Friendly reminder to speak respectfully in the comments! Its more helpful to focus on arguments than addressing others' motives. Thanks everyone for engaging.
I don’t find the moral argument particularly problematic for theism, nor do I consider fine-tuning to be a strong argument for it. Perhaps I’m not sophisticated enough in physics to find fine-tuning convincing. As for the moral argument, I don’t find it convincing or a strong argument against theism because it depends entirely on our subjective evaluations of what is good, bad, right, and wrong. However, if theism is true, then good, bad, right, and wrong are objective truths, meaning our subjective assessments are independent of the reality of those truths. That is, for the moral argument to be a problem for theism, it seems we mus assume that objective morality does not exist and theism to be false. The best argument for God, in my view, is the ontological argument by Anselm, not because I want to be contrarian. 😂 However, as an atheist, there isn’t any argument or experience that has convinced me of its truth. Question! Gavin, do you personally believe that not eating animals (except for the need to survive) is more virtuous than eating them? Considering not only animal suffering but also the idea of paradise before the fall of man, it seems to me that not eating meat aligns more closely with the way God intended for humans to live, in a state without sin?
Please consider doing more long form content on subjects like this! There's so much to take in, and we need more time and break down. I know your time is precious, but even the occasional long video would be helpful!
Well before the emergence of humanity, angels were entrusted with the stewardship of creation, serving as caretakers, managers, and authorities to govern according to God's established plan, though their control was not absolute. Humans are not the only creatures God created, but due to the vastness of space, we will not encounter these other beings on Earth. The Morning Star, an angelic leader, oversaw this celestial government across the universe, operating under God's authority. The Bible indicates that this angel held unique authoritative privileges not shared by most other angels. An interesting aside is that during the temptation in the wilderness, Satan offered the world to Jesus because he genuinely had the authority to do so. Jesus was aware of this, which is why the offer posed a genuine temptation. The reason Satan has not been deposed yet is that, in my belief, God made a promise to allow Satan to rule over creation for a specified period. Despite Satan's fall, God is honoring this promise. God is not unaware of the consequences; He knew that if Satan were to fall, creation would unfold differently from His original intention. However, God is never without a plan. When it comes to suffering, certain types can lead to a potential greater good, while some suffering is intended to be destructive (from the dark side), and other suffering occurs by chance. It’s important to understand that once a person dies, their spirit is restored to a non-afflicted, stable state, free from any mental, physical, or emotional consequences of their earthly experiences. At that point, God can access the memory of each individual’s life-from birth to death-for the purpose of judgment. You cannot deny your own thoughts or feelings during that time, as they originate directly from you. As for the suffering of animals, while it is difficult to witness, it is ultimately a temporary condition. If animals are resurrected (which I cannot confirm), I believe they too will experience renewal. If they are not resurrected, it is indeed harsh, but ultimately it will not matter in the grand scheme of things. Some of the above is supported by scripture, but the rest is from my understanding and pursuit of God. I would probably fall under the Angelic fall theory.
Well before the emergence of humanity, angels were entrusted with the stewardship of creation, serving as caretakers, managers, and authorities to govern according to God's established plan, though their control was not absolute. Humans are not the only creatures God created, but due to the vastness of space, we will not encounter these other beings on Earth. The Morning Star, an angelic leader, oversaw this celestial government across the universe, operating under God's authority. The Bible indicates that this angel held unique authoritative privileges not shared by most other angels. An interesting aside is that during the temptation in the wilderness, Satan offered the world to Jesus because he genuinely had the authority to do so. Jesus was aware of this, which is why the offer posed a genuine temptation. The reason Satan has not been deposed yet is that, in my belief, God made a promise to allow Satan to rule over creation for a specified period. Despite Satan's fall, God is honoring this promise. God is not unaware of the consequences; He knew that if Satan were to fall, creation would unfold differently from His original intention. However, God is never without a plan. When it comes to suffering, certain types can lead to a potential greater good, while some suffering is intended to be destructive (from the dark side), and other suffering occurs by chance. It’s important to understand that once a person dies, their spirit is restored to a non-afflicted, stable state, free from any mental, physical, or emotional consequences of their earthly experiences. At that point, God can access the memory of each individual’s life-from birth to death-for the purpose of judgment. You cannot deny your own thoughts or feelings during that time, as they originate directly from you. As for the suffering of animals, while it is difficult to witness, it is ultimately a temporary condition. If animals are resurrected (which I cannot confirm), I believe they too will experience renewal. If they are not resurrected, it is indeed harsh, but ultimately it will not matter in the grand scheme of things. Some of the above is supported by scripture, but the rest is from my understanding and pursuit of God. I would probably fall under the Angelic fall theory.
I’m an atheist and it’s really nice to see a channel like this who work out atheist arguments. Rather than just calling the athiest they are talking about stupid and whatnot. I can also say the same for atheist channels out there. There’s a lot of negative ones. I think that’s why I like Alex So much. He’s respectful.
Why is it so difficult to say that CS Lewis is wrong about animal pain and suffering? Some people still hold that animals don't even have emotions! To anyone who has worked with animals, the idea animals have no pain, suffering, or emotions, etc., is absolutely asinine, is it not? ... Orca pods have thier own languages, cultures, play, and have seggs for fun. ..Sounds like sentience to me!
Wow, this is a really good explanation of a response to the problem of evil. I have always sort of tried approaching it from a Best of All Worlds perspective and it always fell short, thanks for turning me on to this argument
I think this argument of angelic fall causing creation to fall resulting inexorably in animal suffering (among other things) is actually still congruent within the context of God still choosing the best of all possible universes (eventually, after restoration of all things), and that the two explanations are not in conflict. Not that you said they were, it's just that your comment made me ponder...
Despite what other commenters think, I actually really like O'Connor's argument. It seems pretty solid, but there are quite a few solid responses to it as well. Alongside your response, Michael Jones (Inspiring Philosophy) gave a response to this issue in his video about animal suffering which I thought was very solid. Merry Christmas and God bless you, dear friend!
Is this the IP response that animals go to heaven? Not a good response at all, the bible clearly indicates that god doesn't care about animals at all, alongside that pointless suffering is still unexpected no matter how much 'heaven' is offered. On that argument you have basically rejected the notion of morality entirely. Also doesn't account for hell
@@francisa4636 Notice how Christians conveniently ignore Ecclesiastes 3:18‐22 "I said to myself with regard to humans that God is testing them to show that they are but animals. For the fate of humans and the fate of animals is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and humans have no advantage over the animals, for all is vanity. All go to one place, all are from the dust, and all turn to dust again. Who knows whether the human spirit goes upward and the spirit of animals goes downward to the earth? So I saw that there is nothing better than that all should enjoy their work, for that is their lot; who can bring them to see what will be after them?""
@@francisa4636 why, have you read the Bible? It would seem not since Jonah 4:11 reads, 'should I not have compassion on Nineveh..in which there are more than 120 000 persons... *as well as many animals?'* and Deuteronomy 5:14 which has one of the ten commandments no less giving domestic animals a day off(!) and Deuteronomy 25:4. as for hell you should read the relevant passages taking them absolutely literally without addition or subtraction and you won't have a problem
@@I-am-Hrut there's no reason to 'ignore' it since its absolutely true. see also Psalm s 'his spirit departs he returns to the earth in that very day his thoughts perish'. In fact , Paul writes an entire chapter on the issue ie 1 Corinthians 15
@@stephenglasse2743 “This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’” There are many contradictory passages in the bible, in context of the problem of evil you have to explain the massive amounts of pointless suffering and the passage you cite doesn't really do that does it. In fact as far as I'm concerned it just highlights yet another contradiction in the bible
No doubt your content in someway also influences your audience, since in no other youtube channel have I seen a more respectful and positive comment section when engaging with arguments. This is what I picture when imagining christian virtues.
Merry Christmas Gavin! I’d never heard of you until a few months ago but am really appreciatiing your content. Thank you for promoting respectful dialogue rather than making assumptions and attacking others of differing opinions. The world needs less of that and more of your approach, in my opinion.
Great video. I never understood why the problem of evil is viewed as a refutation of God's existence. I have not studied philosophy but I always thought that the most the problem of evil gets people is that God might not be Good. Not that he doesn't exist. I loved the discussion on Cs Lewis and Tolkien's view of angels and creation.
As an atheist who did study philosophy, you are right. It's not a refutation. And surely no atheist says it is. But we can say more. And Joe Schmid (Majesty of Reason) says more in response to Cameron, discussing the very same debate. It's certainly generated a lot of content. Atheism is more likely given the problem of evil. Bob Ross Bayesian bars. It's good fun. Joe has a sense of humour.
"the most the problem of evil gets people is that God might not be Good. Not that he doesn't exist." I agree, although an alternate conclusion is that childhood cancer (or whatever "evil" you wish to offer as an illustration) is not evil. Either option is rarely advanced by atheism. Although I have recently seen some college students trying to argue a related argument, that objective moral truth does not exist (therefore whatever "evil" you offer as an example is not *actually* evil, but rather a *socially constructed* evil). I think it's a sound argument if you're an atheist, but they generally are laughed at and badgered into silence.
Now the question is, why does all creation suffer for the sin of Adam. Is that fair and just? I am asking in good faith and not seeking argument. I have to mention this because some people take questions as an attack. This is one of the questions that has challenged my believe in Gods goodness.
@@somemedic8482 I dont see the suffering of creation as a punishment from God because of Man's fall, I see it as a direct consequence of Man's fall. Adam had dominion over creation and He betrayed that. He betrayed creation. Now I personally Genesis as a mystical, eternal truth and not necessarily an origins story. But I think the point is, Man is not independent of nature and his actions have direct consequences. Either way you see it, whether mystical or historical, creation suffering is not simply an arbitrary judgment cause by God. And I think that is true of all of God's wrath actually. The suffering and punishment is brought on by the consequences of the perpetrators own actions. The herion addict hasnt been cursed by God with the hell of addiction for punishment of his drug use...he is trapped in the hell of addiction precisely because of his action of injecting herion.
@@somemedic8482 In Adam we were given dominion over this earth as little gods upon its face and even in our fallen state we've conquered the sea, the sky, and all other feeling beings. Is it fair? You do not want what is fair for you under the sight of a Just and Holy God.
Gavin, this is my first ever RUclips comment, but I wanted you to know how much you and your channel have meant to me over the years. You are by far my favorite RUclips channel right now and I look forward to all your posts. We need a voice like yours right now to cut through all the noise. I also would love to see you and Alex debate or converse sometime soon! He by far is the agnostic I find most thoughtful and insightful on their side right now. With that said, I really don't see the force of this argument against theism. Your fallen angel defense is new to me, and as you say somewhat surprising and complicated, but I will definitely look into more. With that said, I'm not sure one must concede that nature is currently broken, fallen, or cruel. Does the Bible claim this? As a theistic evolutionist, when I study the finely balanced ecosystems we find in nature and, even as the atheist admitted in their argument, how evolution has led to the creation of humanity and the world we now find ourselves in, I am not convinced that it is evil, cruel, or incompatible with God's goodness and order. The Bible is clear that the carnivores expect their meals from the Lord, and so I do not agree with Alex that an all good God would necessarily create only herbivores. Also, there is a biblical argument that eschatology precedes soteriology, meaning that God creates a good world but not necessarily a perfect one. All creation, from the beginning, points forward to the culmination and glorification of something better. There will be a day of no natural disasters, no animal or human suffering, no even potential for evil or choosing to rebel against God's goodness, but that day was not in Genesis 1 and is not now. We may not be living in the best of all possible worlds this instant but we are in the best of all possible stories/narratives of redemption and God is not done with His creation yet. This is a kind of greater good defense but I believe it is logically and biblically valid. Finally, what I don't understand is that Alex thinks animal suffering is a greater problem than human suffering. I thought most philosophers and theologians already differentiated between human evil and natural evil (which is more like chaos than actually being considered evil or unjust). Just my thoughts. Thank you Gavin for all you do! Praying for you and Alex!
thanks for the comment and sharing your thoughts! Glad to be connected, and I appreciate you watching. You might also find interesting the video and article linked in the video description; God bless!
So good. You can't look at the fine-tuning (as in physical constants) in isolation. Fine-tuning would also include finely tuned moral sensibilities that make us perceive animal suffering as a problem! Thank you for this, Gavin.
The juxtaposition of these arguments implies conflict. But is there one? Doesn't the claim that all suffering, especially animal suffering, is wrong also assume fine tuning of some sort. If not physical constants, then moral sensibilities?
I have no cogent answer to why God allows animal suffering. Shoot, I have no convincing answer as to why God allows ANY suffering! However, God allowing suffering is VASTLY different from the following: There is no God since there exist suffering. One thing that people forget is , God can do as he wills. And we don't have to agree with it . Nor do we have to like it. But our disagreeing or disliking what God does or allows ____that will not make God an unreality.
Bascially Alex is arguing "God wouldn't do it that way". One of oldest arguments which is found in Job. " God wouldn't allow a good man like Job to suffer unless Job condemned a big sin." God asked Job where he was when He created the universe. The atheist problem of evil is they see evil everywhere including in God but not in themselves. They are blinded by their own pride. Most atheist define "Evil" as something they don't like.
Doesn’t God define it that way as well. He doesn’t have a legitimate problem with slavery, but based on the Bible, throws a hissy fit on the topic of homosexuality
@@js1423Sounds like you're the one throwing a hissy fit on the topic of homosexuality and projecting it onto the almighty because you don't like what He has to say about it.
@@signposts6189 I would say using reactionary language like "abomination" kinda shows an immature person. When a human uses dog-whistle words like that, I usually just dismiss them. Why would I treat conceptual or paranatural beings any different?
(7:17) Angelic fall theory: Wow, this really takes the theological gymnastics to a whole new level. You're suggesting that creation had already "fallen" due to angels before humans were even created? So, sin didn’t actually enter the world through Adam? Death and suffering were already present before the so-called "fall"? This completely undermines the foundational Christian theology of Paul, who explicitly ties the origin of sin and death to Adam (Romans 5:12) and builds the entire atonement narrative around the idea that the "first Adam" brought sin, and the "last Adam" (Jesus) atoned for it. If this "angelic fall" theory is true, then Paul’s theology collapses like a house of cards. Christian theology was already convoluted, but this takes it to a new level of incoherence. You’re essentially making Paul’s central argument moot-and with it, the entire premise of Jesus’ atonement. At this point, it’s not just weird-it’s outright self-defeating! (15:23) The Earth as a Prison for Fallen Angels: Wait…what? So now this physical world is being described as a prison for fallen angels, and humans were created and placed inside this prison, almost guaranteed to fall prey to these angelic beings? Let’s pause for a moment-how does this fit into any concept of a loving and just God? Imagine deliberately creating humans, fragile and prone to suffering, and placing them in a cosmic prison filled with malevolent entities. That’s not love-that’s the premise of a dark dystopian novel! And referring to Thomas Aquinas’ claim that angels are part of the universe doesn’t make this any better. If angels are part of creation and yet are responsible for “breaking” it, how is this different from saying God created a chaotic and destructive system by design? It just keeps digging a deeper hole for theology. To hear intelligent humans in 2024 talk this way about angels, fallen beings, and cosmic prisons is… fascinating. But not in the inspiring sense-it’s more like watching someone double down on medieval superstition, trying to retrofit it into the modern world. Sad, indeed.
Shh, it's christian fanfic. Just let it happen ;) I kid. Gavin is obviously reaching well beyond the realms of even his own paradigms. It just shows he's not being critical.
@@eshoosca You’re asking me, an atheist, about sin and evil? Fair enough-I’ve wrestled with these questions before. I used to be a 'born again' Christian for most of my life, but now I’m 100% certain-yes, 100%-that there is no God. From that perspective, all the things we call "suffering" are just inherent to life. If you value existence, you accept suffering as the price you pay. Life can be summed up as resources, grazers, predators, and parasites, with some species managing to live in symbiosis. That’s it. We’re just lucky to be at the top of the food chain, though even that doesn’t make us invincible-parasites can wipe us out just as easily. But human relations? That’s where we have a choice. There are people who take and people who give. Which one are you? For me, faced with a cold and indifferent universe, I’ve chosen to see beauty-not just in the grandeur of the stars but even in the chaos, the flaws, and the stupidity of the world around me. I try to make the most of it. I grab every opportunity to grow, to learn, to teach myself something new-whether it’s drumming, singing Coldplay’s latest Christmas song, or even developing a framework to explain the universe. And when I choose to give, to mean something to someone else, I experience a fleeting glimpse of happiness. That’s all there is, friend. That’s all there is.
