Can Christianity SURVIVE Suffering? LIVE Call-In with Dr. van Inwagen
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 сен 2024
- In this show, we take live callers on the topic of God's existence and so-called gratuitous suffering. Is this proof against God's existence?
Want to call in? We are now vetting callers! Link: us06web.zoom.u...
💸 Want to support CC? capturingchris...
✨ Free books! tinyurl.com/CC...
📱 Business inquiry? capturingchrist...
#Apologetics #CapturingChristianity #ExistenceofGod
Please get van Inwagen back and interview him yourself. Please. He handled himself with such grace and patience. It was good to see a professional answering the callers’ objections in this way. However, if you could get him on for a standard interview it would be amazing.
This was my first time listening to Inwagen and I could watch him talk to Atheists for hours. He's so great!
Professor Van Inwagen is a patient man. As far as i can tell, he only needs one instance of free will: to choose to love god or not, then his point stands. We dont need to be able to eat Cleveland!
"Can you conjure up in your mind a being that can draw round squares?"
"Yeah sure why not."
100% disingenuous. When you really push them, so many expose their disbelief is all emotional and without reason. Praying for the lost like this man to find Jesus.
Jesus lives! ♥️ and is Yahweh God 🙏🏻 Christ ✝️ and King 👑
I don't think fun is the word I'd have used either 💀
I think I just have a better imagination than you do.
@@micahchermak6386 I wonder if you'll ever stop trolling
@@JadDragonGood talk.
@@micahchermak6386 I wonder if you'll ever stop trolling
I'm an atheist, I like Dr. Inwagen. Especially the part about sarcasm. I am totally stealing that.
I love that he says he doesn’t need the answers or solutions to a problem to believe in God.
Dr. Inwagen is not a professional debater. He is not familiar with being interrupted and question-bombed, which are debating tactics. Especially when the atheist has an attitude of mockery which would really affect someone’s mentality. Give Dr. Inwagen the chance to write a paper or essay on this topic, he will give you a sufficient and satisfying response.
@120:00 You can imagine an all powerful being that can tell lies? Then I would say that being is not all powerful. You are conceiving of a nonsensical being.
"God is that which nothing greater can be conceived"
@120:53 "Assuming the power to do evil makes you more powerful than the Being that can not do evil" Maybe if we start out with the definition that evil is a lack, a privation of the good, and God is that Being which is Goodness itself, then to speak of a all powerful God that can do evil is again nonsensical. It is like saying a non-being being.
The way Dr. van Inwagen handles hostile questioning is admirable. He must have had a lot of practice with it in the classroom.
It's also interesting and sad how in these sorts of encounters, the atheist usually ends up revealing an irrational motivation for his rejection of the Christian faith. In this case, the last caller told on himself when he said that he lost his faith because he wanted to have premarital sex and avoid the demands of church life. Unfortunately, the biggest impediment to faith is not usually some principled philosophical hangup regarding a point of Christian doctrine (although it sometimes is that), but a heart unwilling to relinquish its passions.
I genuinely laughed out loud several times watching that arrogant atheist talk to a brilliant mind like Dr. Inwagen… may God soften his heart and show him his own ignorance and arrogance.
“Sorry, but I only accept strawman definitions of omnipotence (even after being corrected numerous times)”.
Multiple times I asked him to define it for himself- which he wouldn’t consistently do. Then I’d give a basic Christian phrase or concept that would contract an aspect of his definition and he’d start flip flopping. 🤷🏻♂️
@@micahchermak6386 Yeah, he said he was using restrictive quantification, then he went onto explain to you that God can do only what is “logically possible (paraphrased)”. He also pointed out contradictions within your view of the world that stand.
@@micahchermak6386
Were you the second caller?
I'm trying to be kind here. You are not as smart as you think you are. It would be worth you re watching the video. The Dr was bending over backwards to be nice to you and entertain what you were saying - even when you were quite rude and dismissive of him - particularly when it was obvious to all of us watching where you were out of your depth (which happened quite a lot). As you grow older you might realise that and be more humble.
That probably came across a bit harsh - but to be honest you seemed like a bit of a jerk. If I was to guess, you have been hurt and you blame God - and while you try and pretend you are an intellectual and are arguing from logic - this video clearly showed that isn't the case and it's really about emotion for you.
I was able to follow the logic of what both you and he were saying - and putting aside who I think was right - you strayed from logical reason over and over again - and what is worse is that when it was pointed out to you nicely - you didnt care.
