To get more content like Collison, subscribe to Apologia All Access for behind-the-scenes, exclusive podcasts and shows, and much more! Click here to learn more about All Access. apologiastudios.com/all-access-sales/
@@KayleePrince-we5pb Hi Kaylee. If I'm an atheist, why would I feel any emotions for the passing away of a family member if we're all meaningless and the product of chance?
That's the atheist worldview. We're here because of pure chance along with a world that just is. That's why it's meaningless. I didn't put any words in your mouth. That is The actual atheist world view. Sorry for confusing you for an atheist
@@LAndrewNext That's what an atheist believes, that there's no God. Their worldview is how you and I got to interact today. By complete chance that our fish ancestors evolve to philosophers and brought the topic we can talk about here.
Jeff my brother, I hope and pray that someday you would be invited on the Joe Rogan podcast. What a conversation and Gospel opportunity that would be. God Bless
The sound of his own voice is, sadly, why so many listen to him. I mean, it's a great voice! And he speaks so authoritatively. It's like he truly believes that he knows what he's talking about. And folks who wish to "lack belief" in the existence of God, don't need much more than impressive esthetics. They'll grab hold of whatever they can if that means they can go their own way.
@@sterlingfallsproductions3930 And? You do love your non-sequiturs, don't you? Always trolling, always being inconsistent, never listening-ever posting. That's that not-so-Sterling one for ya! 🤣
He's definitely lost a lot of credibility since he's started spouting rubbish on Biblical matters. I too used to listen to him, and still think he knows a great deal about astrophysics, but he should stick to that and stop venturing into territory he clearly knows nothing about.
@@sterlingfallsproductions3930 I'm more so commenting on philosophy. I don't know enough about science to discredit his understanding of it, but I know a LOT of it goes against the bible. If you don't believe the bible is real we're going to have a tough time discussing it though..
Hey man, you just popped in my youtube feed and it was not by accident, I can see that clearly. Thank you a lot for this perspective on the problem with evil. You really helped me order some things in my mind and I am really grateful for that. I send my love and prayers to you. ❤
Pastor Jeff, sou do Brazil e estou maratonando em seu canal, a Apologética sempre me fascinou e ainda mais com DEFENSORES preparados como o senhor. Vale ressaltar que tenho sido muito encorajado para o diálogo com pessoas de outras religiões e até com Ateus, Obrigado por tudo, que nosso Deus continue lhe usando bem como toda a sua equipe também!
Thanks Jeff. I’m actually going to respond to a video Tyson recently did with VladTV where he made some interesting claims about his stance on atheism. I was thinking it would cool if you responded to it as well because it was so juicy but I didn’t know how to reach you. Then a few days later you did this. Thanks to God.
I love you brother Jeff. You have helped me and my family more than you will ever know. Would love to meet you one day, to shake your hand and say thank you in person. ❤
SL,....You have been deceived. JD believes that the earth is a spinning ball, same as NDT. The 100% false manmade idea that the earth is a spinning ball is an atheist belief. No Christian can or does believe/think the earth is a planet.
@@sterlingfallsproductions3930 ,....Atheism is a religion just like Christianity is. The religion of atheism/scientism is filled with different denominations/beliefs just as the apostate churches fake christianity is. This is just two atheists from different denominations disagreeing with each other.