@@theGuideMarkII Dr. John Walton's commentary on Genesis fits with what Gavin is saying too i.e. Adam as the priest king presiding over a garden temple to in effect minister and assist creation. And Paul speaking in Romans says that through one man sin entered the world not that he invented it. Creation is subject to futility and decay but even in the later passages we see this happened in stages not solely in Eden, for instance with the rapid escalation of violence leading up to the flood and the separation of languages at Babel afterwords. It's an ongoing fall anyway.
@Jim-Mc This is certainly an imaginative take, blending biblical interpretation with speculative narratives that almost sound like they belong in a Tolkien novel! While such stories can be fascinating to explore, they highlight a common issue with biblical interpretation: the tendency to overlay creative frameworks onto ancient texts to fill in gaps or make them resonate with modern sensibilities. But let’s take a closer look at what you’re saying: Adam as a priest-king presiding over a garden temple to "minister and assist creation." This sounds poetic, but where in the Genesis account do we actually find anything resembling a "priest-king" role? The text describes Adam as a caretaker of the garden, tasked with tilling the ground-not as some grand, spiritual intermediary. These interpretations often project meanings onto the text that simply aren’t there. As for Paul’s commentary in Romans, it’s worth noting that Paul was writing centuries after these texts were composed, in a cultural context steeped in Greco-Roman thought. His theology, particularly about sin entering the world through Adam, reflects his attempt to tie Jewish narratives to his Christ-centered message. But the Genesis account itself doesn’t align neatly with Paul’s framework-it never explicitly states that Adam’s actions introduced death or decay universally. That’s an interpretation, not a fact. The idea of an "ongoing fall," with decay and futility gradually escalating, is also interesting but doesn’t align with how ancient cultures thought about sin and suffering. Genesis is a mythic narrative, not a historical or scientific account. The notion of sin being an "ongoing" process, expanding through events like the flood and Babel, seems like a creative attempt to reconcile contradictions in the text with the moral dilemmas these stories raise. Instead of trying to retrofit elaborate metaphysical structures onto these ancient texts, wouldn’t it be more honest to recognize them as what they are-myths and allegories reflecting the worldview of their time? They weren’t written to be a cohesive explanation of universal decay or sin but as stories to make sense of human experience and communal identity. At some point, we must ask: how much of this interpretation is grounded in the text itself, and how much is being invented to smooth over its inconsistencies? If you strip away the creative storytelling, what remains?
You have such interesting topics, things that I don't even think about Merry Christmas to you and your family Dr Ortlund. May we find unity in the beautiful gift Christ gave to us.
9:23 I don't see how this solves anything. Now you have to prove the existance of angels/demons AND still describe why God couldn't intercede on behalf of animals to prevent them from any harm. This is a bad argument.
@@Lurkspur I personally struggle with this argument and know many people who just deny that animals actually experience suffering. The comment definitely added to the conversation in my opinion.
How do we justify that the angels were part of creation in this way and also take into account Colossians 1:16 where he says Jesus is the fabric of the universe holding all things together?
Of all the apologetic channels I've come across, you are by far the most in touch with the pressing issues facing believers in our time. You don't focus on the low hanging fruit. You engage with the best and the brightest from the other side (in a consistently charitable and intellectually rigorous manner). I commend you for this. As a Latter-day Saint, I thank you for enriching my understanding of both Protestantism and the intellectual side of traditional Christian beliefs.
Always appreciate your work, Gavin! It seems to me that the angelic fall theodicy *could* work to assuage believers' anxieties about suffering, but it wouldn't have as much force within the larger framework of the debate; seeing as the initial conditions of creation (presumably at the big bang) were such that the unfolding of life follow along the evolutionary path that necessitates suffering. There appears no abrupt change within the continuum of nature to evidence a 'break/fall' due to a spiritual rebellion. Thus, this would need to push the fall of angelic beings into a pre-temporal state.
Hey Gavin, what do you think about another common critique by Alex: That christianity is so common in certain places and almost nowhere to be found in large places with millions of people. This seems to be explained physiologically and not the work of a God who loves all.
I've been thinking about making a response to that point. Essentially, I don't think the unequal distribution of Christianity is at all surprising given theism. Theism allows that we are influenced by our environment. God uses indirect means (like a Christian family, or a missionary) to spread his knowledge. But I need to go back and listen to make sure I have understood the full weight of the objection.
Here is my tuppence. It is a terrible argument and laughably bad. Here are the reasons why; 1) That is true only if you think that everyone that reports such things can or does accurately report how many Christians there are. 2) It hasn't always been as it is now so that's fallacial reasoning imagining that now is always. 3) It assumes that the spread of faith is somehow opposed to working through people and minds which it clearly isn't. So basically his argument is that everyone is not a Christian and Christianity can't be spread by people.
Scripture itself says the spiritual influence is promulgated through human cooperation, wherever the Word of God and Christian living is, comparing it to spreading seed and plant growth.
4:13 "It just seems to me more intuitively plausible" I've noticed that, with great regularity, Alex and Joe Schmid fall back onto this type of statement after laying out their framework for whatever they are arguing. It's a very slippery sort of statement, but the psychological plausibility is ultimately what their beliefs rest on. I dont think this should go unnoticed. The reason being, at this point one has to check their presuppositions and see if there is any basis in their worldview to trust their intuitions and plausibility meter. This becomes very difficult to do the second you step away from divine revelation and into the world of blind pitiless indifference.
It’s fair to critique reliance on intuition, but the same standard should apply to claims of divine revelation. How do we verify the plausibility of *your* intuitions or the reliability of divine revelation without appealing to circular reasoning? While 'blind pitiless indifference' may challenge naturalistic intuitions, they can be grounded in evolutionary and psychological frameworks, offering consistency without requiring divine intervention.
I found a watch, I'm unsure why someone made it, how or when someone made it, I can guess of course... but the far heavier burden would be to convince me NO ONE made it, even the atheist has to admit such a proposition is daunting.
Fine tuning is not the gotcha some think. It strikes me as a big concern for theists too - like, why would a God make a universe that demanded such a narrow set of parameters? Does that mean that God is subject to those laws? If so, why? It’s impressive to us as humans but not to a deity. For example, imagine that there was a village only accessible by a single train line. You can’t reach it by road, on foot, by helicopter or water. And you arrive and say to the person at the inn “You’re not going to believe this but we arrived by train”. Does the inn keeper’s jaw drop in wonder? Is he impressed by your creativity? So apparently we now know there was only one way to make the universe and that’s how God did it. Not so impressive is it? Especially when you then throw in all the inadequacies - 99% of all life ‘created’ has died out, there’s animal suffering, the Earth is unsettled with earthquakes and volcanoes etc. Now it seems less impressive that God made it and more like he’s weak - no wonder we have all the problems, God was incapable of doing it differently because of fine tuning.
Assuming fine tuning is the epitome of megalomanias. ”If things were just a little different humans would not exist.” So? What would humans be the ultimate goal of everything? Think of all the wonderous things that cannot exist in this universe but that could exist if it was different. Besides, ”fine tuned for life” seems very much an overstatement. In an unfathomable large universe we know of one place where life exists. That’s negligible. You can drop humans in a thousand billion billions random places in the universe and they will all die instantly, every single one. Is that fine tuned?
@ To be fair (and you know that I’m unconvinced by fine tuning) the science part is that a small variation of just one of four constants means the universe doesn’t exist. So it’s not that *this* version of the universe doesn’t exist but another one where we’re all lighter or breath CO2 instead of O2 does. It’s that with a small tweak the Big Bang happens and everything flies so quickly there’s no planets or celestial bodies just dust. But like I said, I’m unconvinced for other reasons.
I actually love Alex, i deconstructed, IM NOT ATHIEST but definitely a skeptic, but i am now actually trying to prove the existence and miracles of Jesus...i also think its weird how similar life is to how Jesus perdicted it....makes u wonder, LOVE ALEX
Great video Gavin! Was wondering if you could eventually do a video covering the historic church position/interpretations of “mortal sins” primarily from 1 John. I know that it is a big part of the Catholic system of understanding and that it is used as something of a hit to assurance of salvation/the justification-sanctification process. Keep up the great work!
5:36 To Alex’s “80 years down the road” idea, I would argue that the problem of evil, while it most likely won’t be solved (in a way that atheists accept), it at least can’t get much harder to answer. We already have been exposed to the lowest depths of human depravity, from the crucifixion of Christ tothe countless modern-day war atrocities. The argument from fine-tuning, on the other hand, has historically become harder and harder to explain as science progresses. The more detailed our knowledge of the universe and its intricate workings grows, the more explaining the anti-theists have to do to justify their beliefs. So, while neither problem will be solved, or even be closer to being solved, the argument from evil will be *relatively* closer to being solved, because if historical trends continue, the argument from fine-tuning will become harder and harder to answer.
@ my point wasn’t trying to deal with specific constants or anything like that. I simply pointed out that the more details we discover about the universe, the more detailed the explanation for its beginning must become.
I'm a traditional (Jewish) theist and to me the fallen angel theology cannot help with the problem of natural evil because it makes God into a poor designer or a poor manager. We can't pawn off responsibility for evil to the angels because God created those angels just as they are (if we take them as literal, independent beings). And God also chose how to handle their fall. Why would God create divine beings whom he knew would go corrupt? Unlike humans, there's no absolute need for those beings in our human reality given the sovereignty of the omnipotent God. Really, God can handle things, folks, all by Himself. (And this in fact is the overarching teaching of Israelite Scripture.) Even worse, why did God supposedly "imprison them" in nature? He could have sent them to a completely harmless realm. No, this theodicy keeps tying God's hands, as if He's lost control of things , but for no good reason. It's not enough to offer a theory of what happened to corrupt nature, you must explain why this was God's only or best option-or why it's not truly evil in the overall scheme of things.
@@Jim-Mc Thanks for your reply. I understand and accept the free will defense for human evil and I believe it fits with the entire Bible's portrait of the meaning of life. But the world of angels, if it exists literally, is not the human world. So why does angel rebellion radically determine the nature of life for human beings and animals? Let them live and struggle in "Angelville." I believe God could have other worlds or universes, but would it be right for what happens in a parallel universe to decide the quality of life in ours? And if God did decide to run things that way, it's STILL God who's responsible, not the angels.
@@KingoftheJuice18 in the biblical narrative Adam and Eve are said to fall into the temptation that was offered to them by a fallen angel, but I don't know that's necessarily saying that Adam and Eve could not have rebelled against God in some way without that specific temptation being offered. Ultimately what's at "fault" for evil is that God gave his creation the freedom to do something other than act in accordance to the will of God. But the flip side is because his creatures have freedom, the love that can be shared between God and his people is so much greater than what would be possible in some kind of puppet universe where God creates robots that can only follow the commands he gives them. Even God is capable of taking a greater risk in the pursuit of a greater reward.
@@harrygarris6921 I largely agree with what you wrote, but it doesn't have very much to do with what I was arguing against Gavin's idea in the video. To me it's clear that the snake (which is not identified as an angel in Genesis, but no matter) is a vehicle of God. The snake did not go unnoticed by God; it did not fool God; it was not beyond God's power. What happened in the temptation is what God wanted to happen for humans. But this isn't connected to Gavin's idea that angels rebelled and it's their rebellion that messed up all of nature-and God had no other way to handle it.
@@KingoftheJuice18 What you're describing as your view is the same as Gavin's. He is a calvinist so the angels didn't actually rebel in his worldview, God caused angels to rebel, and they are mere vehicles of his will just like everything else is. The alternative view would then be the belief that God both can and does create beings that have true agency that can act according to their own will. This grants not only man freedom, but God as well. As it sounds like under the view that you are describing, and definitely under the calvinist view, everything is subject in a very literal sense to the will of God not just at the final judgement, but in every moment. And so God is compelled to act at all times as he is unable to allow anything to happen that is against his will.
What is your opinion on veganism? When it is nowadays possible to live without animal products, is it still justifieble for us regarding Christian value ethics to consume these products and cause harm?
Only in the garden of Eden was veganism beneficial because it was perfect. My heath has improved from cutting cereal and vegetables out of my diet and eating fruit, honey and meat only
@@Swiftninjatrev I know but this verse also implies their protection. And we know from the mosaic law that it is not necessary about the content of each verse but rather the moral implications.. And since we know that animal products produce harm, shouldnt we try to use it in a minimal amount as possible?
While Alex clearly wins this argument, I am so glad everyone was respectful. His arguments dont push me from god, but definitely adds to the myriad arguments that are. Religion has sadly failed us all too many times.
His opponents didn't understand the right response to Alex's argument, which is simply that suffering often leads to good things and therefore it's incorrect to equate suffering with "evil". You can say an excess of suffering towards a defenseless party certainly appears evil but that's a much more nuanced and difficult to defend position than just claiming that suffering is wrong, and you have no firm moral foundation with such a claim. Unfortunately theists so often just grant atheists to presuppose that suffering = "evil".
@@harrygarris6921doesn't that make god a utilitarian? If hundreds and millions of years of animal suffering is justified by some greater good, doesn't that mean we have to abandon deontology?
I really appreciate a thoughtful and modest response to this problem. Coming from a science background though I was very confused by the point you made with stars and angels. Obviously our knowledge of stars and astronomy has progressed multitudes since Aquinas. Currently it seems from what we have observed that stars behave essentially identical based on their material constituents. What is the necessity of the angels and is there a difference between stars controlled by angels and fallen angels? Similarly when and how did angels impact the laws of our universe in such a way that there still was fine tuning but yet now suffering that was not intended in creation?
The Christian cosmology is that reality is not limited to the material universe, so whatever role they do have would be best explored through theology through revelation.
I feel like this fallen angel idea doesn’t answer the most basic question which is “why did God allow the sin of his creatures to spread to nature?” If God is omnipotent, then he could have restricted the spread of sin only to the sinful beings (the angels), instead of letting the resulting death spread to plants and animals like a virus. If God could not have prevented the spread, then you must give up divine omnipotence.
Very good explanation regarding the problem of suffering for animals! It's funny how atheists argue against these topics, but if they would only open their minds and acknowledge a Christian worldview, they would actually find answers to the questions that trouble them. I honestly think that sometimes they develop these arguments to push back against the belief in God but fail to examine their own beliefs. For example, let’s assume that the person arguing against God and the suffering of animals believes in evolution/natural selection. Does not natural selection involve "competition" and "survival of the fittest"? Do not these two components involve dominance, suffering, and killing? Lastly, if God doesn't exist, according to atheists, who cares? Why is this even a problem (sarcastically speaking)?
I think any brand, flavor, or scent of the question "Why is there so much suffering in the world?" can be answered in terms of eschatology. Ultimately animals will not suffer anymore as we see in the prophet Isaiah's words about lions eating straw like an ox, and all the different animals living together. This is the form of the gospel I think they need to hear the most
Hey Gavin, always love the content. My question is, you say Christian’s have always had an understanding that angels were involved in the creation of physical things. This is foreign to me since through Christ all things were made and not anything was made but by him (John 1). Thoughts on this?
I don't believe it's anywhere in the bible (could be wrong). It seems like it's mostly people's poetic answers to various issues and the creation of a cosmic order.
Some people don't see the difference between _argument_ and _question_ . Saying "why does God allow bad things" isn't an argument, just like asking "If evolution is true why people don't have tails like most of animals". It's a question not an argument. Just like so called "problem of evil" isn't even a problem, because a problem is a question that doesn't have any answers, but there are very good answer to that question about evil, in fact Orthodox Christianity exlplains it very well. So if Alex calls _this_ their "strongest" argument, does it mean that the atheists/agnostics cannot even find a single real argument?
One major problem with the Angelic Fall Theodicy is that it doesn’t explain why humans and God have the authority to harm animals. It explains nature being broken, but not why what we do to animals is good. This is why I say they don’t have minds.