I hope you are able to heal. I dont know what pain you have been through.
@@RedefineLiving I hardly think he understood my view of the world at all. Restrictive quantification doesn’t mean anything when he earlier appealed to biblical verses about god not able to lie or keeping his promises but then there are verses like Mathew 19:26 where it clearly states “With god all things are possible”. Words out of your Christ’s mouth. Is it true or not?
@@Danboy0001 I was the last caller. Your comment is a terrific straw man (since we’re on the topic) and is the equivalent of me saying to you that I must have stirred something up in you, you must be struggling in your faith, I hope you see reason and can find healing in the liberty of not believing in a silly god for so long… Compelling.
As a Catholic I will say that when it comes to theodicy if there’s any problem at all with God’s existence it’s not so much with man-made suffering as man has free will that God will abide by, but it’s suffering by caused by nature.
There are problems with both, but especially the latter (as you point out).
That seems to be the big focus, although you might summon up some arguments about G-d limiting the evil caused by free will, and at what point does it count as infringing free will (stopping murders, healing people, other miraculous intervention)
Loving Van Inwagen vs Richard Hammond On God's Omni-Attributes, great Top Gear special
I almost bailed on this one. I respect that you want to allow for a full and nuanced discussion, but there's a point at which a caller makes it all about them and that last caller passed that point a long time before you intervened. And I still want to see animal suffering addressed! That's something I find challenging, and I hope that in the future you'll bring on a Christian ethicist who is ready and willing to grapple with it.
I loved this thought from Dr. van Inwagen: “You didn’t leave your faith because of a problem. You left your faith because of an argument.”
These callers really need to be coached not to grandstand with long speeches before/during/after their questions. I get it that autodidacts get excited to share their ideas but the rest of us are here to listen to the subject matter expert speak, not reddit tier rhetorical strategists.
Dr. Inwagen is the kind of philosophy professor that all the students who like to learn and be challenged love, but the students who just like to scoot by on snark and assumed intelligence despise.
Peter Van Inwagen one of the goats
Earth is a plane of Duality and Polarization...where we jpurney into Unity through Choices and Experiences...
I really enjoy these philosopher call-in shows.
if you say that God can will 2+2=5 then you would have contradicted yourself because that same sentence is coming from the laws of logic that dictates that 2+2=4, 2+2=4 is a necessary fact.
"god can will language structured as it currently is, *and* 2+2=5"
It's an empty set, they basically saying nothing, people should study more logic before they make any decision.
I'm really enjoying this.
Why do humans think they get to pass judgment on God just because the world isn’t how they believe it should be. We are like fleas on the dog. The fleas don’t even know there is a dog let alone it’s intentions or reasons or abilities. . We have no idea what God’s reasons are, or what his intentions are. God is so much bigger and more intelligent and multidimensional than us, we cannot even approach understanding. Our job is to love him and serve him.
Next time, no amateurs, please.
I would love to see Dr. Graham Oppy or some other atheist philosophers react to this discussion between Dr.Inwagen and the caller to share some insights.
Animals do not have to exist in the first place to experience pain. If animals that go through suffering unnecessarily have to exist for humans to exist then maybe humans dont need exist?
Is God really this desperately in need of entertainment that he needs humans? According to the bible it doesnt even seem like God gives a choice for people outside of heaven or hell. What about people who dont want to be a part of his "grand plan" , do they need to go to hell?
Aye if G-d wanted to minimize suffering, he could not created at all, but to maximize the good or happiness he would need to create the creatures to be maximized. So it depends which you’d think is better
brilliant ❤ both of you 😀
must be frustrating have to debate lay people like that- walmart greeters throwing out terms trying to sound smart
I enjoyed the discussion and enjoy listening to Dr. Van Inwaagen. I think it would help the discussion if the trait of omnipotence was set aside and instead (even though I think omnipotence is perfectly coherent) it was instead stated that God is supremely powerful as being what most theists will at least hold to. Then, technical discussions regarding omnipotence don’t need to be discussed when it really isn’t relevant to the central issue regarding the problem of evil.
"I wanted to have sex with my girlfriend, I thought I was wasting a lot of time in church, I wanted to build my career". Don't sound like great reasons to leave your faith. Plenty of people believe in God and have sex outside marriage (even despite it being a sin), plenty of people (in fact the majority of humans in human history) have had very successful marriages by not having sex outside it and plenty of people have have meaningful lives and have never had sex. Plenty of people have extremely successful careers in complex fields and believe in God.