@TM ,....Atheism absolutely is a religion. It is a belief system that believes anything other than what the Bible states. Any book that states anything about evolution or the earth being a spinning ball, or that there is a universe, ect. is an atheist book. It is all atheist dogma. Atheism and its mother religion, scientism, is the religion of the spiritually dead and blind, of the vessels of wrath and the brute beasts made for destruction. "What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:" Romans 9:22 KJV "But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;" 2 Peter 2:12 KJV "But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves." Jude 1:10 KJV Those snared into the Godless worlds religion of atheism/scientism are those spoken of in 2nd Peter. They are the willingly ignorant. It is also made clear here in 2nd Peter that the earth is a flat stationary plane. We are told here that the earth is standing. Standing is not moving, a stationary object. And that the earth is standing in the water. Water is always 100% of the time at its surface completely flat. This is why water is used to level. Also why it is called sea level. Water is always flat at its surface and the earth is standing (not moving) out of the flat surface of the water that covers over 70% of the earth. "For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:" 2 Peter 3:5 KJV
great cognitive dissonance. but the reality is, neil has the right to assert it because its a counterpoint to the existence of god. IF an all powerful all loving and all knowing being existed, how could he allow such things to occur when ALL powerful beings can do ANYTHING. the simple concept is “with great power there must also come great responsibility” well if god is all powerful and he exists, then hes responsible for EVERYTHING. every rape, every molestation, every murder, every single thing the planet ever did as far as natural disasters go. and before you say anything about free will, a child in pompei was frozen in ash as he clung to his puppydog. but the nazis had to be killed off by people with guns. this means god kills randomly if he exists at all. and what would we call a PERSON that kills at random? thats right psychotic and probably evil. especially if they kill a child and their dog, and you know, a whole city… but your own bible basically says god is evil, go read the story of noah and ask yourself “what about all the babies that had to have drowned”
As a Christian I do have to say I've got a big problem with this video. Half of it is spent time just going after Tyson and asking if he has the right to ask these questions the way he is. I think it's less of him trying to pull on the heart strings, and ask a question in the mindset of Christians. He's only giving these things like disasters a (purpose) because he's asking it from the viewpoint of Christians believing everything has a purpose. These are serious questions that both believers and non believers ask. And to tackle the question by taking jabs at the one asking the question is no way to go about this in a way that glorifies God and opens the door for them to get meaningful answers and a chance to see things differently. This unfortunately looks to be in the same category as many ministers and pastors that seem to attack the questioner rather than focus on the question itself.
@@MrTmenzo I wonder why god created a fallen world. He knew Adam and eve would sin( because he is all knowing) he could have created a perfect world if he wanted to, but instead he chose to create evil
@@LAndrewNext could God have created a world with no evil? Maybe, but I don't think so with free creatures. He gave us free will because he didn't want robots, because he is loving He can't force us to love him. he created the possibility for evil, WE disobeyed him causing the downfall of man.
@@sterlingfallsproductions3930 There are numerous examples of Neil getting math, science and history wrong. But UA-cam seems to be filtering my comments pointing to a page. Regarding history the most publicized fiction was his Bush and Star Names story.
What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence Those who make the claim and cant provide verifiable, falsifiable evidence....are thus dismissed
This definitely a great response pastor you are very intelligent about what these men believe so it’s easy to maneuver around the emotional strings he’s trying to pull on 🙏💯🔥
Christianity provides the best answer to why good and evil exist. Our world is truly corrupted and made incomplete by our rebellion against God and the grace of Christ shows us how beauty of God's creation was clouded by sin. Sin is evil, as God himself embodies the good, rebelling against the good is to choose evil. Every good thing within this world is a mere fraction of the goodness and grace of God. However, God has shown us the true good and the pleasures of goodness, (relations, music, family, etc.). He was made this world good and us good and gave us the ultimate answer to evil: Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
Pastor, His personal belief doesnt prevent him from being able to try to see it from the other perspective. Just because he doesnt believe in an omnipotent creator, doesnt mean he can put himself in that frame of reference. Just like we can use scientific evidence to refute their arguments.
Great discussion! It’s unfortunate that these conversations are completely shut down within the scientific and educational circles; that our children are only exposed to these topics within the context of an outside “abnormal” conversation.
Hi Yvonne, if you pray to God and your living in sin God don’t listen to sinners Amén 🙏 thank you Jesús Christ cause Jesús Christ is holy and Jesús Christ spirit don’t dwell in a dirty body or temple Amén 🙏 John 9:31 read the Bible very clear and simple that even a sixth grader understand it Amén 🙏
can you explain why the level of human suffering isn't equal? and tangible elements seem to predict the sort of suffering that one would face, not exclusively but as a majority?
NDT is never going to open himself up to the Truth. He's well known to be thin skinned, he'd be ridiculed into nothingness even if the Pastor tried not to.
@@therick363 capital T. The Truth that God's love and mercy have never been more accessible to us and yet without faith in the risen Christ, this eternal salvation will remain out of reach. NDT's atheism will be the end of his arrogance in the end, but I pray he is saved before that.