Seems like Alex's 'in 80 years' experiment highlights something about his epistemology. His way of knowing permits the possibility of discoveries that would explain away the fine-tuning argument, whereas the justification (or otherwise explaining) of animal suffering lands outside of the sorts of things that can be known as he defines knowing. Which is to say that all this particular thought experiment proves is that he defines knowing in a certain way. The universe can be known, while causation of suffering can't. Which I suppose is important, because you have to define your terms, but it doesn't really add much weight to an argument.
Any way to get access to your article "On the Fall of Angels and the Fallenness of Nature: An Evangelical Hypothesis Regarding Natural Evil" for free or a more reasonable price?
Genesis 3:17 and 5:29 explain animal suffering: God cursed the fallen creation. This suffering won't exist in the new heavens and new Earth where the lion and the lamb will live peacefully together.
Beautiful set, Gavin! Very well done. One very small suggestion: i’m assuming the blue light can have its color adjusted. If you tweak it to be slight more teal, the color contrast with the orange lights will be nicer. These colors are more appealing because they are opposites. Im a nerd!
Thank you for this video. Alex is perhaps the most winsome influential atheist at the moment, and his case hinges on animal suffering. In his debate with Francis Collins, he claimed that a merciful God would have put anesthesia in lion's jaws to alleviate the suffering of the zebra. What's ironic to me is that there actually are creatures like spiders who in fact have this feature. Adrenaline and shock responses do something similar in prey. Another response to Alex is to ask him to consider the role of humanity in alleviating suffering. Why does Alex have a conscience to care for animals in the first place? It's because God's image-bearers were mandated to care for all creatures. Domesticated animals are actually in their designed state of existence. Temple Grandin and her humane slaughterhouse designs are a great example of how Christians should be proud of our relationship with animals we care for. People have dogs and other pets across times and cultures in history. Humanity working as designed to care for animals is a huge part of the answer to Alex on this topic. God bless!
I would say that Alex’s view is based on more on expansion of empathy. Christianity makes some vague notes on universal themes, but is still an exclusionary religion, like pretty much every other theistic religion. It helped in some cases (women and slaves, down the line) but it was also an opponent (also women’s and sexual minority-rights)
Your response has a contradictory flaw: if God already gave animals adrenaline for pain, such that animals don't suffer then humans don't need to help animals. But if you think the adrenaline is not enough, why would God let animals suffer and suffer, hoping humans, who in times past could barely feed our own communities, would be tasked with helping pain-feeling animals.
Oh so I guess you are a vegan too. Or do you believe that animals don't mourn their loved ones and we should only care about murdering them painlessly?
My doubt towards the angelic fall that brought suffering to the natural world is that it would heavily rely on the location of the angelic fall. If it was outside or inside creation of our world. Do we know when and where it occurred?
Disclaimer: This comment is way, way too long. Just wanted to post a write up i did for my personal apologetics notes, after watching Alex's video. These aren't lock tight arguments by any means, but the beginnings of theodocies and trains of thought on the topic. Problem of animal suffering: Does suffering outweigh the positive value of life? If a deer lives on earth for 10 years, experiences everything good a deer can experience, then dies a gruesome death, was God wrong for creating this animal? That animal likely experienced eating food, having sex, the warmth of the sun, a swim in a cool creek, bonds with kin, adventure of every day life. It's easy to ask, why would an animal have to experience suffering in life if there is a good god? Well, why not ask, if there is no good god, then why do animals experience so many amazing things in life? You would not expect that under Atheism. Alex has said that he would sooner commit suicide than be turned into a random animal. I don't think that is logically consistent. As a human, he will likely be met with plenty of suffering, pain and eventually death... so why doesn't he kill himself now to prevent all of that negative experience? We know why- because he knows his life has value (even though there is no grounding for it under atheism) and he would rather live out his life and take the good with the bad and the ugly. This is key for forming your worldview- is a life worth living due to the value of being alive alone? If so, then God was benevolent in creating all life (animals, humans, etc). I have heard Alex say that he takes the other side of that coin, he suspects that on the whole, a human experience leans negative. I think this is the source of a lot of his philosophy. He can't match the fact that he believes life for humans and animals is largely negative with there being a good god. How could God physically and practically prevent animal suffering? He would have to eliminate or alter predators (overpopulation could be a far worse evil). He would have to suspend physics (no falling trees, natural causes of death, etc). He would have to, by the power of His spirit, over-rule animals frequently to prevent them from wandering into accidents or harming each other. He would have to suspend animal's ability to feel pain, which would lead to worse evils, such as animals hurting themselves without realizing it (this is 1 reason God created pain in the first place, it is giving our brains a message and triggering an oftentimes crucial response). In theory preventing all suffering sounds nice, but in actuality it may not be practical. The problem of animal suffering is an internal critique of Christianity so we should go to the Bible to see if it's explained. In the Bible, God obviously holds animal life below human life, a simple reading of Genesis will tell you that. I believe this is because humans have souls while animals do not. The Bible teaches that the spirit is above the flesh, it doesn't glorify the flesh, it is a thing to temporarily used, overcome and eventually discarded. We (humans, including Alex) actually do the same thing, placing a hierarchy on the value of different lifeforms. We value a human life above an animals life, and we hold an animal's life above a plant life. We even hold different animal lives to be valued in their own ways. I'm positive Alex agrees that a dog's life is more valuable than an ant's. We are criticizing God for something we do ourselves. Maybe we really are made in his image. Alex likes to use the phrase "what would you expect under Atheism/Christianity and which one lines up with reality". Well, I would say under atheism we would expect there to be nothing. We would not expect life to begin. We would not expect there to be time, space or matter. We would not expect to have morality, we would not expect to have consciousness, we would not expect fine-tuning, we would not expect to even be able to trust our logical faculties. We would not expect there to be beauty or the ability to experience it. All of this evidence on 1 side, and on the other your highest tier argument is "why do animals feel pain sometimes." "Why do animals suffer" doesn't hold weight in an argument when on the other side, you have the question "why is there life, and a universe and why do we have morality to even care". The weight of those arguments don't even come close to comparison. There could be more suffering right? Why isn’t there far more suffering, explained under naturalism? Isn’t the fact that we just have some suffering, most of which can lead to higher order goods like soul building, an evidence for theism? I would also reject the premise that millions of animal species living life on earth and dying out is an inherent evil. I think that is an assumption that's made by atheists without proper philosophical backing. Let's say that there is another higher life form that comes about through natural selection millions of years from now, making human life just another link in this evolutionary chain. As a human who is here now, experiencing suffering and eventual death, should I be mad at the creator for giving me my life? If you say yes, then that is just your opinion- I wouldn't share it.
But the real problem of evil is how many Jews who died in the holocaust, not believing in Jesus, will wake up in God's eternal concentration camp called hell.
Animal death is not a problem for young Earth six day creationists. It's very simply the just result of man's sin. As far as Alex is concerned, having a problem with it?...how silly of him. His worldview can not even account for right or wrong or absolute truth claims. He has to borrow money from the Christian worldview to pay for his indignation.
Burning Question: How do you reconcile the view of animal death and carnivorous behavior existing before the Fall with the image of restoration in Isaiah 11? “They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain, for the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the LORD as the waters cover the sea.” (Isaiah 11:9) I believe this passage is speaking of the restoration to come, but it surely echoes the way life was in Eden-especially in the sense that Adam and Eve had an intimate, personal “knowledge of the LORD.” The text seems to suggest that because God is holy, the mountain is holy by proxy, and Creation itself must act in a “holy” manner as well. Another question in a similar vein: If animal suffering existed prior to the Fall, how do we justify this from the perspective of the suffering animal? I believe you’ve referenced Church Fathers who argued that the brutality of nature is somehow “good” for reasons X, Y, and Z, but I struggle with this human-centric view that neglects animals and their suffering. Many could make a similar argument to affirming LGBTQ but I reject that argument because we can’t apply that “hardness of heart” rationale to everything (e.g., LGBTQ+ matters), because those aren’t directly connected to the fullness of the knowledge of God or the restoration to come. Yet, in today’s modern world, with the ability to live vegan or vegetarian lifestyles and extend church charitable ministries to include animal activism and rescue shouldn’t Christians, led by the Spirit and filled with the knowledge of the Lord, be called to these acts of stewardship? (Example, slaughter houses: the evil there makes me want to die). These questions weigh heavily on me. I believe that Christianity and the Church have not only neglected animals but, in some cases, justified their abuse due to a flawed, fallen understanding of what “dominion” means. One last thought: I know you reference Dominion by Tom Holland frequently, but there’s another Dominion by Matthew Scully (the OG ‘Dominion’, much older) that focuses entirely on animal suffering. It’s worth considering in this conversation. I m and Eve had more intimate, personal “knowledge of the Lord”. The text seems to be implying that since God is holy, the mountain is holy by proxy, and Creation itself has to act in a “holy” manner by proxy as well. Another question in a similar vein: Please answer cause those are consuming questions. I believe that Christianity and the church has not only neglected and left animals out of the equation but have abused due to our fallen nature understanding of what dominion” is. “Mankind's true moral test, its fundamental test (which lies deeply buried from view), consists of its attitude toward those who are at its mercy: animals. And in this respect mankind has suffered a fundamental debacle, a debacle so fundamental that all others stem from it.” Milan Kundera
God is all-powerful, but He is not all-controlling. Animals also don’t experience suffering and death in the same way that we do. Humans have a real problem with anthropomorphizing animals.
At least you responded to the question. The challenge with your response is that it only adds explanatory value if you are already a committed Christian. Inventing new entities “angels” in order to explain away suffering sounds similar to the complaint that theist have against the multiverse - using some strange metaphysic as a stop gap. A couple other points: - still depends on a notion of libertarian free will, which is another strange metaphysic that will likely only be compelling to committed theists - The responsibility of animal suffering still ultimately rests with God. I didn’t understand how your response dealt with this. Regardless of the mechanisms by which evil entered the world you can still ask if it was worth it. It still seems to be a logical contradiction that an all loving all powerful god would create a world full of such suffering, particularly if animals will not be recompensed for their suffering in any way.
13:10 But surely Phil's point was that limitedness (by resources of ecological niche) and breakdown is inherent to the deterministic physicality (even in chemistry) and so to the development of the human body. It is difficult to see death below man not happening.
I'm fairly versed in physics, and I'm a big fan of this idea of angels' role in creation as agents of the order of nature. The way I imagine it is that angels are the personification of the laws of physics, or that the laws of physics are synonymous to these angels. And so, they truly are responsible for stars shining brilliantly and everything else in the universe which inspires such awe.
Hey I'm also a physics person but this was the part of the video that completely lost me. The laws of physics are incredibly predictable and seemingly completely uniform across time and space (also there are issues with observers and quantum mechanics). Does that mean the evil angels that caused suffering and the good angels that presumably also exist just work together to make sure light propagates smoothly?
My issue with the problem of evil vs finetuning is that, while the problem of evil is pointing at a logical incosistancy between God and reality, the finetuning argument is simply filling in a gap in our knowlegde with God. To me there is no reason why any specific god has to be the answer as supposed to any other explanation, and I think the same can be said in relation to the existence of the universe, morality and consciousness.
4:20 It's interesting because, ironically, both issues have been resolved by philosophers for millennia. The pre-Christian Jews had answers for both issues which are recorded--ironically--in the same book: Job. What Alex is implying is that "which issue is more likely to be resolved by SCIENCE" to which I would question: why is science the arbiter of absolute truth? Certainly, fine-tuning is more likely to be resolved by science than the problem of evil is, but, again, why does science have greater weight than philosophical and religious inquiries into the same issues?
I think something that isn’t even acknowledged is that human suffering was near on par with animal society for most of human history until the rise of agriculture. Then it slowly became better. However most of humanity was still widely suffering until the 1950’s. Yet even now alot of people suffer from diseases that don’t have cures, wars, addiction, food insecurity and everything else. So its really a question of a degree and severity of suffering, and that suffering is an inevitable part of the human experience and animal experience at some point.
I honestly have bad experiences with these kinds of questions from the calvinist persuasion specifically. Just get a God does what he wants so be quiet you don't have a say in this and God doesn't owe anything to anyone after all. Same answer i get from asking about calvinistic election so please pray for me as I do seem to feel bitter still about it even though at the very least it's true God does what he wants.
We were made to take care of animals, animals are left in our hands, we don’t take care of animals, God wouldn’t let them suffer because of us. Also, the argument is really~ “An all powerful, loving God wouldn’t restrain His love, allowing for pain and suffering to exist”. He’d be demanded to stop all pain. “God does stop all pain, but He allows it to happen for a time, so He’s not all loving”. So we shouldn’t see any pain for there to be healing love expressed.
From a biblical point of view we know that this is a temporary situation and that God will redeem the entirety of creation from suffering. Suffering shows us that the world is cursed and that we should focus on trusting Christ and being righteous so that we can share in God´s new, redeemed world that he will create. By seeing how bad sin and its effect on the world really is, God helps us focus on the new, holy world.
The fact that we can identify any suffering as natural evil, not just animal suffering, and steward the world to heal nature through protective measures and medication, shows that morality came from designed intention. If we acknowledge: Romans 8:18 about the groaning of creation, Isaiah 11:6 and Isaiah 65:25 as the unity of the animal kingdom, and Acts 10:9-15, when God reveals to Peter the purity of all animals in contrast to the Old Covenant - then it is safe to conclude that despite animal suffering, God recognizes the awe of the animal kingdom and will restore them wholeheartedly and with greater presentation. The animals that have ceased in existence, will come back to existence, with more majesty than before.
But the real problem of evil is how many Jews who died in the holocaust, not believing in Jesus, will wake up in God's eternal concentration camp called hell.
The problem is animals are innocent because they cannot rationalize a less primal kill or be killed pathway to survival . This should free them from judgment and exempt them from suffering by any rational standards of a all loving creator. Who would make innocence suffer for the sins of others ? This being said an intelligent causal,agent for the highly complex specified code found in living cells is the only reality based conclusion one can come to. Where does that leave us is the unanswerable question?
2:20 "the order seems to push in one direction, and the cruelty in another" I disagree. Ecosystems always have autotrophs (plants, algae, certain microbes that make their own food from chemicals and some outside energy) and heterotrophs (who consume other organisms for energy). Many predator and prey species on earth have evidently coevolved together in evolutionary arms races. This is also observed in real time by ecologists. What we perceive as the cruelty of nature is hard to separate from what we also perceive as ordered. Take away all the grey wolves from yellowstone park and observe what happens... Elk population booms, plants that Elks eat are scarcer... the natural order is thrown out of balance, and populations either adapt or lose ground. I'm still watching the rest of the video.
9:00 I'm not sure how that works when the Bible clearly states that the Garden of Eden was "good" (by God's standards) and it is stated elsewhere that sin = death and death shows up later after the fall of mankind. Now, there is the potential implication that death of some form existed beforehand. Genesis mentions that the Tree of Life seems to bring immortality and that removing it results in humans dying, thus implying that humans being immortal had nothing to do with whether they were sinful or not but whether they were eating from the Tree of Life, but Genesis is a CREATION account meaning that it isn't describing a reordering/organizing of animals, it is talking about the CREATION of animals, which doesn't leave room for animals to be physically corrupted by angels before the Fall of Mankind.
I find Alex's argument to be a thinly veiled assumption that science always gets answers and philosophy and religion don't. Science is more arrogantly confident in its answers, but changes with every little new discovery. It also has little to no ground at all to stand on when attempting to answer the real questions that are the bread and butter of philosophy and religion. It is the struggle and answers to the deepest questions found in the Bible that stand the test of time and will ultimately be vindicated over every human attempt to avoid our ultimate appointment with our Creator.
What about the problem of how many Jews who died in the holocaust, not believing in Jesus, will wake up in God's eternal concentration camp called hell.
Thank you for your video. I was raised Mormon and had an extremely hard time breaking away from the church. I have spent the last 7 years trying to figure out what I believe. I don't believe in a god anymore because most reasons I hear seem far fetched or honestly like the person who created the argument was scamming people. You say your favorite answer to the problem of evil/animal suffering has to do with this being a broken world due to a separation/rebellion against God. Aka this isn't how God made the world. I hope that accurately reflects what you said. I have a hard time believing this as a plausible answer. Assuming God didn't make the world like this he still made this world come to be by having reality change to this if this separation occurred. This would ultimately be the world God made under Christianity if I understand this accurately. If I am mistaken please let me know where I am wrong on this.