I think what is happening here is that Micah knows the truth. He knows that to believe in God means you can't just live your life the way you want to, you have to trust God and you have to submit to Him. But you can't be trusting and submitting to God and also be in sin, that's a contradiction. So in order to live a life of sin he had to abandon God, and because he knows that sin is wrong, to justify the sin he's decided to openly reject and mock the concept of God at all, to help him feel better about that decision.
At the end of the day, it just becomes a personal choice between good and evil. A choice that God has given us through free will.
24:33 pardon my novice question- wasn’t Lucifer in heaven with God before the fall? If there is no free will in heaven, how could there be a fall? If Lucifer wasn’t in heaven with God- where was he?
There was free will. Lucifer and 1/3 of the angels decided not to follow or love God.
@@annmarierose1086 was? Past tense for a reason? Or plausible/likely that the Dr is wrong about free will in heaven?
@@jasonzimmerer8658I think classically, it is said that angels only make one choice for their existence, according to the kind of creature they are and the situation they existed in. Humans make many choices but ultimately also make the same one choice
@@graysonguinn1943 ok, I’m not sure that I fully grasp your point- but let me try to think it through.
1) I think one fallacy of my logic was to put Lucifer/Satan and the fall in “time.” But time is likely not relevant, at least not how we know it.
2) I could rationalize that those in heaven don’t have free will because they have perfect will, akin to God. God will strip us of our wants, needs, base passions, so that we can be like Him - free from evil so that we may love and always “hit the mark.”
My only confusion then is why angles would also not be stripped of wants/needs
@@jasonzimmerer8658 I think a way to think of it is to say that you don't have free will in heaven after your free will has been 'completed' in a since. Angels, with their one choice, complete their will and are decided forever. Human beings make many free choices, but ultimate their will is completed when they decide for or against G-d. So the distinction is not so much being in heaven or hell, as it is whether or not your will has come to its natural end. This is all just pure speculation on my part though, its a complex issue.
The story of the Bible is that in the beginning, God gave the opportunity for us to be overwhelmed by his presence and glory all of the time but we chose to want to know the other side of that perfectly good, happy life, and so we were booted out of the garden. Mankind chose out of pride to know evil because we thought we could "be like God" as satan suggested we might be if we made this decision. We ate from the tree of the "knowledge of good and evil" God granted our wish. Humanity did have and still has one major problem and that is not being able to accept that we are not no. 1. God is. We were kicked out of the garden, and the goodness of God no longer overflows into every aspect of life. People and things decay and break down, there is darkness and suffering without any good necessarily coming out of it - that's because God isn't behind everything that happens in this world. It is a broken world in which God has partially distanced himself from, as we requested that he do. Suffering is a consequence of sin. These Atheists need to remember one thing though - in the story, it is not God who commits the sin, it is us. It is not God who brings the sin into the world, it was humanity. It is not he who made the decision to know evil, but mankinds decision. We chose we wanted and that's what we got. We now live in a world with a mix of good and evil. Why did God make it all in the first place knowing we would choose this? he obviously thought that it was all worth it. A relatively small number of people having eternal life and being in relationship with him forever was worth it even if millions choose to be away from him in the finite world and are destined to perish forever. I feel like some of these guys just simply need to read the story. It's all laid out and it's all explained pretty well in the Bible itself.
This should be a pinned comment. You can disagree if God exists and so on but the story is pretty obviously laid out.
It has always seemed to me a little harsh that souls not yet embodied are not offered a glimpse of the world that awaits them and offered by God the option of participating, of taking the risk, or being immediately eliminated.
"The game of life is hard to play
I'm gonna lose it anyway .."
Some might make that choice. Of course my suggestion is open to numerous objections from innumerable learned theologians. Even so, a chap can dream.
Come to think of it, maybe the option is available, and those of us here were so foolhardy as to choose existence. Silly us.
Love the atheist's attitude, the mockery and the sarcasm. Just look at this part 1:43:09 , yeah idk what the atheist is trying to express there with that facial expression. Dr. Inwagen is incredibly busy, if you're unwilling to appreciate his time by stop pretending ur Better than everyone else then don't talk to him. Next time please invite some professional philosophers and not some random sarcastic narcissistic atheist.
If you have to be a professional philosopher to debate the point, what’s the point?
@@horridhenry9920 At least don't be a douchebag lmao. I hate it when ppl act like they're superior for absolutely no reason. The atheist admits he is sarcastic in the video, but what was he sarcastic for? What has he ever done to make him good enough to mock Dr. Inwagen?