In a whole 2000 years, Chrischuns have not been able to show a SINGLE piece of hard EVIDENCE for their belief system. Its no wonder they hide from debates
I love your content, your preaching, and your evangelism. You're truly inspiring to myself and others. I have a question though, toward the end you mention that God created the earth, it was good, with no evil. If so, if there was no evil, where did it come from if God didn't create it? I guess maybe evil is a bi-product of our free will? I have a strong calling to God lately and I'm seeking knowledge and I have a lot of questions as my relationship with Jesus grows. Thank you & God bless. Matthew
@Apologia Studios In the clip you showed Tyson didn’t couch his reasoning in terms of human sufferings and natural disasters being evil; he simply stated that the types of disasters and sufferings that we observe make it unlikely that a perfectly good being exists. That line of reasoning is perfectly consistent with the “Neo-Darwinian Worldview” that you attribute to Tyson.
He most certainly does connect human suffering with evil, just like you do in your comment. He says people frequently connect all powerful and all good when talking about God. Then he contrasts the world we live in against that idea of all good. The contrast to good is evil. He is saying that natural disasters, disease, etc are in opposition to the idea all good. Even your comment is inconsistent with atheism and can't escape appealing to good and evil. You try to hide it, but you implicitly appeal to evil. "Disaster" and "suffering" are loaded terms that imply natural evil. In a consistent atheist worldview, there are no disasters, there is no suffering. There just is. A volcano that destroys a city and ends the life of a million people is just a neutral, cosmic event. It's meaningless. I saw a nature documentary where these grizzly bears pull salmon from a stream, walk into the woods, eat only the best meat from the guts of the still living salmon, then walk back to the stream get another salmon. When the bear walks away the salmon is still alive, writhing on the ground in pain. That is just a neutral, meaningless cosmic event. It just is. From an atheist perspective, how is that different than someone shooting another person, taking only the best jewelry and cash, and then walking away while the other person is left writhing in pain, dying in the street? It's just a meaningless cosmic event. If you want to be consistent as an atheist, you have to speak neutrally. You have to say natural events like volcanos, disease, birth defects, and war are things that happen. They aren't good or evil. Sometimes these events are less than optimal for overall survival, and sometimes these events improve overall survivability. These events are just the result of an indifferent universe where random events happen. These neutral random events neither point to, nor point away from, a God.
PWPP,....The fact is, JD is also an atheist. Just an atheist that believes in a god in a way he wants to believe. He does not believe in the God of the Bible.
@@TheAaronYost speaking of “suffering,” “pain,” and “disasters” descriptively does not at all involve any value-laden language. It’s an empirical fact that there is suffering in the world, and an empirical fact that living beings are made worse off by natural disasters. Pointing out those empirical realities has nothing to do with whether those things are “evil.” Likewise, saying “If an all-powerful and perfectly good God existed, there would not be the sort of suffering/disasters that we observe” ALSO implies nothing about ethics. The atheist can consistently say that there is pointless suffering, and that if God existed there would be no instances of pointless suffering without calling pointless suffering “evil.”
@@PhilosophywithProfessorParsons Lol except that this whole comment implicitly appeals to good and evil. What does “worse off“ even mean? Worse than what? Worse than another meaningless cosmic event? How is one meaningless cosmic event better or worse than another meaningless cosmic event? You are a meaningless pile of molecules. Can you be “worse off“? We don’t say the rocks are worse off. We don’t say bacteria is worse off. The idea of “worse off” assumes there’s a better off, and that better is good and worse is bad. This implicitly appeals to good and evil. Even if you won’t use the words, you cannot escape the concepts. You can try, but you cannot escape them. You are incapable of speaking neutrally about events that your worldview requires be meaningless. As far as your all powerful, all good God precluding the existence of evil, how do you know that? Where did you learn that? How do you know that’s true? Do I have access to that knowledge? If so, where do I find it? Is your knowledge of all powerful, all good, and the existence of evil exhaustive that I should trust it? The truth is you don’t know that an all powerful, all good God is inconsistent with evil. You are assuming that based on what? That problem of evil statement is a failed internal critique because you can’t justify anything that you said.
@@PhilosophywithProfessorParsons Also, if there is no good, and there is no evil then why are you appealing to one thing that doesn’t exist to critique another thing that doesn’t exist? Like, what are you even saying?
Made it all the way to 2 minutes before dodging the argument entirely with the VERY tired "who are you to say" bologna. Just because someone isn't using YOUR source, doesn't mean they don't have a source.
He isn't "appealing to emotions" he's appealing to logic. It's simply a question of common sense. As a parent would you sit and watch your child suffer when you have the power to bring them everlasting joy? Of course not & please save the talk about his deeper wisdom. If he were as gracious,, protecting, comforting as you say there wouldn't be any or at least not as much suffering on this planet.