Some questions about the fine tuning argument. Even if we granted that the constants of the universe point to a designer, what would be the justification for concluding that this designer is specifically the Christian God? Would it be possible to conclude (or demonstrate) anything at all about who or what this designer is? How would we even begin to investigate that? All the knowledge in the Bible seems to come from some kind of "divine revelation". Would we have to find a way to scientifically reproduce divine revelations?
How about all creation is groaning to be renewed by Christ? All suffering will be ended one day.
10 дней назад
Dear Gavin, thanks for what you shared here and in your other video on this topic (Did Satan's Fall Corrupt Nature?). I am sympathetic to the solution that you propose here, although I find it difficult to harmonize with Genesis 1 account which keeps pronouncing various phases of creation “good” from God’s viewpoint. I find it hard to envision some kind of demonic activity already corrupting it, as it were, “on the go”. (Granted, Silmarillion’s narrative gives a potentially credible picture of something like that.) There is another aspect of animal suffering which I think we should take into consideration: humans killing animals for food. Given the huge scope of food industry, and the sheer extent to animal dying involved in it, this is at least remotely comparable to the suffering of animals in the past eras. But the saints of Christ, those redeemed from sin, are (mostly) not vegetarians. Neither was Jesus himself. If carnivorism was inherently evil, wouldn’t we expect at least Him to abstain from killing animals for food? And He was eating fish even after his resurrection (Luke 24:42-43)! In some other areas, he emphatically wanted to reintroduce the order which was there “from the beginning” (Matt 19:8 &c.) - but obviously not here. Of course, humans eating animals could be explained as a provisional order in the context of sin-infected creation. Gen 9:3 certainly comes after the fall, Adam was originally vegetarian (Gen 1:29). (But then, according to Gen 1:30, also all the animals were supposed to be vegetarian; this verse could only be resolved by the “Young Earth” hypothesis, which, I think, is unlikely for various reasons - unless we want to read this verse as a command to humans, which it literally is, and thus something which they should yet bring about by their corrective intervention, see below.) If the liberation from sin, which was wrought in Christ, really means abstaining from all kinds of evil (1 Th 5:22; 2 Tim 2:19; 1 Pt 3,11 &c.), shouldn’t we expect at least some hint, some preference for vegetarianism under the New Covenant? But since there is none, not even in the resurrected Son of God himself, I think we can safely conclude that eating animals does not constitute “evil” in the sight of God, at least not in any significant way at present. Therefore, we should at least allow for it to be as “unproblematic” also as a part of “good” creation before the creation of man. I am considering a different model (here, too, as a hypothesis, a proposal, not necessarily the solution): God created the natural world much like the laws of the Old Testament: it is ordered, but it is not incorruptible per se. It includes at least some forms of animal death, which then must include also some pain and suffering. This would include especially animals eating animals. Fierce and sometimes destructive natural processes seem to be used as a display of God’s power. Hence the positive descriptions of fierce beasts in Job 39-41, Psalm 104 and many other appreciative metaphorical uses of dangerous animals. Lion, especially, seems to be a symbol of God himself (Is 31:4; Jer 25:30; Ezk 1:10; Rev 5:5 &c. - a clawless and toothless one simply wouldn’t do the job here!). It is quite hard not to notice a sense of positive admiration for precisely the predatory powers of these animals. It seems to me extremely difficult to claim that God uses these creatures which would allegedly be distorted by the demonic influence in such a positive way. Thus, according to my hypothesis, it is as if God wanted to say: this is the natural order, the way things run by themselves, without grace, without the special intervention which I will yet bring about. We should carefully note that even Adam himself did not inherently have eternal life, but just as a possibility. The creation of man in the image of God was very likely with the purpose of providing and establishing the mediator between God and creation. This would supply a new “element” in the created order, that of grace and potentially of incorruption. God, who alone has immortality (1 Tim 6:16), would come close to his creation and be united to it through man. Had Adam not fallen, but rather eaten from the tree of life, wouldn’t he be like Christ, who brought (and will yet bring) healing, restoration and incorruptibility to all creation? It is precisely in this eschatological perspective that we find clear biblical affirmations and promises of the end of carnivorism (Is 11:6; 65:25). In this context, it is also noteworthy that man gave names to the animals (Gen 2:19-20), which indicates he determined their essence. Without him they were incomplete, lacking something essential, without his good, beneficial rule over them (Gen 1:26,28). As for the fall of Satan and his angels, Bible is not at all clear when exactly that happened. It might well have happened together with the fall of man. (Ezekiel 28:13 might be a hint in that direction.) Satan’s rebellion could be precisely his seduction of mankind away from God. Thus the “graceless” natural order doesn’t have to be attributed to the demonic influence. Or, if Satan’s fall did occur earlier, it might have only exacerbated the “unmerciful” state of things by bringing in extra levels of cruelty and disorder, but it wouldn’t have to be its cause and source. It is noteworthy that this “natural” order which includes pain and death is also reflected in the Old Testament legislation and some actions that God condones, if not commands. Israelites exterminating whole nations (including women and children) has a similar “feel” to the cruelty we sometimes see in nature. “An eye for an eye” certainly feels “natural”. The whole of the Old Testament revelation seems quite consistent here. Clearly, all this is linked with the image of God, with questions like: “What kind of God would allow that?” “Is he really omni-benevolent?” For the recipients of the Old Testament revelation this was apparently not a problem. But it is for us. I think our problem here is that we all (even the atheists) approach this challenge with the sensitivities shaped by centuries of Christian compassion as a core social virtue. (C. S. Lewis noticed that, too, saying that you can’t use God to criticize God.) But can this compassion really be taken for granted, as a given? Isn’t this precisely an extra, a bonus, a matter of grace? And of the new creation? What if we are erring categorically by wanting to press the value-system of the new creation back into the first creation? The latter must be therefore understood as “good” in the Old Testament sense, not according to our expectations and norms. I realize that taking this kind of logic too far would lead into Marcionism, which I completely reject. Nevertheless, I think there are clear indications in the New Testament that with Christ a new “dispensation” of grace has been launched: “For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.” John 1:17 - like they weren’t there before? “But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared” Titus 3:4 - like they were hidden before? The aorist egápesen in John 3:16 may point in the same direction, namely that God’s love started to overflow in Christ, etc. Indeed, not only a new dispensation, a new creation was launched through Christ (2 Kor 5:17; Gal 6:15). Does this mean that we are here dealing with a different God, or that God’s character has changed? I don’t think so, but it does mean that in the first creation and in the Old Testament laws only one some aspects of God’s character were revealed (the external ones?), like his creative-ordering powers and his justice, whereas Jesus brought the whole revelation of Him, which includes his “heart”: his love and grace and the possibility of incorruptibility (1 Pt 1:4; 2 Pt 1:4). The expectation of total absence of any pain and suffering is only possible in this new order of things, under Christ. This is, roughly, another model, which I find more plausible at the moment. It corresponds to an extent to the first of the four types of answers to the problem of animal suffering that you mention, but I don’t want to sound like the suffering of animals isn’t real. I only want to suggest that regular carnivorism under normal circumstances doesn’t look like an evil thing in the Bible. A deer caught in a fire is a completely different matter; these kinds of suffering could be certainly attributed to the demonic activity. Wishing you every blessing in 2025!
This might sound out of left field (and it is) but the notion that fallen angels cause animal suffering sparked my memory of a video I saw months ago on the possibility that parasites are demonic, or at least some parasites are demonic, and illustrating the similarities in possession to what certain parasites do. In a non-fallen world, there would be no such thing as a malevolent parasite (only sympathetic/helpful parasites would make sense) which would point to the idea that malevolent parasites could not have existed before the fall. If angels help form the structure of reality itself, and have limited creation power within their spheres of rulership, perhaps demons creating malevolent parasites makes logical sense.
The earth was put under Adam's domain and care. God put a connection between Man and nature. When he fell, his domain fell with him. (That makes sense. Biblically) Why would the angel's fall cause nature to fall? What is the connection between angels and nature? (Biblically?)
@@Tim.Foster123 Yes, I think it's very, very important to put all of the curse after the fall, and none of it before. Notice how Gavin in the video misquoted creation as only "good." Scripture says "very good," not good, and it's there for a reason. People who say animal suffering is very good need their heads and hearts checked.
at 18:28 in the video it sounds like you are denying that God created this world out of nothing (stuff, albeit chaotic stuff, existed alongside God when he created). I am likely misinterpreting so can you clarify your statement.
One question I have listening to this: as an Ecologist, I study a different form of structure in nature. Each species in an ecosystem affects and shapes the others and so cannot be removed from their role w/o causing in some loss in complexity in ecosystem (and sometimes leads to ecosystem collapse) One of the most famous examples includes the restoration of wolves at Yellowstone, they helps keep herbivores like deer in check so that vegetation is not overeaten which allows the habitat to support more species which eventually leads to enough cascading effects that the actual flow of the river shifts. And we as humans rely on these ecosystem services for our own communities. This leads to some important questions 1. On the atheist end, this seems to bake in the idea that the suffering of death is a built-into the structure of the biosphere, decreasing the credibility of a loving Creator of nature 2. But on the Christian side, a potential theodicy is that in order to allow for the complexity of God’s creation and to support human life, there is a necessary level of animal suffering needed to reveal God’s glory in this way. This explanation is very similar to theodicies for human suffering and also emphasizes Christian themes of order and ontology.
Good points. There are a lot of layers which include all that. Just curious on your impression of the animal world. With the understanding that some animals can live miserable lives. Do you think that on the whole, animals experience a lot of pleasure and enjoyment? What is the net enjoyment of life for a deer who has been killed in a forest fire after having lived two years?
Interesting argument. Respect for taking it on, unlike most others in this space. I do have some hang-ups; I am just thinking out loud after just watching, so my thoughts may not hold weight; or even make sense fully. I'm not sure how to reconcile this line of thinking with things like Colossians 1:16, that "all things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, were created by him, through him, and for him"- as well as Romans 5:12, that "sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin." If I understand correctly, the argument states that the rebellion is what brought sin, death, suffering, etc. into material creation, which would seem to me to contradict the narrative written in the Bible regarding these things and how they were brought into creation by Adam's own rebellion; which has implications for Jesus being the one to undo Adam's fall(if it's actually the angel's fall), thus making the many to be righteous. If creation was corrupted by angels before the Fall, but was still "Good", though not perfect, like you stated, would it not mean that the decay, suffering, and death of creation is seen as Good in God's eyes? If all things were created through and by Jesus, he would've had to have created material reality corrupted knowingly and on purpose, right? Angels rebel, sin enters creation, then Jesus creates the material world we exist within while still constraining himself to the rebellion that caused corruption- and he holds that it is still an ultimate "Good" If God is Good, and in him there is no evil, how can material creation have been created through Jesus while having been corrupted by the rebellion? Seems like evil would've had to pass through him or something along those lines (Not really sure how it would all specifically work necessarily lol). Like I said, kind of just spouting nonsense as I process the argument. Would love to hear someone else's thoughts on what I've said.
So did god create us in his image because he wanted to have relationships with us or are we an unfortunate result of angels disliking god and waging war against him?
One thing that concerns me is that, classically the fall of angels preceded the fall of humanity..( or else why would the devil tempt adam?) If it is the case that nature was corrupted as a consequence of the fall of angels wouldn't that mean the corruption of nature happened before the fall of adam?
It is a strange thing for Alex to suggest that one would self terminate if they were about to be turned into an animal as a way of accentuating the mutually shared recognition of animal suffering. If our identies were left intact through the process of changing into another species then we would not be referencing the Christian worldview. In Christian theism, there is no basis for believing that our human identity remains intact under such conditions. If I could change into an animal, the animal would no longer be "me". If it were still "me" then the universe of Christian Theism would not be the kind of reality in reference. The thrust of Alex's point turns out to bait the Christian to accept non-biblical metaphysics on the whole as a basis for rejecting the biblical metaphysic of human identity in particular. It is no surprise that one would reject biblical metaphysics once baited into accepting a non-biblical premise ...
Yes, the questions sneak in lot of un-Godly lies into the premise, and lot of brothers and sisters, as well meaning as they are, often fails to spot it... This of course includes the question of "problem of Evil" at its core, since the crux of our salvation requires us to come to grasp with the world being short of glory of God, but we are so used to learning tibits of "doctrines" that many of us can't put the pieces together to gain more coherent Christian 'metaphysics', sort to speak.
@@gaizokubanouYes, we need to do our best to know just how fully orbed and integrated our biblical worldview is and expose that the likes of Alex do not understand it. Why is he more concerned about a deer than cockroaches? We all come from the same primordial resevoir, according to the secularists, and have evolved from random, unguided genetic mutations acted upon by natural selection. What arbitrary criteria do they select to justify caring about animals more than insects?
As an agnostic, I agree that the statement doesn't make sense. To be turned into an animal is *already* to be terminated - you'd no longer be you in any way that matters. If we were to steelman the claim, I think it would go something like this: if you were to become a conscious observer with all your old memories and mental traits miraculously intact, forced to experience the first person view and sensory input of the life of an an animal, you would strongly prefer non-existence. It doesn't quite map, because you lose agency, but it solves the issue of what "changing into an animal" would entail.
I wish you had fleshed out how this view fits with Genesis 1-3. For example, what is The Fall, then? Sin already existed and entered and corrupted the world before Adam? Creation’s suffering is not due to original sin? Neither is death? If satan hadn’t fallen, would man not have existed? (Given that death is the mechanism by which evolution produced humankind) It just seems like it creates more questions than it answers. In the debate, the question is proposed as an “internal critique.” As such, I don’t think its necessary for our answer to fit with scientific theory on evolution. I think its a far more simple and elegant explanation to say that the Fall corrupted nature, and thats why Creation (animals) suffer. The question of how this fits with evolution is a secondary one, and it is not theological.
Friendly reminder to speak respectfully in the comments! Its more helpful to focus on arguments than addressing others' motives. Thanks everyone for engaging.
I don’t find the moral argument particularly problematic for theism, nor do I consider fine-tuning to be a strong argument for it.
Perhaps I’m not sophisticated enough in physics to find fine-tuning convincing.
As for the moral argument, I don’t find it convincing or a strong argument against theism because it depends entirely on our subjective evaluations of what is good, bad, right, and wrong. However, if theism is true, then good, bad, right, and wrong are objective truths, meaning our subjective assessments are independent of the reality of those truths. That is, for the moral argument to be a problem for theism, it seems we mus assume that objective morality does not exist and theism to be false.
The best argument for God, in my view, is the ontological argument by Anselm, not because I want to be contrarian. 😂
However, as an atheist, there isn’t any argument or experience that has convinced me of its truth.
Question! Gavin, do you personally believe that not eating animals (except for the need to survive) is more virtuous than eating them?
Considering not only animal suffering but also the idea of paradise before the fall of man, it seems to me that not eating meat aligns more closely with the way God intended for humans to live, in a state without sin?
Hi, Dr. Ortlund would you consider the gap theory to be a part of angelic theodicy?
Please consider doing more long form content on subjects like this! There's so much to take in, and we need more time and break down. I know your time is precious, but even the occasional long video would be helpful!
Well before the emergence of humanity, angels were entrusted with the stewardship of creation, serving as caretakers, managers, and authorities to govern according to God's established plan, though their control was not absolute. Humans are not the only creatures God created, but due to the vastness of space, we will not encounter these other beings on Earth.
The Morning Star, an angelic leader, oversaw this celestial government across the universe, operating under God's authority. The Bible indicates that this angel held unique authoritative privileges not shared by most other angels.
An interesting aside is that during the temptation in the wilderness, Satan offered the world to Jesus because he genuinely had the authority to do so. Jesus was aware of this, which is why the offer posed a genuine temptation. The reason Satan has not been deposed yet is that, in my belief, God made a promise to allow Satan to rule over creation for a specified period. Despite Satan's fall, God is honoring this promise. God is not unaware of the consequences; He knew that if Satan were to fall, creation would unfold differently from His original intention. However, God is never without a plan.
When it comes to suffering, certain types can lead to a potential greater good, while some suffering is intended to be destructive (from the dark side), and other suffering occurs by chance. It’s important to understand that once a person dies, their spirit is restored to a non-afflicted, stable state, free from any mental, physical, or emotional consequences of their earthly experiences. At that point, God can access the memory of each individual’s life-from birth to death-for the purpose of judgment. You cannot deny your own thoughts or feelings during that time, as they originate directly from you.