@@horridhenry9920 debates are between people of the same level of education, if you're talking to someone more knowlegeable than you, you cannot expect a debate. A conversation? Sure, but not a debate.
@@tafazziReadChannelDescription Having “the same level of education” is only meaningful if you are talking about subject matter experts on the same topic. Two people having gone to university or having a doctorate can have the same level of education but on different subjects.
I have seen creationist philosophers attempt to debating physicists on physics. We all suffer from a little Dunning Kruger on most subjects.
@@horridhenry9920 yeah I meant same level of education on the subject being talked about. I wouldn't even restrict it to formal education.
All these questions are answered by Father Mike Schmidt’s “Bible in a year series”. The Church and the bible hold all the answers.
how do they address animal suffering?
“I tell stories “ Dr Inwagen. Never a truer word spoken.
It would be interesting to see Peter van Inwagen in a video with potentially Deflate (who has made a video in-response to this from CS) and potentially with someone else like Apologetics Squared or DanielApologetics (both have each made a specific video on this) responding to Stephen Woodford's latest animal suffering video on here since it would also be interesting to see themselves introduced on the channel.
It seems odd to me to object to God's existence based on suffering. The first three chapters introduce the battle between good and evil and life and death. It's primarily about God as Jesus Christ dying on the cross.
It's an objection that takes a philosophical concept and enlarges it. The only God's it knows about are from the Bible and the Qu'ran. None of the other's have claims of revelations and communications with us.
The Bible all of creation animate and inanimate, the heavens and the earth, everything God pronounced as very good as affected by the rejection of God.
Dr Van Inwagen is mistaken..God is ultimately responsible for the world's condition for the Bible says in Romans 'He , God, subjected creation to futility in hope'...and 'He has shut up all in disobedience that He may have mercy on everyone'..also Eve was deceived she didnt have total free choice neither did Adam who knew wrong but loved Eve and didnt want to lose her so he took of the fruit also.
I was taught that God is all-knowing, all-powerful and everywhere, but I think it is also in Bible that God is good. But the Bible is written by human beings about a creator God they don’t fully understand or are in the process of understanding.
I think a lot of people get hung up here because they believe that suffering and evil are the same. This makes the free will explanation seem insufficient. They view the existence of suffering as a sort of unjust punishment (why should a 2 year old die in agony of cancer?). This problem goes away if we assign no moral value to suffering as such. I'd be curious to hear Professor van Inwagen's view on this issue, if he has one, or whether he thinks the existence of suffering is a greater problem than the problem of evil and why/why not.
Intentionally inflicting needless suffering is evil…which would be this god
@reality1958 I think you can have either "intentionally" or "needless" but not both. Either it is intentional, that is God intended for what happens because it is needful or it is unintended but needless. The point is supposed to be a fork, forcing the theist to choose to preserve either the power or character of their conception of God. The theist has a few options for response, but your proposition needs refining.
@@reality1958 not if suffering is morally neutral in itself. If pain and pleasure are neutral, then the existence of either tells us nothing about God's moral qualities. Seems like you'd have to argue that God owes us pleasure (and failed by allowing suffering) for him to come out as less-than-morally perfect and I dont see how you could ever make that case.
I don't think it goes away, but it is lessened.
@@stetsonscott8209of course you can have both. Does a murderer intentionally, but needlessly, murder a child? Of course. And this god does the same
“Free will doesn’t exist but objective morality does.” That is quite the position.
Why?
What's the contradiction
@@jsmith108 Morality implies ought and ought implies can. If determinism is true then “can” doesn’t exist.
@@HauxYZ250 like Dr. Craig says you have to distinguish Objective Moral values from objective moral duties. Objective moral values can exist without free well, because it is simply concerned with what is good or bad, if determinism is true it only implies you don’t have moral responsibilities, which would not affect the objectivity of moral values. On the other hand, objective moral duties would no longer be of determinism is true.
@@wg6431 I’m not sure I’m convinced of that either. I agree that moral duties are distinct from objective moral values. However, isn’t morality just a description of the way things SHOULD be? If things can’t be any other way, then it seems like nonsense to say it should have been some other way.