The logic of the problem of evil is basically this: 1.) If there is an all-good and all-powerful God, there would be no evil in the world. 2.) But, there is evil in the world. 3.) Therefore, there is no God who is all-good and all-powerful. However, there is an error here-- in the first premise. For, it does not logically follow that there would be no evil in the world with an all-good and all-powerful God, since such a God may have a good reason for permitting moral evils (and, in some cases, willing physical evils) in order to bring about a greater good. To begin to see this as a possibility, we can consider that a human father, in certain occasions, permits/wills his children to suffer in order to bring about a greater good. Eg., he may will his child to undergo a painful surgery in order that the child may be healed; he may permit his child to experience difficulties with peers-- even though he, the father, COULD intervene to stop them-- in order that his child may grow in certain virtues and social skills; etc. So, we can see that a good human father may have reason to permit/will his children to suffer, even when he (the father) could prevent it, so that the children can gain greater benefits. This is similar to the way that God, the heavenly Father, governs and cares for His Children: whatever evils they experience are permitted or willed by Him in order that, in the end, His Children may have an opportunity for a greater good, indeed, in the end, the infinite joy of heavenly glory. ------ Further, even by assuming there is actual evil, one must assume there is also actual good. Once one does that, one is on the road to actually PROVING the existence of God, for He is the standard and source of goodness (this is St. Thomas Aquinas' 4th Way for proving God's existence). This was how C. S. Lewis converted from atheism.
@@blessedvirginmaryisqueen8448 Your example seems to lack proportionality. A parent allowing their child to feel a little pain/discomfort to learn a larger lesson is almost completely irrelevant/unrelated to suffering on a massive scale. I won't go down the list because it's too depressing.. But many many reasonable people can see it with their own eyes - reality seems to comport almost 100% to one in which there is only cold indifference shown to us by any deity. I will grant that 2,000 years ago, when miracles were allegedly occurring regularly, a thinking person could integrate those supernatural 'purposeful' experiences with philosophical arguments such as yours. But here in the present, all we have is the philosophy and apologists like Durbin's arrogant proclamations. I guarantee you this: he is converting no one by telling them their emotions are meaningless or not justified.
@@BScott7220 To stick with the argument at hand: I encourage you to not too easily dismiss the analogy I presented, and for the following reasons. Consider the better known example of our own human experience: when we were younger, our parents willed/permitted us to experience certain things which, at the time, we very truly thought was absolutely cruel, but, looking back now, we see the proportionality of it all. Eg., Mom sending me into a painful medical procedure to fix an injury-- why would Mom be so cruel? I see now why she was so "cruel". Or, even simpler things, like being sent away to school for the first time or told I need to do my homework instead of play with my friends, or grounding me when I misbehaved ("Do Mom and Dad no longer love me?"). We see that such things were not only not cruel, but actually signs of their love. From our adult perspective, we see the proportionality of it all. Bringing this experience and applying it to life, in general, and possible motives for a Supreme Being to allow or will painful experiences: it is absolutely true that life is filled with horrors beyond description, no doubt. We may be TEMPTED-- and I use that word intentionally, "tempted"-- to conclude that there cannot POSSIBLY be ANY good/proportional reason for a God to allow such things to take place. But, could we be CERTAIN that our conclusion-- that there cannot POSSIBLY be ANY reason to allow such things to take place-- is true? No, we can't (and, to assert that we can is to jump to a rash conclusion). For, it very well COULD be the case (and, according to the Christian faith, and even sound philosophy, it IS the case), that the Supreme Being DOES have a proportional reason for allowing such evils, but that our vision right now is simply too limited: we cannot see what the Supreme Being can see, we cannot see the plan He has in place (and, if we did, we would understand that He has valid/proportional reasons for allowing the evils He allows in order to bring about the goods that occur on occasion of those evils). Again, MUCH like the young child who cannot POSSIBLY fathom why his father would painfully clean out a festering wound until that child grows up, we, too, are not yet in a position to fully understand why God is allowing the evils He does...we need to wait until we have a better vision of reality, closer to the one that He has of the whole universe and of all times (and, He has helped us by beginning to reveal His plan, i.e., that He has an eternity of indescribable bliss waiting for those who stay faithful to Him; so, just consider, for now, that, at the very least, perhaps, perhaps Heaven is SO good that, in the end....all of this will make sense....you cannot say that that is IMPOSSIBLE...and, therefore, it is possible...and, in the end, the Holy Scriptures reveal that not only is it possible, but it actually is TRUE. "I came that they might have joy, and have it to the fullest."-- Jesus Christ) Further, this God actually enters INTO and EXPERIENCES our suffering-- the Cross of Christ-- but, that is another, though very much related, topic.