As for the suffering of animals, while it is difficult to witness, it is ultimately a temporary condition. If animals are resurrected (which I cannot confirm), I believe they too will experience renewal. If they are not resurrected, it is indeed harsh, but ultimately it will not matter in the grand scheme of things.
Some of the above is supported by scripture, but the rest is from my understanding and pursuit of God. I would probably fall under the Angelic fall theory.
Well before the emergence of humanity, angels were entrusted with the stewardship of creation, serving as caretakers, managers, and authorities to govern according to God's established plan, though their control was not absolute. Humans are not the only creatures God created, but due to the vastness of space, we will not encounter these other beings on Earth.
The Morning Star, an angelic leader, oversaw this celestial government across the universe, operating under God's authority. The Bible indicates that this angel held unique authoritative privileges not shared by most other angels.
An interesting aside is that during the temptation in the wilderness, Satan offered the world to Jesus because he genuinely had the authority to do so. Jesus was aware of this, which is why the offer posed a genuine temptation. The reason Satan has not been deposed yet is that, in my belief, God made a promise to allow Satan to rule over creation for a specified period. Despite Satan's fall, God is honoring this promise. God is not unaware of the consequences; He knew that if Satan were to fall, creation would unfold differently from His original intention. However, God is never without a plan.
When it comes to suffering, certain types can lead to a potential greater good, while some suffering is intended to be destructive (from the dark side), and other suffering occurs by chance. It’s important to understand that once a person dies, their spirit is restored to a non-afflicted, stable state, free from any mental, physical, or emotional consequences of their earthly experiences. At that point, God can access the memory of each individual’s life-from birth to death-for the purpose of judgment. You cannot deny your own thoughts or feelings during that time, as they originate directly from you.
As for the suffering of animals, while it is difficult to witness, it is ultimately a temporary condition. If animals are resurrected (which I cannot confirm), I believe they too will experience renewal. If they are not resurrected, it is indeed harsh, but ultimately it will not matter in the grand scheme of things.
Some of the above is supported by scripture, but the rest is from my understanding and pursuit of God. I would probably fall under the Angelic fall theory.
I’m an atheist and it’s really nice to see a channel like this who work out atheist arguments. Rather than just calling the athiest they are talking about stupid and whatnot. I can also say the same for atheist channels out there. There’s a lot of negative ones. I think that’s why I like Alex So much. He’s respectful.
Why is it so difficult to say that CS Lewis is wrong about animal pain and suffering? Some people still hold that animals don't even have emotions! To anyone who has worked with animals, the idea animals have no pain, suffering, or emotions, etc., is absolutely asinine, is it not? ... Orca pods have thier own languages, cultures, play, and have seggs for fun. ..Sounds like sentience to me!
Just now finding your videos after the Trent Horn debate, love your stuff.
that’s funny that’s exactly where i found him from too!
Wow, this is a really good explanation of a response to the problem of evil. I have always sort of tried approaching it from a Best of All Worlds perspective and it always fell short, thanks for turning me on to this argument
I think this argument of angelic fall causing creation to fall resulting inexorably in animal suffering (among other things) is actually still congruent within the context of God still choosing the best of all possible universes (eventually, after restoration of all things), and that the two explanations are not in conflict. Not that you said they were, it's just that your comment made me ponder...
Despite what other commenters think, I actually really like O'Connor's argument. It seems pretty solid, but there are quite a few solid responses to it as well. Alongside your response, Michael Jones (Inspiring Philosophy) gave a response to this issue in his video about animal suffering which I thought was very solid. Merry Christmas and God bless you, dear friend!
Is this the IP response that animals go to heaven? Not a good response at all, the bible clearly indicates that god doesn't care about animals at all, alongside that pointless suffering is still unexpected no matter how much 'heaven' is offered. On that argument you have basically rejected the notion of morality entirely. Also doesn't account for hell
@@francisa4636 Notice how Christians conveniently ignore Ecclesiastes 3:18‐22
"I said to myself with regard to humans that God is testing them to show that they are but animals. For the fate of humans and the fate of animals is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and humans have no advantage over the animals, for all is vanity. All go to one place, all are from the dust, and all turn to dust again. Who knows whether the human spirit goes upward and the spirit of animals goes downward to the earth? So I saw that there is nothing better than that all should enjoy their work, for that is their lot; who can bring them to see what will be after them?""
@@francisa4636 why, have you read the Bible? It would seem not since Jonah 4:11 reads, 'should I not have compassion on Nineveh..in which there are more than 120 000 persons... *as well as many animals?'* and Deuteronomy 5:14 which has one of the ten commandments no less giving domestic animals a day off(!) and Deuteronomy 25:4.
as for hell you should read the relevant passages taking them absolutely literally without addition or subtraction and you won't have a problem
@@I-am-Hrut there's no reason to 'ignore' it since its absolutely true. see also Psalm s 'his spirit departs he returns to the earth in that very day his thoughts perish'. In fact , Paul writes an entire chapter on the issue ie 1 Corinthians 15
@@stephenglasse2743 “This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”
There are many contradictory passages in the bible, in context of the problem of evil you have to explain the massive amounts of pointless suffering and the passage you cite doesn't really do that does it. In fact as far as I'm concerned it just highlights yet another contradiction in the bible
Atheist or no, Alex is one of the most respectful speakers and thinkers out there and likewise deserves our respect as well
This video and Glen from Speak Life's video, are a beautiful response to this question. Thanks Dr Gavin😊
No doubt your content in someway also influences your audience, since in no other youtube channel have I seen a more respectful and positive comment section when engaging with arguments. This is what I picture when imagining christian virtues.
Merry Christmas Gavin! I’d never heard of you until a few months ago but am really appreciatiing your content. Thank you for promoting respectful dialogue rather than making assumptions and attacking others of differing opinions. The world needs less of that and more of your approach, in my opinion.
Timely video for me. Thank you brother.
Thanks for engaging with these contemporary (and yet historically precedented!) issues, Gavin
Great video. I never understood why the problem of evil is viewed as a refutation of God's existence. I have not studied philosophy but I always thought that the most the problem of evil gets people is that God might not be Good. Not that he doesn't exist.
I loved the discussion on Cs Lewis and Tolkien's view of angels and creation.
As an atheist who did study philosophy, you are right. It's not a refutation. And surely no atheist says it is. But we can say more. And Joe Schmid (Majesty of Reason) says more in response to Cameron, discussing the very same debate. It's certainly generated a lot of content. Atheism is more likely given the problem of evil. Bob Ross Bayesian bars. It's good fun. Joe has a sense of humour.
"the most the problem of evil gets people is that God might not be Good. Not that he doesn't exist."
I agree, although an alternate conclusion is that childhood cancer (or whatever "evil" you wish to offer as an illustration) is not evil. Either option is rarely advanced by atheism.
Although I have recently seen some college students trying to argue a related argument, that objective moral truth does not exist (therefore whatever "evil" you offer as an example is not *actually* evil, but rather a *socially constructed* evil). I think it's a sound argument if you're an atheist, but they generally are laughed at and badgered into silence.
God is usually defined as morally perfect
You can’t study philosophy and believe in a god lol
@FranklinMid thats like saying you cant study engineering and enjoy how things work
A wonderful response Dr. Ortlund. Thank you for this video!
All creation groans for redemption (Romans 8) all creation is part of the fall.
The good angels never fell.
@@Dizerner I meant creation in the sense Paul uses it in Romans 8. Has nothing to do with angels.
Now the question is, why does all creation suffer for the sin of Adam. Is that fair and just? I am asking in good faith and not seeking argument. I have to mention this because some people take questions as an attack. This is one of the questions that has challenged my believe in Gods goodness.
@@somemedic8482 I dont see the suffering of creation as a punishment from God because of Man's fall, I see it as a direct consequence of Man's fall. Adam had dominion over creation and He betrayed that. He betrayed creation. Now I personally Genesis as a mystical, eternal truth and not necessarily an origins story. But I think the point is, Man is not independent of nature and his actions have direct consequences. Either way you see it, whether mystical or historical, creation suffering is not simply an arbitrary judgment cause by God. And I think that is true of all of God's wrath actually. The suffering and punishment is brought on by the consequences of the perpetrators own actions. The herion addict hasnt been cursed by God with the hell of addiction for punishment of his drug use...he is trapped in the hell of addiction precisely because of his action of injecting herion.
@@somemedic8482 In Adam we were given dominion over this earth as little gods upon its face and even in our fallen state we've conquered the sea, the sky, and all other feeling beings. Is it fair? You do not want what is fair for you under the sight of a Just and Holy God.
Animal suffering is an argument against a maximally good god, not against god in general.
Very insightful discussion, you've given me a lot to think about. Thank you
I would love to see you and Alex talk. I think that would be a very productive conversation.
Gavin, this is my first ever RUclips comment, but I wanted you to know how much you and your channel have meant to me over the years. You are by far my favorite RUclips channel right now and I look forward to all your posts. We need a voice like yours right now to cut through all the noise.
I also would love to see you and Alex debate or converse sometime soon! He by far is the agnostic I find most thoughtful and insightful on their side right now.
With that said, I really don't see the force of this argument against theism. Your fallen angel defense is new to me, and as you say somewhat surprising and complicated, but I will definitely look into more. With that said, I'm not sure one must concede that nature is currently broken, fallen, or cruel. Does the Bible claim this? As a theistic evolutionist, when I study the finely balanced ecosystems we find in nature and, even as the atheist admitted in their argument, how evolution has led to the creation of humanity and the world we now find ourselves in, I am not convinced that it is evil, cruel, or incompatible with God's goodness and order.
The Bible is clear that the carnivores expect their meals from the Lord, and so I do not agree with Alex that an all good God would necessarily create only herbivores. Also, there is a biblical argument that eschatology precedes soteriology, meaning that God creates a good world but not necessarily a perfect one. All creation, from the beginning, points forward to the culmination and glorification of something better. There will be a day of no natural disasters, no animal or human suffering, no even potential for evil or choosing to rebel against God's goodness, but that day was not in Genesis 1 and is not now. We may not be living in the best of all possible worlds this instant but we are in the best of all possible stories/narratives of redemption and God is not done with His creation yet. This is a kind of greater good defense but I believe it is logically and biblically valid.
Finally, what I don't understand is that Alex thinks animal suffering is a greater problem than human suffering. I thought most philosophers and theologians already differentiated between human evil and natural evil (which is more like chaos than actually being considered evil or unjust).
Just my thoughts. Thank you Gavin for all you do! Praying for you and Alex!
thanks for the comment and sharing your thoughts! Glad to be connected, and I appreciate you watching. You might also find interesting the video and article linked in the video description; God bless!
Great video, as always, Gavin. Thanks for your hard work.
So good. You can't look at the fine-tuning (as in physical constants) in isolation. Fine-tuning would also include finely tuned moral sensibilities that make us perceive animal suffering as a problem! Thank you for this, Gavin.
The juxtaposition of these arguments implies conflict. But is there one? Doesn't the claim that all suffering, especially animal suffering, is wrong also assume fine tuning of some sort. If not physical constants, then moral sensibilities?
Love this, Christians need to re embrace the clear teaching of the scriptures that angels/demons exist and influence the world
And if angels/demons in scripture were intended to be metaphors?
Eastern Orthodoxy for the win again!
Why does this feel like a cop out?
@@seaofnihilism4637 because it solves nothing.
I have no cogent answer to why God allows animal suffering. Shoot, I have no convincing answer as to why God allows ANY suffering! However, God allowing suffering is VASTLY different from the following: There is no God since there exist suffering. One thing that people forget is , God can do as he wills. And we don't have to agree with it . Nor do we have to like it. But our disagreeing or disliking what God does or allows ____that will not make God an unreality.
Bascially Alex is arguing "God wouldn't do it that way". One of oldest arguments which is found in Job. " God wouldn't allow a good man like Job to suffer unless Job condemned a big sin." God asked Job where he was when He created the universe.
The atheist problem of evil is they see evil everywhere including in God but not in themselves. They are blinded by their own pride.
Most atheist define "Evil" as something they don't like.
Doesn’t God define it that way as well. He doesn’t have a legitimate problem with slavery, but based on the Bible, throws a hissy fit on the topic of homosexuality
Because God wants it that way. Tell me way! It’s nothing but a heartache! 🎶🎵🎵🎶 haha couldn’t resist. 😂
@@js1423Sounds like you're the one throwing a hissy fit on the topic of homosexuality and projecting it onto the almighty because you don't like what He has to say about it.
@@signposts6189 I would say using reactionary language like "abomination" kinda shows an immature person. When a human uses dog-whistle words like that, I usually just dismiss them. Why would I treat conceptual or paranatural beings any different?
Ah Job. The favourite book of church leaders who don't want to be questioned.
(7:17) Angelic fall theory: Wow, this really takes the theological gymnastics to a whole new level. You're suggesting that creation had already "fallen" due to angels before humans were even created? So, sin didn’t actually enter the world through Adam? Death and suffering were already present before the so-called "fall"?
This completely undermines the foundational Christian theology of Paul, who explicitly ties the origin of sin and death to Adam (Romans 5:12) and builds the entire atonement narrative around the idea that the "first Adam" brought sin, and the "last Adam" (Jesus) atoned for it. If this "angelic fall" theory is true, then Paul’s theology collapses like a house of cards.
Christian theology was already convoluted, but this takes it to a new level of incoherence. You’re essentially making Paul’s central argument moot-and with it, the entire premise of Jesus’ atonement. At this point, it’s not just weird-it’s outright self-defeating!
(15:23) The Earth as a Prison for Fallen Angels:
Wait…what? So now this physical world is being described as a prison for fallen angels, and humans were created and placed inside this prison, almost guaranteed to fall prey to these angelic beings? Let’s pause for a moment-how does this fit into any concept of a loving and just God? Imagine deliberately creating humans, fragile and prone to suffering, and placing them in a cosmic prison filled with malevolent entities. That’s not love-that’s the premise of a dark dystopian novel!
And referring to Thomas Aquinas’ claim that angels are part of the universe doesn’t make this any better. If angels are part of creation and yet are responsible for “breaking” it, how is this different from saying God created a chaotic and destructive system by design? It just keeps digging a deeper hole for theology.
To hear intelligent humans in 2024 talk this way about angels, fallen beings, and cosmic prisons is… fascinating. But not in the inspiring sense-it’s more like watching someone double down on medieval superstition, trying to retrofit it into the modern world. Sad, indeed.
Shh, it's christian fanfic. Just let it happen ;)
I kid. Gavin is obviously reaching well beyond the realms of even his own paradigms. It just shows he's not being critical.
Could it be that suffering and evil exist even when there is no sin? Sin is a human action, but evil is a privation of good. What are your thoughts?
@@eshoosca You’re asking me, an atheist, about sin and evil? Fair enough-I’ve wrestled with these questions before. I used to be a 'born again' Christian for most of my life, but now I’m 100% certain-yes, 100%-that there is no God. From that perspective, all the things we call "suffering" are just inherent to life. If you value existence, you accept suffering as the price you pay.
Life can be summed up as resources, grazers, predators, and parasites, with some species managing to live in symbiosis. That’s it. We’re just lucky to be at the top of the food chain, though even that doesn’t make us invincible-parasites can wipe us out just as easily.
But human relations? That’s where we have a choice. There are people who take and people who give. Which one are you? For me, faced with a cold and indifferent universe, I’ve chosen to see beauty-not just in the grandeur of the stars but even in the chaos, the flaws, and the stupidity of the world around me.
I try to make the most of it. I grab every opportunity to grow, to learn, to teach myself something new-whether it’s drumming, singing Coldplay’s latest Christmas song, or even developing a framework to explain the universe.
And when I choose to give, to mean something to someone else, I experience a fleeting glimpse of happiness. That’s all there is, friend. That’s all there is.
@@theGuideMarkII Dr. John Walton's commentary on Genesis fits with what Gavin is saying too i.e. Adam as the priest king presiding over a garden temple to in effect minister and assist creation. And Paul speaking in Romans says that through one man sin entered the world not that he invented it. Creation is subject to futility and decay but even in the later passages we see this happened in stages not solely in Eden, for instance with the rapid escalation of violence leading up to the flood and the separation of languages at Babel afterwords. It's an ongoing fall anyway.
