the Christian idea of evil and why it exists in the world. Creation is in a fallen state, the existence of evil was not the original plan. Suffering may have existed, but not outright evil.
Eve did an evil thing in eating the fruit. So evil was there before the fall because it took an evil act to bring about the fall.
I can’t speak for everyone, but for me this seems sort of like a cop out. We have a being (God) who exists eternally, outside of time, and who creates the whole universe and every moment that will ever happen within it, all from that eternal perspective. Yet somehow this eternal omnipotent creator is surprised by the emergence of evil? Somehow evil wasn’t part of the divine plan? How is that possible?
A response might be that we need to go through suffering and evil to build up our souls in some way. But if the creator was omnipotent from the start, why not create people in such a way that they wouldn’t need to be tempered by experiencing evil in the first place? Surely there’s no suffering in heaven, right, but despite the lack of suffering and evil that experience is probably meaningful in some way?
I think that when people go far enough down this path we eventually get to ‘it’s a mystery’. But that *also* feels an awful lot like a cop out. If I wrote a book that claimed to explain why evil existed but there were massive holes in my explanation, then I don’t think anyone would find my handwaving the holes away by saying “it’s a mystery” satisfying. Why should the writers of the Bible get a pass here if none of us would be allowed that pass?
If it's not part of the original plan, then god is not all knowing.
Remember the argument is that god is either: not all knowing, not all good, or not all powerful.
If the plan didn't go according to his way, he wasn't all knowing.
If God real why bad thing happen
Y'all got it all wrong. Before the Fall, there was no evil and suffering in the world. Evil and suffering were introduced because Eve listened to a talking snake (OK, I see the contradiction there), convinced her husband to eat of the Tree and thus sin, and God, showing mercy on them by not outright killing them as she said she would, instead punished all of creation forever but it was still Adam and Eve who introduced sin and evil to the world--OK, this makes no sense to me, but that's because I am using my pathetic human mind to try to understand something that's beyond human comprehension because it comes from the infinite mind of God. So there. It was Adam and Eve's fault.
I tolerate your perspective, even though I don’t know what’s real in your life, judging from your view of thr original sin.
It doesn't seem fair two people could affect the whole world, does it? It would only take one man pushing the button and he could destroy the earth. Yes, it's unfair that people's actions can affect others regardless if it's their fault or not. But sadly things just work like that. Take care
There is an argument that you can't blame the ignorant for disobeying when they didn't understand the full scope of what they were doing until after the act. It's also interesting to me the argument that God knew all along what they were going to do. After all there was in the garden a Tree of Life which would be entirely unnecessary unless the fall was coming and death was going to become a thing.
@@mmoreno7137 Moreover, it was God herself who put the damned tree in the garden in the first place. Bad God. Bad. More seriously, I wonder if, say, Jewish scholars today understand what the original Hebrew authors were really trying to say with this story. I'm certain the Christian version is a retcon to rationalize Jesus' otherwise meaningless death.
@@gristly_knuckle This actually isn't my view. Though I'm being a bit facetious, I'm paraphrasing the actual view of some fundamentalist Christians: a simple transgression resulted in all that is bad and evil in the world. I think it's sick.