You can say the same thing to Durbin. He condemns grief on the part of an evolutionist, when grief is the cost of love. He asserts that Tyson has no business having emotions, when emotions are part of what has evolved. We would not survive without them. Durbin has no business telling us what an evolved human is allowed to feel.
One point on natural disasters. If you check the coverage of these things it’s rarely about an event where people aren’t involved in some deserted location. It’s always about a disaster where people have chosen to live. MOST disasters are actually man made - by that I mean we choose to live on flood plains, tornado alley, hurricane affected coastlines, near volcanoes, on earthquake faults. And in some cases we don’t even do the least we can to to fortify our dwellings. We make a cost benefit calculation because it’s nice to live near the beach or in mountains. Or to farm in places where the soil is fertile like near a volcano or on the plains. But WE make those choices. So to blame God for our free will choice to live in a susceptible area is unfair bordering on childish.
This is a good argument but it's still weak. Science has pushed God out of the created universe and it is likely God resides outside of His creation in the same way that Michaelangelo cannot be physically found in any of his paintings.
@@rhrrtt lol. Children have parents. Parents make the decisions. My argument most definitely holds. Families do not have to choose to live in disaster prone areas.
@@joelapp So, if I understand correctly, you're claiming that the parents (and not God) inflicted the suffering on the children (although God allowed the poor children to suffer in the first place!). Well, that might be the case in parts of the modern world, but not in the past when parents may not have had a great deal of choice about where they lived. Their ancestors may have lived in that area for generations, so in practice it probably wouldn't even have occured to them to move. There are also unpredictable natural disasters that happen in places that have no previous history of such disasters. These can't be blamed on the people who happen to live there.
@@rhrrtt if you don't believe in God, you would understandably think life on Earth is the be all end all, a narcissistic centering of humanity. But if you believe in YHVW, you would know he has promised to make right the injustices one experienced in the mortal world of the type in the examples being talked about.
We live in a bizarre time in history where everyone thinks they're a competent philosopher with little or no training in that discipline. I don't argue the finer points of astrophysics because that's not my area of expertise. If only Prof. Tyson would adhere to the same principle.
he was asked a question. and gave a personal thought on the matter. and it was about HIM being a atheist. not like he is asking for a philosophy debate. it really felt he is talking past tense in that this was his thoughts years ago.
Brother Jeff this was a great point, but I do have one issue. I understand the importance in pointing out the hypocrisy of his worldview, but I would like to see a bit more focus on directly refuting his points themselves about the problem of evil. I am happy that you brought it to a more specific answer towards the end, but I would like to see you go straight after this point without necessarily going after other things surrounding Neil's worldview as much (though they are important to point out).
You didn't let Tyson finish his statement. He said this statement from the Christan perspective of things being evil ,and made a following statement from this perspective.
If we are products of evolution and the big bang, there is no good or evil. Everything is a product of chaos so how can he assert that the chaos in the universe, including natural disasters on Earth, be considered evil or bad?
Thanks for the conversation. In the clip he started the sentence with if there is a God who is all powerful and all good ,and there are things that aren't good on earth ( under the precedence of the things called evil in the bible )Then God if he exists is either not all powerful or not all good.( Under the biblical view of good things and bad things)
Yes, exactly. Because the deveplopment of the universe according to their worldview wasn't even lead by consistent Prozesses, but by sudden impact ( in this case Big Bang Theory)
Hi Pastor Jeff I noticed on the website I am not able to get the Mormon tract. It keeps saying that an error has occurred and to try again later. Don’t know if it’s something on my part or your guys, but thought you should know.
I have a relationship with our Lord and savior! I have experienced God in my life many times over the years. It then, when faced with doubt, that I go back and draw off of those experiences to prove to me who God really is! God is real, but so is satan. You must keep your whole armor of God on to be able to distinguish between God and satan! Stay strong people! There is a lot of confusion (from satan) going on in the world 🌎. Prayers for strength and peace!