@Jim-Mc This is certainly an imaginative take, blending biblical interpretation with speculative narratives that almost sound like they belong in a Tolkien novel! While such stories can be fascinating to explore, they highlight a common issue with biblical interpretation: the tendency to overlay creative frameworks onto ancient texts to fill in gaps or make them resonate with modern sensibilities.
But let’s take a closer look at what you’re saying: Adam as a priest-king presiding over a garden temple to "minister and assist creation." This sounds poetic, but where in the Genesis account do we actually find anything resembling a "priest-king" role? The text describes Adam as a caretaker of the garden, tasked with tilling the ground-not as some grand, spiritual intermediary. These interpretations often project meanings onto the text that simply aren’t there.
As for Paul’s commentary in Romans, it’s worth noting that Paul was writing centuries after these texts were composed, in a cultural context steeped in Greco-Roman thought. His theology, particularly about sin entering the world through Adam, reflects his attempt to tie Jewish narratives to his Christ-centered message. But the Genesis account itself doesn’t align neatly with Paul’s framework-it never explicitly states that Adam’s actions introduced death or decay universally. That’s an interpretation, not a fact.
The idea of an "ongoing fall," with decay and futility gradually escalating, is also interesting but doesn’t align with how ancient cultures thought about sin and suffering. Genesis is a mythic narrative, not a historical or scientific account. The notion of sin being an "ongoing" process, expanding through events like the flood and Babel, seems like a creative attempt to reconcile contradictions in the text with the moral dilemmas these stories raise.
Instead of trying to retrofit elaborate metaphysical structures onto these ancient texts, wouldn’t it be more honest to recognize them as what they are-myths and allegories reflecting the worldview of their time? They weren’t written to be a cohesive explanation of universal decay or sin but as stories to make sense of human experience and communal identity.
At some point, we must ask: how much of this interpretation is grounded in the text itself, and how much is being invented to smooth over its inconsistencies? If you strip away the creative storytelling, what remains?
Great work, Gavin. Love your videos, man!
Very good short video. I had watched your original angelic fall video and look forward to your article. Let us know when you publish it
Need to see you and Alex on a podcast!
Great commentary BTW. Very helpful.
You have such interesting topics, things that I don't even think about
Merry Christmas to you and your family Dr Ortlund. May we find unity in the beautiful gift Christ gave to us.
9:23 I don't see how this solves anything. Now you have to prove the existance of angels/demons AND still describe why God couldn't intercede on behalf of animals to prevent them from any harm.
This is a bad argument.
I was a farmer and raised animals for many years, yes they suffer, yes they feel pain, and I have seen them in misery.
Ok, and what does this add to the conversation exactly…?
@@Lurkspur I personally struggle with this argument and know many people who just deny that animals actually experience suffering. The comment definitely added to the conversation in my opinion.
@@tonyascaso6254 God bless farmers is all I can say to that.
@@LurkspurSome people try to solve the problem of animal suffering by saying they aren’t actually feeling pain but are only simulating it.
How do we justify that the angels were part of creation in this way and also take into account Colossians 1:16 where he says Jesus is the fabric of the universe holding all things together?
I guess the same way humans sin despite Christ holding the fabric of the universe together?
Excellent video and another interesting apologetic topic that Gavin is willing to cover 👍
Another great video, Pastor Gavin! Keep up the great work and Merry Christmas, brother!
Of all the apologetic channels I've come across, you are by far the most in touch with the pressing issues facing believers in our time. You don't focus on the low hanging fruit. You engage with the best and the brightest from the other side (in a consistently charitable and intellectually rigorous manner). I commend you for this. As a Latter-day Saint, I thank you for enriching my understanding of both Protestantism and the intellectual side of traditional Christian beliefs.
Would love to see you and Alex have a discussion 🙏
amazing concise video to a huge question. thanks Gavin!
Always appreciate your work, Gavin! It seems to me that the angelic fall theodicy *could* work to assuage believers' anxieties about suffering, but it wouldn't have as much force within the larger framework of the debate; seeing as the initial conditions of creation (presumably at the big bang) were such that the unfolding of life follow along the evolutionary path that necessitates suffering. There appears no abrupt change within the continuum of nature to evidence a 'break/fall' due to a spiritual rebellion. Thus, this would need to push the fall of angelic beings into a pre-temporal state.
Hey Gavin, what do you think about another common critique by Alex: That christianity is so common in certain places and almost nowhere to be found in large places with millions of people. This seems to be explained physiologically and not the work of a God who loves all.
I've been thinking about making a response to that point. Essentially, I don't think the unequal distribution of Christianity is at all surprising given theism. Theism allows that we are influenced by our environment. God uses indirect means (like a Christian family, or a missionary) to spread his knowledge. But I need to go back and listen to make sure I have understood the full weight of the objection.
Here is my tuppence.
It is a terrible argument and laughably bad.
Here are the reasons why;
1) That is true only if you think that everyone that reports such things can or does accurately report how many Christians there are.
2) It hasn't always been as it is now so that's fallacial reasoning imagining that now is always.
3) It assumes that the spread of faith is somehow opposed to working through people and minds which it clearly isn't.
So basically his argument is that everyone is not a Christian and Christianity can't be spread by people.
@@TruthUnites The question precisely is why would God use such indirect means instead of directly giving people knowledge of him.
Scripture itself says the spiritual influence is promulgated through human cooperation, wherever the Word of God and Christian living is, comparing it to spreading seed and plant growth.
@@modernatheism So God decides who gets to hear having already decided where they will be born and that's a problem how?
4:13 "It just seems to me more intuitively plausible"
I've noticed that, with great regularity, Alex and Joe Schmid fall back onto this type of statement after laying out their framework for whatever they are arguing. It's a very slippery sort of statement, but the psychological plausibility is ultimately what their beliefs rest on. I dont think this should go unnoticed.
The reason being, at this point one has to check their presuppositions and see if there is any basis in their worldview to trust their intuitions and plausibility meter. This becomes very difficult to do the second you step away from divine revelation and into the world of blind pitiless indifference.
It’s fair to critique reliance on intuition, but the same standard should apply to claims of divine revelation. How do we verify the plausibility of *your* intuitions or the reliability of divine revelation without appealing to circular reasoning? While 'blind pitiless indifference' may challenge naturalistic intuitions, they can be grounded in evolutionary and psychological frameworks, offering consistency without requiring divine intervention.
Unfortunately, all philosophy falls back on intuitions
I found a watch, I'm unsure why someone made it, how or when someone made it, I can guess of course... but the far heavier burden would be to convince me NO ONE made it, even the atheist has to admit such a proposition is daunting.
Fine tuning is not the gotcha some think. It strikes me as a big concern for theists too - like, why would a God make a universe that demanded such a narrow set of parameters? Does that mean that God is subject to those laws? If so, why? It’s impressive to us as humans but not to a deity.
For example, imagine that there was a village only accessible by a single train line. You can’t reach it by road, on foot, by helicopter or water. And you arrive and say to the person at the inn “You’re not going to believe this but we arrived by train”. Does the inn keeper’s jaw drop in wonder? Is he impressed by your creativity?
So apparently we now know there was only one way to make the universe and that’s how God did it. Not so impressive is it? Especially when you then throw in all the inadequacies - 99% of all life ‘created’ has died out, there’s animal suffering, the Earth is unsettled with earthquakes and volcanoes etc.
Now it seems less impressive that God made it and more like he’s weak - no wonder we have all the problems, God was incapable of doing it differently because of fine tuning.
Assuming fine tuning is the epitome of megalomanias.
”If things were just a little different humans would not exist.”
So? What would humans be the ultimate goal of everything?
Think of all the wonderous things that cannot exist in this universe but that could exist if it was different.
Besides, ”fine tuned for life” seems very much an overstatement. In an unfathomable large universe we know of one place where life exists. That’s negligible. You can drop humans in a thousand billion billions random places in the universe and they will all die instantly, every single one. Is that fine tuned?
@ To be fair (and you know that I’m unconvinced by fine tuning) the science part is that a small variation of just one of four constants means the universe doesn’t exist. So it’s not that *this* version of the universe doesn’t exist but another one where we’re all lighter or breath CO2 instead of O2 does. It’s that with a small tweak the Big Bang happens and everything flies so quickly there’s no planets or celestial bodies just dust.
But like I said, I’m unconvinced for other reasons.
I actually love Alex, i deconstructed, IM NOT ATHIEST but definitely a skeptic, but i am now actually trying to prove the existence and miracles of Jesus...i also think its weird how similar life is to how Jesus perdicted it....makes u wonder, LOVE ALEX
Great video Gavin! Was wondering if you could eventually do a video covering the historic church position/interpretations of “mortal sins” primarily from 1 John. I know that it is a big part of the Catholic system of understanding and that it is used as something of a hit to assurance of salvation/the justification-sanctification process. Keep up the great work!
Joe Heschmeyer has a video on mortal sin that focuses on that very scripture
@@BrianGondo sweet, thanks for the recommendation. I’ll check it out
5:36 To Alex’s “80 years down the road” idea, I would argue that the problem of evil, while it most likely won’t be solved (in a way that atheists accept), it at least can’t get much harder to answer. We already have been exposed to the lowest depths of human depravity, from the crucifixion of Christ tothe countless modern-day war atrocities. The argument from fine-tuning, on the other hand, has historically become harder and harder to explain as science progresses. The more detailed our knowledge of the universe and its intricate workings grows, the more explaining the anti-theists have to do to justify their beliefs. So, while neither problem will be solved, or even be closer to being solved, the argument from evil will be *relatively* closer to being solved, because if historical trends continue, the argument from fine-tuning will become harder and harder to answer.
How do you figure? We've yet to discover any evidence the constants could have been otherwise than they are.
@ my point wasn’t trying to deal with specific constants or anything like that. I simply pointed out that the more details we discover about the universe, the more detailed the explanation for its beginning must become.
I'm a traditional (Jewish) theist and to me the fallen angel theology cannot help with the problem of natural evil because it makes God into a poor designer or a poor manager. We can't pawn off responsibility for evil to the angels because God created those angels just as they are (if we take them as literal, independent beings). And God also chose how to handle their fall. Why would God create divine beings whom he knew would go corrupt? Unlike humans, there's no absolute need for those beings in our human reality given the sovereignty of the omnipotent God. Really, God can handle things, folks, all by Himself. (And this in fact is the overarching teaching of Israelite Scripture.) Even worse, why did God supposedly "imprison them" in nature? He could have sent them to a completely harmless realm. No, this theodicy keeps tying God's hands, as if He's lost control of things , but for no good reason. It's not enough to offer a theory of what happened to corrupt nature, you must explain why this was God's only or best option-or why it's not truly evil in the overall scheme of things.
Wouldn't that depend on whether angels have free will? Because no one would say God is a bad manager because humans have free will?
@@Jim-Mc Thanks for your reply. I understand and accept the free will defense for human evil and I believe it fits with the entire Bible's portrait of the meaning of life. But the world of angels, if it exists literally, is not the human world. So why does angel rebellion radically determine the nature of life for human beings and animals? Let them live and struggle in "Angelville." I believe God could have other worlds or universes, but would it be right for what happens in a parallel universe to decide the quality of life in ours? And if God did decide to run things that way, it's STILL God who's responsible, not the angels.
@@KingoftheJuice18 in the biblical narrative Adam and Eve are said to fall into the temptation that was offered to them by a fallen angel, but I don't know that's necessarily saying that Adam and Eve could not have rebelled against God in some way without that specific temptation being offered. Ultimately what's at "fault" for evil is that God gave his creation the freedom to do something other than act in accordance to the will of God. But the flip side is because his creatures have freedom, the love that can be shared between God and his people is so much greater than what would be possible in some kind of puppet universe where God creates robots that can only follow the commands he gives them. Even God is capable of taking a greater risk in the pursuit of a greater reward.
@@harrygarris6921 I largely agree with what you wrote, but it doesn't have very much to do with what I was arguing against Gavin's idea in the video. To me it's clear that the snake (which is not identified as an angel in Genesis, but no matter) is a vehicle of God. The snake did not go unnoticed by God; it did not fool God; it was not beyond God's power. What happened in the temptation is what God wanted to happen for humans. But this isn't connected to Gavin's idea that angels rebelled and it's their rebellion that messed up all of nature-and God had no other way to handle it.
@@KingoftheJuice18 What you're describing as your view is the same as Gavin's. He is a calvinist so the angels didn't actually rebel in his worldview, God caused angels to rebel, and they are mere vehicles of his will just like everything else is.
The alternative view would then be the belief that God both can and does create beings that have true agency that can act according to their own will. This grants not only man freedom, but God as well. As it sounds like under the view that you are describing, and definitely under the calvinist view, everything is subject in a very literal sense to the will of God not just at the final judgement, but in every moment. And so God is compelled to act at all times as he is unable to allow anything to happen that is against his will.
What is your opinion on veganism? When it is nowadays possible to live without animal products, is it still justifieble for us regarding Christian value ethics to consume these products and cause harm?
God said he gives us animals for food in genesis.
Meat is necessary for good health.
@@leahunverferth8247if that wasn’t true, would veganism then be necessary
Only in the garden of Eden was veganism beneficial because it was perfect.
My heath has improved from cutting cereal and vegetables out of my diet and eating fruit, honey and meat only
@@Swiftninjatrev I know but this verse also implies their protection. And we know from the mosaic law that it is not necessary about the content of each verse but rather the moral implications.. And since we know that animal products produce harm, shouldnt we try to use it in a minimal amount as possible?
While Alex clearly wins this argument, I am so glad everyone was respectful. His arguments dont push me from god, but definitely adds to the myriad arguments that are. Religion has sadly failed us all too many times.
His opponents didn't understand the right response to Alex's argument, which is simply that suffering often leads to good things and therefore it's incorrect to equate suffering with "evil". You can say an excess of suffering towards a defenseless party certainly appears evil but that's a much more nuanced and difficult to defend position than just claiming that suffering is wrong, and you have no firm moral foundation with such a claim. Unfortunately theists so often just grant atheists to presuppose that suffering = "evil".
@@harrygarris6921
One can trivially limit discussion to unnecessary suffering and still have just as strong a question.
@@harrygarris6921doesn't that make god a utilitarian? If hundreds and millions of years of animal suffering is justified by some greater good, doesn't that mean we have to abandon deontology?
I really appreciate a thoughtful and modest response to this problem. Coming from a science background though I was very confused by the point you made with stars and angels. Obviously our knowledge of stars and astronomy has progressed multitudes since Aquinas. Currently it seems from what we have observed that stars behave essentially identical based on their material constituents. What is the necessity of the angels and is there a difference between stars controlled by angels and fallen angels? Similarly when and how did angels impact the laws of our universe in such a way that there still was fine tuning but yet now suffering that was not intended in creation?
The Christian cosmology is that reality is not limited to the material universe, so whatever role they do have would be best explored through theology through revelation.
I feel like this fallen angel idea doesn’t answer the most basic question which is “why did God allow the sin of his creatures to spread to nature?” If God is omnipotent, then he could have restricted the spread of sin only to the sinful beings (the angels), instead of letting the resulting death spread to plants and animals like a virus.
If God could not have prevented the spread, then you must give up divine omnipotence.
Very good explanation regarding the problem of suffering for animals! It's funny how atheists argue against these topics, but if they would only open their minds and acknowledge a Christian worldview, they would actually find answers to the questions that trouble them. I honestly think that sometimes they develop these arguments to push back against the belief in God but fail to examine their own beliefs. For example, let’s assume that the person arguing against God and the suffering of animals believes in evolution/natural selection. Does not natural selection involve "competition" and "survival of the fittest"? Do not these two components involve dominance, suffering, and killing? Lastly, if God doesn't exist, according to atheists, who cares? Why is this even a problem (sarcastically speaking)?
The entire point is that animal suffering accords perfectly with naturalism?? It's only unexpected if you assume an omnibenevolent designer.
I think any brand, flavor, or scent of the question "Why is there so much suffering in the world?" can be answered in terms of eschatology. Ultimately animals will not suffer anymore as we see in the prophet Isaiah's words about lions eating straw like an ox, and all the different animals living together. This is the form of the gospel I think they need to hear the most
"It won't exist in the future" only compounds the problem, because it necessitates that a perfect world without suffering is possible.