God is omnipotent, all seeing, all benevolent, perfect in every way, by definition, if it is not it is not God. Omnipotent it means that he can do anything, excluding logic contradictions, ilke rectangle circle. He can not do evil but that do not diminishes the omnipotence because evil is not a power but a weaknes. God is fre of evil decause he chose good and stick with it. In heven we will have fredom witout sin. We will be free to do good, and we will be able to do it allways. In dhat sens God is more free than us, because we want to do good but in many cases we cant, and he is able to do good ewery time. Free will is allowing us to do evil, but it doesn't make us more free, evil is an restriction of free will but it is a free choice to become a slave of evil. God gave us free will to do good, that free will included the posibility of rebelion aginst God, a posibility of evil but God counted on us to do the right thing. After the first sin of Adam and Eve we strugle to do good it is easier for us to do evil. And that is not by Gods designe but by our foult. God created all things perfect, no diseases, no sufering, no deth, poverty... a paradise on earth. But all of that was violated by sin. Because God put man incarge of all of his creation, all creaton are afected by the sin of man. The animals and plantsand all creation, are sufeting pain because of us, with no foult of there owne. Not because it was God's design but because we cause it. Our free will is limiting God's omnipotence by his choice, by his free will, it is not that he cant doo some things but by his free will he decidet not to do some things in respecte of our free will, and in respecte of oure duty to be colaborators in creation and modeling of the world. In his omniscience he foresaw the possibility of our rebellion, but in his love he counted on us to do the right thing. His omniscience is not in conflict with our free will, he knows all posible outcoes for every our decisions, all branches of our decisions, but by living, we make the branches came to realiti, by free choice. In that sense we are the creators of oure lives an cocreators of this world as God intended even after auer sin. No evil, disease, sufering, deth... is by Gods designe, if it was up to him we wud live in paradise on earth. By ouer foult evil, disease, sufering, deth... is present in ouer world. God alowes evil in respect of ouer fredom and auer position as his colaborators in creation and modeling of the world. If he is omnibenevolent he can not ake awey from us a gift that he give to us. Like a parent that give a ice creme to his san and after his first taste he tuck it away from him. God is not doing that.
Regarding the tiktok about animals: I'm not sure we can say with certainty that animals have the capability to "suffer" like humans do. It doesn't seem crazy to think that human suffering is a consequence of our heightened self-awareness. I suspect much of our suffering that occurs as a result of pain is actually projecting our pain into the future and imagining what that future would be, or anticipating pain and dreading it's arrival. Suffering can also come from ruminating about our past, thinking about mistakes we have made or what we could have done differently to avoid a painful situation we are currently in. Animals certainly experience pain and appear to have some adaptive behavior we could identify as "hopelessness", but without a rich sense of self or identity, it seems difficult to map our understanding of suffering onto them. That's why I think we even have the concept of suffering, otherwise it would just be pain.
I think this is part of the story in Genesis. As a result of humans having the ability to know good and bad (unlike animals), we can now view pain as a "bad" thing, which transmutes it into suffering. Without this ability, our experiences wouldn't be good or bad, they would just be what they are - a direct manifestation of God's will (This is exemplified in the fact that people can experience pain and not suffer, while also suffer without experiencing pain). The rest of the bible is the story of humans trying to figure out how to realign our idea of good and bad with God's idea of good and bad. This is ultimately accomplished in the man of Christ who completely submits his will back to God's and transmutes suffering, pain and death back into glory (i.e. God's will).
👍
That first caller was a horrible interlocutor!
I guess the question is if it is moral for God to allow suffering in a fallen world for a temporary amount of time.
Even worse a god who designs suffering
@@reality1958But beings with free will can create suffering for each other through their interactions, where God has to either stop free will or separate beings according to morality.
@@MarkPatmosyes they can…but even that originates with the design.
But a god who intentionally designs suffering for all life is cruel
@@reality1958But is it being good to be forever making sure everyone is permanently enjoying themselves, that is being a doormat not being good in a responsible way.
@@MarkPatmos not sure what you mean here
The philosophical arguments are too abstract for me. Can we talk about historical jesus more
Ah yes let’s change everything because of a random commenter.
@@DarkArcticTV im just asking!!!
These abstractions are the bedrock to any argument, even historical
@@jsmith108 Your question is too abstract for us
Suffering that has no purpose may still have a purpose, in that it allows people to have doubt, including about the existence of God, so that faith and belief has more value.
Yikes
A god that requires suffering is a malevolent god
Not impressed 15 mins in
A god who designs all living beings to suffer is not a good god. This is a major problem for theism
Whether you like God’s nature or not doesn’t determine the existence of God.