I think the last minute or so of your answer should have been the first minute or so. Many might have shut off this video because it seemed like you were going to dodge the direct question posed by Tyson. Just a practical review of your reply. I agree with everything you said
Just to address your initial comments, where you said Tyson couldn't borrow from the Christian worldview to question how God could be good since he didn't believe in absolute good. I'm not sure this follows. Surely he can point out the seeming inconsistency in the Christian position where absolute good is posited and yet doesn't match with the evil we see in the world. I don't see how pointing out he doesn't hold to absolute morality prevents him from doing this.
@@LAndrewNext I didn't say that. Morality is obviously an objective standard, or we would have no right to hold anyone to it. I was just saying that Tyson was in his right to question how the existence of objective morality could fit with the God of the Old Testament. But the answer I would give is that just because an objective morality exists doesn't mean that we know it perfectly as human beings. History is a testament to how human beings get morality twisted.
@@MrTypingsound you need to travel more. Morals are subjectine to time, environment and necessity. Do you think your God sets these moral standards then, does he follow his own morals?
I don't understand why believing that there is no God responsible for our existence necessarily means that your desire to engage in philosophical discussions isn't founded on anything or "meaningful".
I’m so glad you agree with Mr Tyson. This is the only channel where I see a harmonious bridge between science and faith. It’s dope to see religious leaders who also love Carl Sagan. You are the future! 🙌
Not a fan of Tyson in the least but I don't follow this particular line of criticism. From what I heard Tyson didn't say there shouldn't be disasters and such, he said it was inconsistent with an all powerful benevolent God. I think this is listed as the number one reason given for disbelief. So he's not saying anything many others haven't thought at one time or another.
The problem is that he says these things are “evil”. He can’t say that since according to atheism there is no good or evil, we’re merely stardust/chemicals. Besides as Christians we know that not only is the presence of evil not inconsistent with God’s existence, but rather, it points to Him.
If we are only a cosmic accident, made up of stardust, having no purpose or greater meaning - why is anything 'good' or 'bad' according to an atheist? The Bible is more complicated than 'God is all powerful and super nice' in the first place, but the point is that if you can see that some things are objectively bad, evil, disastrous, etc., why deny the things that are good, beautiful, miraculous, etc.? And of course, according to atheism, there is no source of morality or purpose anyway. So as soon as an atheist brings up moral standards, the response is always, 'According to whom?' By what standard is he judging something to be good or bad?
@@wonderbuilds6523 I didn't hear him mention evil. The gist of what he said was that an all.powerful benevolent God wasn't evidenced by the random disease and destruction we see on the earth. It's an age old question. I've read several books on the problem of suffering and none have really settled the question in my mind. They mostly point to human will, original sin and God's ultimate wisdom and sovereignty to do as He pleases. The lack of answers doesn't make me an atheist, but it sometimes makes me briefly wonder if the Deists might be right. I don't think Christians should fear questions and doubts like these for they often lead to deeper faith in the end.
@@jerseyjim9092 he talks about evil when he mentions these natural disasters, pestilences etc at the beginning of the video. If you want the answers you really have to read the Bible. Because while creation and the universe points to the existence of God, only the Word can actually show what He’s like. Otherwise you’re merely hoping that the abstract God is kind and merciful and caring. Personally in my experience in my faith and from other Christians, we aren’t afraid of questions and you’re absolutely right when you say dealing with the doubts makes you stronger.
@@wonderbuilds6523 i had to rewatch the video a few times, but NDT never actually says the word "evil". He gives a series of examples of how life is made miserable by natural causes. You don't have to be a theist to make this same observation about the world around us.
Jeff is a Calvinist. Calvinist believe that 100% of the thoughts and actions of people are controlled by God. Jeff says that humans are in rebellion against God. However, if God is fulling controlling their behavior, it is not a real rebellion.
I’m a Christian and I’ve always struggled with other this, why would God create man capable of sin? He knows what we do or are going to do before we do it. I’m born again but have trouble grasping this.