@j8000 Compounds what problem?
Hey Gavin, always love the content. My question is, you say Christian’s have always had an understanding that angels were involved in the creation of physical things. This is foreign to me since through Christ all things were made and not anything was made but by him (John 1).
Thoughts on this?
I don't believe it's anywhere in the bible (could be wrong). It seems like it's mostly people's poetic answers to various issues and the creation of a cosmic order.
Gavin should really debate Alex O Connor
Some people don't see the difference between _argument_ and _question_ . Saying "why does God allow bad things" isn't an argument, just like asking "If evolution is true why people don't have tails like most of animals". It's a question not an argument. Just like so called "problem of evil" isn't even a problem, because a problem is a question that doesn't have any answers, but there are very good answer to that question about evil, in fact Orthodox Christianity exlplains it very well. So if Alex calls _this_ their "strongest" argument, does it mean that the atheists/agnostics cannot even find a single real argument?
One major problem with the Angelic Fall Theodicy is that it doesn’t explain why humans and God have the authority to harm animals. It explains nature being broken, but not why what we do to animals is good. This is why I say they don’t have minds.
Seems like Alex's 'in 80 years' experiment highlights something about his epistemology. His way of knowing permits the possibility of discoveries that would explain away the fine-tuning argument, whereas the justification (or otherwise explaining) of animal suffering lands outside of the sorts of things that can be known as he defines knowing. Which is to say that all this particular thought experiment proves is that he defines knowing in a certain way. The universe can be known, while causation of suffering can't. Which I suppose is important, because you have to define your terms, but it doesn't really add much weight to an argument.
Based and presuppositionalist-pilled
Any way to get access to your article "On the Fall of Angels and the Fallenness of Nature: An Evangelical Hypothesis Regarding Natural Evil" for free or a more reasonable price?
Genesis 3:17 and 5:29 explain animal suffering: God cursed the fallen creation. This suffering won't exist in the new heavens and new Earth where the lion and the lamb will live peacefully together.
Beautiful set, Gavin! Very well done. One very small suggestion: i’m assuming the blue light can have its color adjusted. If you tweak it to be slight more teal, the color contrast with the orange lights will be nicer. These colors are more appealing because they are opposites. Im a nerd!
Thank you for this video. Alex is perhaps the most winsome influential atheist at the moment, and his case hinges on animal suffering. In his debate with Francis Collins, he claimed that a merciful God would have put anesthesia in lion's jaws to alleviate the suffering of the zebra. What's ironic to me is that there actually are creatures like spiders who in fact have this feature. Adrenaline and shock responses do something similar in prey. Another response to Alex is to ask him to consider the role of humanity in alleviating suffering. Why does Alex have a conscience to care for animals in the first place? It's because God's image-bearers were mandated to care for all creatures. Domesticated animals are actually in their designed state of existence. Temple Grandin and her humane slaughterhouse designs are a great example of how Christians should be proud of our relationship with animals we care for. People have dogs and other pets across times and cultures in history. Humanity working as designed to care for animals is a huge part of the answer to Alex on this topic. God bless!
I would say that Alex’s view is based on more on expansion of empathy. Christianity makes some vague notes on universal themes, but is still an exclusionary religion, like pretty much every other theistic religion. It helped in some cases (women and slaves, down the line) but it was also an opponent (also women’s and sexual minority-rights)
Your response has a contradictory flaw: if God already gave animals adrenaline for pain, such that animals don't suffer then humans don't need to help animals. But if you think the adrenaline is not enough, why would God let animals suffer and suffer, hoping humans, who in times past could barely feed our own communities, would be tasked with helping pain-feeling animals.
Oh so I guess you are a vegan too. Or do you believe that animals don't mourn their loved ones and we should only care about murdering them painlessly?
Gavin I'm surprised by the resistance in the comments to this idea. I think most of them didn't quite get what you're saying .
My doubt towards the angelic fall that brought suffering to the natural world is that it would heavily rely on the location of the angelic fall. If it was outside or inside creation of our world. Do we know when and where it occurred?
Disclaimer: This comment is way, way too long. Just wanted to post a write up i did for my personal apologetics notes, after watching Alex's video. These aren't lock tight arguments by any means, but the beginnings of theodocies and trains of thought on the topic.
Problem of animal suffering:
Does suffering outweigh the positive value of life? If a deer lives on earth for 10 years, experiences everything good a deer can experience, then dies a gruesome death, was God wrong for creating this animal? That animal likely experienced eating food, having sex, the warmth of the sun, a swim in a cool creek, bonds with kin, adventure of every day life. It's easy to ask, why would an animal have to experience suffering in life if there is a good god? Well, why not ask, if there is no good god, then why do animals experience so many amazing things in life? You would not expect that under Atheism.
Alex has said that he would sooner commit suicide than be turned into a random animal. I don't think that is logically consistent. As a human, he will likely be met with plenty of suffering, pain and eventually death... so why doesn't he kill himself now to prevent all of that negative experience? We know why- because he knows his life has value (even though there is no grounding for it under atheism) and he would rather live out his life and take the good with the bad and the ugly. This is key for forming your worldview- is a life worth living due to the value of being alive alone? If so, then God was benevolent in creating all life (animals, humans, etc). I have heard Alex say that he takes the other side of that coin, he suspects that on the whole, a human experience leans negative. I think this is the source of a lot of his philosophy. He can't match the fact that he believes life for humans and animals is largely negative with there being a good god.
How could God physically and practically prevent animal suffering? He would have to eliminate or alter predators (overpopulation could be a far worse evil). He would have to suspend physics (no falling trees, natural causes of death, etc). He would have to, by the power of His spirit, over-rule animals frequently to prevent them from wandering into accidents or harming each other. He would have to suspend animal's ability to feel pain, which would lead to worse evils, such as animals hurting themselves without realizing it (this is 1 reason God created pain in the first place, it is giving our brains a message and triggering an oftentimes crucial response). In theory preventing all suffering sounds nice, but in actuality it may not be practical.
The problem of animal suffering is an internal critique of Christianity so we should go to the Bible to see if it's explained. In the Bible, God obviously holds animal life below human life, a simple reading of Genesis will tell you that. I believe this is because humans have souls while animals do not. The Bible teaches that the spirit is above the flesh, it doesn't glorify the flesh, it is a thing to temporarily used, overcome and eventually discarded. We (humans, including Alex) actually do the same thing, placing a hierarchy on the value of different lifeforms. We value a human life above an animals life, and we hold an animal's life above a plant life. We even hold different animal lives to be valued in their own ways. I'm positive Alex agrees that a dog's life is more valuable than an ant's. We are criticizing God for something we do ourselves. Maybe we really are made in his image.
Alex likes to use the phrase "what would you expect under Atheism/Christianity and which one lines up with reality". Well, I would say under atheism we would expect there to be nothing. We would not expect life to begin. We would not expect there to be time, space or matter. We would not expect to have morality, we would not expect to have consciousness, we would not expect fine-tuning, we would not expect to even be able to trust our logical faculties. We would not expect there to be beauty or the ability to experience it. All of this evidence on 1 side, and on the other your highest tier argument is "why do animals feel pain sometimes." "Why do animals suffer" doesn't hold weight in an argument when on the other side, you have the question "why is there life, and a universe and why do we have morality to even care". The weight of those arguments don't even come close to comparison.
There could be more suffering right? Why isn’t there far more suffering, explained under naturalism? Isn’t the fact that we just have some suffering, most of which can lead to higher order goods like soul building, an evidence for theism?
I would also reject the premise that millions of animal species living life on earth and dying out is an inherent evil. I think that is an assumption that's made by atheists without proper philosophical backing. Let's say that there is another higher life form that comes about through natural selection millions of years from now, making human life just another link in this evolutionary chain. As a human who is here now, experiencing suffering and eventual death, should I be mad at the creator for giving me my life? If you say yes, then that is just your opinion- I wouldn't share it.
These are some really good thoughts, thank you!
But the real problem of evil is how many Jews who died in the holocaust, not believing in Jesus, will wake up in God's eternal concentration camp called hell.
Animal death is not a problem for young Earth six day creationists. It's very simply the just result of man's sin. As far as Alex is concerned, having a problem with it?...how silly of him. His worldview can not even account for right or wrong or absolute truth claims. He has to borrow money from the Christian worldview to pay for his indignation.
@@kalu8652 Its rare that a long comment is a good comment, but this one is.
Burning Question: How do you reconcile the view of animal death and carnivorous behavior existing before the Fall with the image of restoration in Isaiah 11?
“They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain, for the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the LORD as the waters cover the sea.” (Isaiah 11:9)
I believe this passage is speaking of the restoration to come, but it surely echoes the way life was in Eden-especially in the sense that Adam and Eve had an intimate, personal “knowledge of the LORD.” The text seems to suggest that because God is holy, the mountain is holy by proxy, and Creation itself must act in a “holy” manner as well.
Another question in a similar vein:
If animal suffering existed prior to the Fall, how do we justify this from the perspective of the suffering animal? I believe you’ve referenced Church Fathers who argued that the brutality of nature is somehow “good” for reasons X, Y, and Z, but I struggle with this human-centric view that neglects animals and their suffering.
Many could make a similar argument to affirming LGBTQ but I reject that argument because we can’t apply that “hardness of heart” rationale to everything (e.g., LGBTQ+ matters), because those aren’t directly connected to the fullness of the knowledge of God or the restoration to come. Yet, in today’s modern world, with the ability to live vegan or vegetarian lifestyles and extend church charitable ministries to include animal activism and rescue shouldn’t Christians, led by the Spirit and filled with the knowledge of the Lord, be called to these acts of stewardship? (Example, slaughter houses: the evil there makes me want to die).
These questions weigh heavily on me. I believe that Christianity and the Church have not only neglected animals but, in some cases, justified their abuse due to a flawed, fallen understanding of what “dominion” means.
One last thought: I know you reference Dominion by Tom Holland frequently, but there’s another Dominion by Matthew Scully (the OG ‘Dominion’, much older) that focuses entirely on animal suffering. It’s worth considering in this conversation.
I m and Eve had more intimate, personal “knowledge of the Lord”. The text seems to be implying that since God is holy, the mountain is holy by proxy, and Creation itself has to act in a “holy” manner by proxy as well.
Another question in a similar vein:
Please answer cause those are consuming questions. I believe that Christianity and the church has not only neglected and left animals out of the equation but have abused due to our fallen nature understanding of what dominion” is.
“Mankind's true moral test, its fundamental test (which lies deeply buried from view), consists of its attitude toward those who are at its mercy: animals. And in this respect mankind has suffered a fundamental debacle, a debacle so fundamental that all others stem from it.”
Milan Kundera
God is all-powerful, but He is not all-controlling. Animals also don’t experience suffering and death in the same way that we do. Humans have a real problem with anthropomorphizing animals.
At least you responded to the question. The challenge with your response is that it only adds explanatory value if you are already a committed Christian.
Inventing new entities “angels” in order to explain away suffering sounds similar to the complaint that theist have against the multiverse - using some strange metaphysic as a stop gap.
A couple other points:
- still depends on a notion of libertarian free will, which is another strange metaphysic that will likely only be compelling to committed theists
- The responsibility of animal suffering still ultimately rests with God. I didn’t understand how your response dealt with this. Regardless of the mechanisms by which evil entered the world you can still ask if it was worth it. It still seems to be a logical contradiction that an all loving all powerful god would create a world full of such suffering, particularly if animals will not be recompensed for their suffering in any way.
13:10 But surely Phil's point was that limitedness (by resources of ecological niche) and breakdown is inherent to the deterministic physicality (even in chemistry) and so to the development of the human body. It is difficult to see death below man not happening.
I'm fairly versed in physics, and I'm a big fan of this idea of angels' role in creation as agents of the order of nature. The way I imagine it is that angels are the personification of the laws of physics, or that the laws of physics are synonymous to these angels. And so, they truly are responsible for stars shining brilliantly and everything else in the universe which inspires such awe.
Hey I'm also a physics person but this was the part of the video that completely lost me. The laws of physics are incredibly predictable and seemingly completely uniform across time and space (also there are issues with observers and quantum mechanics). Does that mean the evil angels that caused suffering and the good angels that presumably also exist just work together to make sure light propagates smoothly?
Well said
My issue with the problem of evil vs finetuning is that, while the problem of evil is pointing at a logical incosistancy between God and reality, the finetuning argument is simply filling in a gap in our knowlegde with God. To me there is no reason why any specific god has to be the answer as supposed to any other explanation, and I think the same can be said in relation to the existence of the universe, morality and consciousness.
4:20 It's interesting because, ironically, both issues have been resolved by philosophers for millennia. The pre-Christian Jews had answers for both issues which are recorded--ironically--in the same book: Job. What Alex is implying is that "which issue is more likely to be resolved by SCIENCE" to which I would question: why is science the arbiter of absolute truth? Certainly, fine-tuning is more likely to be resolved by science than the problem of evil is, but, again, why does science have greater weight than philosophical and religious inquiries into the same issues?
I think something that isn’t even acknowledged is that human suffering was near on par with animal society for most of human history until the rise of agriculture. Then it slowly became better. However most of humanity was still widely suffering until the 1950’s. Yet even now alot of people suffer from diseases that don’t have cures, wars, addiction, food insecurity and everything else. So its really a question of a degree and severity of suffering, and that suffering is an inevitable part of the human experience and animal experience at some point.
I honestly have bad experiences with these kinds of questions from the calvinist persuasion specifically. Just get a God does what he wants so be quiet you don't have a say in this and God doesn't owe anything to anyone after all. Same answer i get from asking about calvinistic election so please pray for me as I do seem to feel bitter still about it even though at the very least it's true God does what he wants.
We were made to take care of animals, animals are left in our hands, we don’t take care of animals, God wouldn’t let them suffer because of us.
Also, the argument is really~
“An all powerful, loving God wouldn’t restrain His love, allowing for pain and suffering to exist”.
He’d be demanded to stop all pain.
“God does stop all pain, but He allows it to happen for a time, so He’s not all loving”.
So we shouldn’t see any pain for there to be healing love expressed.
I struggle with animal suffering and innocent suffering. I think about them now in the freezing weather 😥
Hi Gavin, is this view compatible with Romans 5:12?
From a biblical point of view we know that this is a temporary situation and that God will redeem the entirety of creation from suffering. Suffering shows us that the world is cursed and that we should focus on trusting Christ and being righteous so that we can share in God´s new, redeemed world that he will create. By seeing how bad sin and its effect on the world really is, God helps us focus on the new, holy world.
The fact that we can identify any suffering as natural evil, not just animal suffering, and steward the world to heal nature through protective measures and medication, shows that morality came from designed intention.
If we acknowledge: Romans 8:18 about the groaning of creation, Isaiah 11:6 and Isaiah 65:25 as the unity of the animal kingdom, and Acts 10:9-15, when God reveals to Peter the purity of all animals in contrast to the Old Covenant - then it is safe to conclude that despite animal suffering, God recognizes the awe of the animal kingdom and will restore them wholeheartedly and with greater presentation.
The animals that have ceased in existence, will come back to existence, with more majesty than before.
But the real problem of evil is how many Jews who died in the holocaust, not believing in Jesus, will wake up in God's eternal concentration camp called hell.
The problem is animals are innocent because they cannot rationalize a less primal kill or be killed pathway to survival . This should free them from judgment and exempt them from suffering by any rational standards of a all loving creator. Who would make innocence suffer for the sins of others ? This being said an intelligent causal,agent for the highly complex specified code found in living cells is the only reality based conclusion one can come to. Where does that leave us is the unanswerable question?
2:20 "the order seems to push in one direction, and the cruelty in another"
I disagree. Ecosystems always have autotrophs (plants, algae, certain microbes that make their own food from chemicals and some outside energy) and heterotrophs (who consume other organisms for energy).
Many predator and prey species on earth have evidently coevolved together in evolutionary arms races. This is also observed in real time by ecologists.
What we perceive as the cruelty of nature is hard to separate from what we also perceive as ordered.
Take away all the grey wolves from yellowstone park and observe what happens... Elk population booms, plants that Elks eat are scarcer... the natural order is thrown out of balance, and populations either adapt or lose ground.
I'm still watching the rest of the video.