@@annmarierose1086true not the existence, but it does disprove a “good” god
suffering is the perception of evil. Percieving evil is not in itself an evil. The Bible teaches that our first parents freely chose to percieve evil, it's a consequence of their choice.
@@tafazziReadChannelDescriptionwhat does that have to do with us? That was their decision, not ours
@@reality1958 if I decide to waste my family fortuje, I leave my descendants in poverty, rather than in riches. I caused an evil to fall on them in the future by acting on what I have now which I knew woukd later belong to them.
In the same way, Adam and Eve chose to turn away from their state in the garden, and to pick up the knowlege of good and evil, which includes suffering.
Why is suffering a problem?
Have you read the Lords prayer?
Not everything that happens on Earth is God's will.
Yet what will come out of it is good. This doesn't mean everything is good.. lol
@@catsclub12566WOW a typical shallow appeal to emotion. No we are not God so we can't know what good and when will come out of it.
@@lastnamefirstname850 Sure when it's not you or your children getting kidnapped for organ harvesting it's a shallow appeal to emotion.
Sorry for having empathy?
It's interesting how people go above and beyond to try to defend for an all-powerful entity while their own people are suffering.
@@catsclub12566 take it up with our ancestors that ate the fruit not with God
@@lastnamefirstname850 Yeah God needs to punish the rest of humanity because two humans ate a fruit.
God can easily create a system where people can ascend into planes of higher levels as they learn lessons or become better and reach heaven. People who do bad things go down the levels and get grouped in a plane with other bad people of same level. God can also directly and regularly teach them if he really cares about them.
But no , even good people have to suffer through cancer, rape, torture etc.
If God cannot create humans without unnecessarily harming a bunch of people and animals then he should wait till he has a better plan.
@@catsclub12566 ok so you are saying that you a creature could run reality better than the Creator himself. A literal perfect being is running the place and you are saying he could have done better
Ngl seems like Dr Van Inagwen was a bit incoherent a lot of the time and did a lot of “no u” and “whatever do you mean?” Or being coy, seemed to be in a defensive stance from the start.
Also said he doesn’t want to discuss specific named theories or concepts and preferred to hear individuals own take but then kept saying “idk what that has to do with anything, oh this is just a story can’t prove it either way etc etc” also and it’s not just him but whenever someone says God and Can’t in the same sentence seems like a bad idea. I think God and Won’t makes way more sense. Also God can’t do illogical things seems insane too. Like I said before saying God and can’t seems like a bad idea, but explain to me how it’s logical for a bush to burn without being consumed or damaged? How’s it logical for God the son to walk on water? To turn water into wine? The classic “can God make a square circle!?” gotcha is weak upon further thought too imo. The only way I can explain it explicitly would be like when you have a dream and you’re in a house that’s so obviously not your home in the dream but it absolutely is or you’re talking to someone you know very well maybe a wife a brother a father etc but they absolutely are t that person visually. I’d have to flesh this idea out more but generally speaking dreams are good example of illogical things existing if only mentally/subconsciously, and if an all powerful creator of the universe who made every molecule exists then I’m pretty sure he can say “see that square circle?” We’d all say yes we do.
That being said I liked some of what he said the idea of infinite good vs temporary finite evil being one.
Inb4 you’re an atheist bro! I am not, im a baptized believing Christian. I don’t tnink it’s wise to limit God at all. It’s not the same as saying he will or won’t do something.
There’s no logical contradiction in walking on water or turning water into wine
@@thanevakarian9762 can god design a world without suffering?
@@reality1958
We don't know. But there are rational reasons to believe that an all loving, all powerful, all knowing, etc God *could* create a world with suffering. While we cant prove beyond all doubt that any one of those reasons is "The" reason, as the Dr pointed out, that isn't required or necessary to refute the Atheist claim that suffering (or the related claims about evil) dispoves such a God.
@@Danboy0001 1. You say we don’t know. So it’s possible this god is not all powerful then
2. How is designing suffering benevolent/good?
3. No it doesn’t disprove a god(s), it only disproves a moral god
@@reality1958
1) No, I dont accept what you stated. It could potentially be the case that suffering is required because of the all loving nature of God (eg the extensive discussion in this video about free will and love). Put another way, the all powerful nature of God doesn't allow for contradictions, including contradictions in God's nature.
2) That was a large part of the discussion in the video. Eg the interaction between free will and love. As I said, it doesnt have to be proved, but it is a possibility, and that is sufficient to beat the Atheist claim.
3) No it doesn't. See above.