9:00 I'm not sure how that works when the Bible clearly states that the Garden of Eden was "good" (by God's standards) and it is stated elsewhere that sin = death and death shows up later after the fall of mankind. Now, there is the potential implication that death of some form existed beforehand. Genesis mentions that the Tree of Life seems to bring immortality and that removing it results in humans dying, thus implying that humans being immortal had nothing to do with whether they were sinful or not but whether they were eating from the Tree of Life, but Genesis is a CREATION account meaning that it isn't describing a reordering/organizing of animals, it is talking about the CREATION of animals, which doesn't leave room for animals to be physically corrupted by angels before the Fall of Mankind.
I find Alex's argument to be a thinly veiled assumption that science always gets answers and philosophy and religion don't. Science is more arrogantly confident in its answers, but changes with every little new discovery. It also has little to no ground at all to stand on when attempting to answer the real questions that are the bread and butter of philosophy and religion. It is the struggle and answers to the deepest questions found in the Bible that stand the test of time and will ultimately be vindicated over every human attempt to avoid our ultimate appointment with our Creator.
What about the problem of how many Jews who died in the holocaust, not believing in Jesus, will wake up in God's eternal concentration camp called hell.
I think Gavin just wanted to talk about Angelic Falll Theodicy. 😂
Not that I'm complaining. Great Video!
16:00 ff: But Kepler showed that planetary movement is according to the same patterns of forces as an apple falling to the ground.
Thank you for your video. I was raised Mormon and had an extremely hard time breaking away from the church. I have spent the last 7 years trying to figure out what I believe. I don't believe in a god anymore because most reasons I hear seem far fetched or honestly like the person who created the argument was scamming people. You say your favorite answer to the problem of evil/animal suffering has to do with this being a broken world due to a separation/rebellion against God. Aka this isn't how God made the world. I hope that accurately reflects what you said.
I have a hard time believing this as a plausible answer. Assuming God didn't make the world like this he still made this world come to be by having reality change to this if this separation occurred. This would ultimately be the world God made under Christianity if I understand this accurately. If I am mistaken please let me know where I am wrong on this.
Some questions about the fine tuning argument. Even if we granted that the constants of the universe point to a designer, what would be the justification for concluding that this designer is specifically the Christian God? Would it be possible to conclude (or demonstrate) anything at all about who or what this designer is? How would we even begin to investigate that?
All the knowledge in the Bible seems to come from some kind of "divine revelation". Would we have to find a way to scientifically reproduce divine revelations?
I'd question the idea of an inevitable "Life of untold misery"
How about all creation is groaning to be renewed by Christ? All suffering will be ended one day.
Dear Gavin, thanks for what you shared here and in your other video on this topic (Did Satan's Fall Corrupt Nature?).
I am sympathetic to the solution that you propose here, although I find it difficult to harmonize with Genesis 1 account which keeps pronouncing various phases of creation “good” from God’s viewpoint. I find it hard to envision some kind of demonic activity already corrupting it, as it were, “on the go”. (Granted, Silmarillion’s narrative gives a potentially credible picture of something like that.)
There is another aspect of animal suffering which I think we should take into consideration: humans killing animals for food. Given the huge scope of food industry, and the sheer extent to animal dying involved in it, this is at least remotely comparable to the suffering of animals in the past eras. But the saints of Christ, those redeemed from sin, are (mostly) not vegetarians. Neither was Jesus himself. If carnivorism was inherently evil, wouldn’t we expect at least Him to abstain from killing animals for food? And He was eating fish even after his resurrection (Luke 24:42-43)! In some other areas, he emphatically wanted to reintroduce the order which was there “from the beginning” (Matt 19:8 &c.) - but obviously not here.
Of course, humans eating animals could be explained as a provisional order in the context of sin-infected creation. Gen 9:3 certainly comes after the fall, Adam was originally vegetarian (Gen 1:29). (But then, according to Gen 1:30, also all the animals were supposed to be vegetarian; this verse could only be resolved by the “Young Earth” hypothesis, which, I think, is unlikely for various reasons - unless we want to read this verse as a command to humans, which it literally is, and thus something which they should yet bring about by their corrective intervention, see below.)
If the liberation from sin, which was wrought in Christ, really means abstaining from all kinds of evil (1 Th 5:22; 2 Tim 2:19; 1 Pt 3,11 &c.), shouldn’t we expect at least some hint, some preference for vegetarianism under the New Covenant? But since there is none, not even in the resurrected Son of God himself, I think we can safely conclude that eating animals does not constitute “evil” in the sight of God, at least not in any significant way at present. Therefore, we should at least allow for it to be as “unproblematic” also as a part of “good” creation before the creation of man.
I am considering a different model (here, too, as a hypothesis, a proposal, not necessarily the solution): God created the natural world much like the laws of the Old Testament: it is ordered, but it is not incorruptible per se. It includes at least some forms of animal death, which then must include also some pain and suffering. This would include especially animals eating animals. Fierce and sometimes destructive natural processes seem to be used as a display of God’s power. Hence the positive descriptions of fierce beasts in Job 39-41, Psalm 104 and many other appreciative metaphorical uses of dangerous animals. Lion, especially, seems to be a symbol of God himself (Is 31:4; Jer 25:30; Ezk 1:10; Rev 5:5 &c. - a clawless and toothless one simply wouldn’t do the job here!). It is quite hard not to notice a sense of positive admiration for precisely the predatory powers of these animals. It seems to me extremely difficult to claim that God uses these creatures which would allegedly be distorted by the demonic influence in such a positive way.
Thus, according to my hypothesis, it is as if God wanted to say: this is the natural order, the way things run by themselves, without grace, without the special intervention which I will yet bring about. We should carefully note that even Adam himself did not inherently have eternal life, but just as a possibility. The creation of man in the image of God was very likely with the purpose of providing and establishing the mediator between God and creation. This would supply a new “element” in the created order, that of grace and potentially of incorruption. God, who alone has immortality (1 Tim 6:16), would come close to his creation and be united to it through man. Had Adam not fallen, but rather eaten from the tree of life, wouldn’t he be like Christ, who brought (and will yet bring) healing, restoration and incorruptibility to all creation? It is precisely in this eschatological perspective that we find clear biblical affirmations and promises of the end of carnivorism (Is 11:6; 65:25). In this context, it is also noteworthy that man gave names to the animals (Gen 2:19-20), which indicates he determined their essence. Without him they were incomplete, lacking something essential, without his good, beneficial rule over them (Gen 1:26,28).
As for the fall of Satan and his angels, Bible is not at all clear when exactly that happened. It might well have happened together with the fall of man. (Ezekiel 28:13 might be a hint in that direction.) Satan’s rebellion could be precisely his seduction of mankind away from God. Thus the “graceless” natural order doesn’t have to be attributed to the demonic influence. Or, if Satan’s fall did occur earlier, it might have only exacerbated the “unmerciful” state of things by bringing in extra levels of cruelty and disorder, but it wouldn’t have to be its cause and source.
It is noteworthy that this “natural” order which includes pain and death is also reflected in the Old Testament legislation and some actions that God condones, if not commands. Israelites exterminating whole nations (including women and children) has a similar “feel” to the cruelty we sometimes see in nature. “An eye for an eye” certainly feels “natural”. The whole of the Old Testament revelation seems quite consistent here.
Clearly, all this is linked with the image of God, with questions like: “What kind of God would allow that?” “Is he really omni-benevolent?” For the recipients of the Old Testament revelation this was apparently not a problem. But it is for us. I think our problem here is that we all (even the atheists) approach this challenge with the sensitivities shaped by centuries of Christian compassion as a core social virtue. (C. S. Lewis noticed that, too, saying that you can’t use God to criticize God.) But can this compassion really be taken for granted, as a given? Isn’t this precisely an extra, a bonus, a matter of grace? And of the new creation? What if we are erring categorically by wanting to press the value-system of the new creation back into the first creation? The latter must be therefore understood as “good” in the Old Testament sense, not according to our expectations and norms.
I realize that taking this kind of logic too far would lead into Marcionism, which I completely reject. Nevertheless, I think there are clear indications in the New Testament that with Christ a new “dispensation” of grace has been launched: “For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.” John 1:17 - like they weren’t there before? “But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared” Titus 3:4 - like they were hidden before? The aorist egápesen in John 3:16 may point in the same direction, namely that God’s love started to overflow in Christ, etc. Indeed, not only a new dispensation, a new creation was launched through Christ (2 Kor 5:17; Gal 6:15). Does this mean that we are here dealing with a different God, or that God’s character has changed? I don’t think so, but it does mean that in the first creation and in the Old Testament laws only one some aspects of God’s character were revealed (the external ones?), like his creative-ordering powers and his justice, whereas Jesus brought the whole revelation of Him, which includes his “heart”: his love and grace and the possibility of incorruptibility (1 Pt 1:4; 2 Pt 1:4). The expectation of total absence of any pain and suffering is only possible in this new order of things, under Christ.
This is, roughly, another model, which I find more plausible at the moment. It corresponds to an extent to the first of the four types of answers to the problem of animal suffering that you mention, but I don’t want to sound like the suffering of animals isn’t real. I only want to suggest that regular carnivorism under normal circumstances doesn’t look like an evil thing in the Bible. A deer caught in a fire is a completely different matter; these kinds of suffering could be certainly attributed to the demonic activity.
Wishing you every blessing in 2025!
9:03 saying that "evil corrupts nature" as a response to the problem of evil seems circular to me
This might sound out of left field (and it is) but the notion that fallen angels cause animal suffering sparked my memory of a video I saw months ago on the possibility that parasites are demonic, or at least some parasites are demonic, and illustrating the similarities in possession to what certain parasites do. In a non-fallen world, there would be no such thing as a malevolent parasite (only sympathetic/helpful parasites would make sense) which would point to the idea that malevolent parasites could not have existed before the fall. If angels help form the structure of reality itself, and have limited creation power within their spheres of rulership, perhaps demons creating malevolent parasites makes logical sense.
The earth was put under Adam's domain and care. God put a connection between Man and nature. When he fell, his domain fell with him. (That makes sense. Biblically)
Why would the angel's fall cause nature to fall? What is the connection between angels and nature? (Biblically?)
Yes, very strong connection with Adam having dominion over earth. He "handed over the keys" as it were.
@Dizerner Then animal suffering happened at that time (and not before), right?
@@Tim.Foster123 Yes, I think it's very, very important to put all of the curse after the fall, and none of it before. Notice how Gavin in the video misquoted creation as only "good." Scripture says "very good," not good, and it's there for a reason. People who say animal suffering is very good need their heads and hearts checked.
at 18:28 in the video it sounds like you are denying that God created this world out of nothing (stuff, albeit chaotic stuff, existed alongside God when he created). I am likely misinterpreting so can you clarify your statement.
One question I have listening to this: as an Ecologist, I study a different form of structure in nature. Each species in an ecosystem affects and shapes the others and so cannot be removed from their role w/o causing in some loss in complexity in ecosystem (and sometimes leads to ecosystem collapse) One of the most famous examples includes the restoration of wolves at Yellowstone, they helps keep herbivores like deer in check so that vegetation is not overeaten which allows the habitat to support more species which eventually leads to enough cascading effects that the actual flow of the river shifts. And we as humans rely on these ecosystem services for our own communities.
This leads to some important questions
1. On the atheist end, this seems to bake in the idea that the suffering of death is a built-into the structure of the biosphere, decreasing the credibility of a loving Creator of nature
2. But on the Christian side, a potential theodicy is that in order to allow for the complexity of God’s creation and to support human life, there is a necessary level of animal suffering needed to reveal God’s glory in this way.
This explanation is very similar to theodicies for human suffering and also emphasizes Christian themes of order and ontology.
Good points. There are a lot of layers which include all that. Just curious on your impression of the animal world. With the understanding that some animals can live miserable lives. Do you think that on the whole, animals experience a lot of pleasure and enjoyment? What is the net enjoyment of life for a deer who has been killed in a forest fire after having lived two years?
So........ your saying and *all-powerful* God needs suffering to create? Doesn't make sense to me.
Right, but the issue is god should be able to make complex ecosystems that don't rely on mechanisms which create such suffering.
Interesting argument. Respect for taking it on, unlike most others in this space. I do have some hang-ups; I am just thinking out loud after just watching, so my thoughts may not hold weight; or even make sense fully.
I'm not sure how to reconcile this line of thinking with things like Colossians 1:16, that "all things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, were created by him, through him, and for him"- as well as Romans 5:12, that "sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin."
If I understand correctly, the argument states that the rebellion is what brought sin, death, suffering, etc. into material creation, which would seem to me to contradict the narrative written in the Bible regarding these things and how they were brought into creation by Adam's own rebellion; which has implications for Jesus being the one to undo Adam's fall(if it's actually the angel's fall), thus making the many to be righteous.
If creation was corrupted by angels before the Fall, but was still "Good", though not perfect, like you stated, would it not mean that the decay, suffering, and death of creation is seen as Good in God's eyes?
If all things were created through and by Jesus, he would've had to have created material reality corrupted knowingly and on purpose, right? Angels rebel, sin enters creation, then Jesus creates the material world we exist within while still constraining himself to the rebellion that caused corruption- and he holds that it is still an ultimate "Good"
If God is Good, and in him there is no evil, how can material creation have been created through Jesus while having been corrupted by the rebellion? Seems like evil would've had to pass through him or something along those lines (Not really sure how it would all specifically work necessarily lol).
Like I said, kind of just spouting nonsense as I process the argument. Would love to hear someone else's thoughts on what I've said.
So did god create us in his image because he wanted to have relationships with us or are we an unfortunate result of angels disliking god and waging war against him?
One thing that concerns me is that, classically the fall of angels preceded the fall of humanity..( or else why would the devil tempt adam?) If it is the case that nature was corrupted as a consequence of the fall of angels wouldn't that mean the corruption of nature happened before the fall of adam?
It is a strange thing for Alex to suggest that one would self terminate if they were about to be turned into an animal as a way of accentuating the mutually shared recognition of animal suffering.
If our identies were left intact through the process of changing into another species then we would not be referencing the Christian worldview. In Christian theism, there is no basis for believing that our human identity remains intact under such conditions. If I could change into an animal, the animal would no longer be "me". If it were still "me" then the universe of Christian Theism would not be the kind of reality in reference. The thrust of Alex's point turns out to bait the Christian to accept non-biblical metaphysics on the whole as a basis for rejecting the biblical metaphysic of human identity in particular.
It is no surprise that one would reject biblical metaphysics once baited into accepting a non-biblical premise ...
Yes, the questions sneak in lot of un-Godly lies into the premise, and lot of brothers and sisters, as well meaning as they are, often fails to spot it...
This of course includes the question of "problem of Evil" at its core, since the crux of our salvation requires us to come to grasp with the world being short of glory of God, but we are so used to learning tibits of "doctrines" that many of us can't put the pieces together to gain more coherent Christian 'metaphysics', sort to speak.
@@gaizokubanouYes, we need to do our best to know just how fully orbed and integrated our biblical worldview is and expose that the likes of Alex do not understand it.
Why is he more concerned about a deer than cockroaches? We all come from the same primordial resevoir, according to the secularists, and have evolved from random, unguided genetic mutations acted upon by natural selection. What arbitrary criteria do they select to justify caring about animals more than insects?
As an agnostic, I agree that the statement doesn't make sense. To be turned into an animal is *already* to be terminated - you'd no longer be you in any way that matters.
If we were to steelman the claim, I think it would go something like this: if you were to become a conscious observer with all your old memories and mental traits miraculously intact, forced to experience the first person view and sensory input of the life of an an animal, you would strongly prefer non-existence.
It doesn't quite map, because you lose agency, but it solves the issue of what "changing into an animal" would entail.
@@j8000 I think that's a fair steel man. 👍
I wish you had fleshed out how this view fits with Genesis 1-3. For example, what is The Fall, then? Sin already existed and entered and corrupted the world before Adam? Creation’s suffering is not due to original sin? Neither is death? If satan hadn’t fallen, would man not have existed? (Given that death is the mechanism by which evolution produced humankind) It just seems like it creates more questions than it answers.
In the debate, the question is proposed as an “internal critique.” As such, I don’t think its necessary for our answer to fit with scientific theory on evolution. I think its a far more simple and elegant explanation to say that the Fall corrupted nature, and thats why Creation (animals) suffer. The question of how this fits with evolution is a secondary one, and it is not theological.