You are not born again first off Believing following and being a disciple are different things you know nothing clearly. You are the judge of God because you are too lazy to want to have to do work in life 😅😅😅😅😅
Luke, don't listen to Iacopone Furio. God gave us free will. We have the will to do what we want or to follow God. If we didn't have the choice and He had to force us, our relationship with Him would be meaningless. We will never be unable of sin and that's ok because thats why Jesus died. God planned this from the beginning. God does know what we're going to do before we do it, that's why He sent Jesus. Does this help? God bless you 🙏
We experience suffering because WE ARE FALLEN. We are to turn to our Faith in those moments, not give into the Sin. We also become stronger in those hard moments even death. It’s something we must experience because it’s the human experience. Natural disasters. We didn’t use to Live In areas that had hurricanes, earthquakes, volcanoes etc.. people knew that these areas had risk and over time we disregarded that risk and now live there. The Earth is its own entity and no Government can “eliminate or Control” the elements or planets cycles.
The earth is not a planet. The 100% false manmade idea that the earth is a planet comes from atheists like NDT. Anyone that believes the earth is a planet is not a Christian and is in reality an atheist.
@@LAndrewNext ,...The earth is a flat stationary plane just as the entire Bible clearly tells us. The idea of the earth being a spinning ball comes from the Godless world's (churches) atheist religion of scientism. All actual Christians know, understand, hold to, and defend the Bibles earth. Those that believe in, hold to, and defend the Godless worlds fake spinning ball earth are not Christians. They are in the religion of scientism and scientism's counterfeit version of christianity. They have all been deceived just as the Bible warned them not to be.
@@sterlingfallsproductions3930 my reasoning isn't based on this clip alone, but my position would remain the same if it were solely based on just this "five second clip."
@@sterlingfallsproductions3930 looks like you seem to have a differing opinion but instead of telling us what you think you are only replying to other commentors. feel free to share your ideologies.
The argument being made is that of ultimate value and purpose. I think Tyson would argue that we make up our own value and purpose and. based on that, natural disasters are bad because they hurt people whom we value.
@@pistachio-cat1043 Agreed. I wonder if the question becomes something like "Is individual, subjective value placement as powerful as objective value?" We behave as if it is objective, aka ultimate, because we feel and respond powerfully to it. We definitely don't behave as if it is our own personal opinion. In other words, we don't treat the concept "children are valuable" in the same way we treat the concept "chocolate ice cream is better". We'd be willing to die for the first but definetely not the second. But it seems the two concepts are equivalent if they are both subjective and therefore opinion.
@@sterlingfallsproductions3930 I don't think he is claiming that a lack of belief in God leaves one with the lack of understanding of grief. But I do think that if God does not exist grief is inconsistent with reality.
Either Durbin missed the point or I did. He was saying, "If God is good and powerful, why do bad things happen? Since I see bad things happen (from a Christian perspective) that isn't consistent with this powerful, good God existing." What Degrasse missed was sin and death can enter the world while a good, powerful God exists. Those two things (sin and God) can obviously coexist for a time.
There is probably more to this video, but you are making a good point that I would just say is the second step in dismantling NDT's argument. Jeff's point is the first step, which is to say from an atheist worldview, what are you even talking about? The second step, after you have shown his argument to be foundationless, is to grant him his argument and then dismantle that. I think that is what you're saying. NDT is making a failed attempt at an internal critique. To do an internal critique you have to assume that all premises of a worldview are true, and then show how those premises are inconsistent. NDT is saying religions that believe in all good/all powerful beings are inconsistent. Well, first of all you can't lump every religion with an all good/all powerful being into one bucket. They are all very different, so immediately his internal critique fails. But let's say he chooses one religion like Christianity to level his criticism at. That's fine. With Christianity, the worldview is fully fleshed out in the Bible. So, to do an internal critique you have to assume the truth of the Bible and begin there. Well, the Bible lays out a very consistent understanding of evil in the presence of an all powerful/all good God. Again, your internal critique fails. The only way you make the Christain worldview inconsistent is to isolate the classic Problem of Evil (which is like 5 sentences) and discuss those 5 sentences in a vacuum. Surely, we can agree that Christianity is more than merely 5 sentences.
_Ryan,_ do you really believe that addresses the problem? Imagine an engineer is designing a robot with free will, but a computer tells the engineer there's a 100% chance it will nuke New York due to how the engineer designed it. The engineer finishes creation anyway, and the robot nukes New York. _Is the engineer responsible for those deaths?_ I think they are, because we hold people accountable when they knew the consequences of their action but took the action anyway. Well in Christianity a God exists who's all-knowing, all-powerful, and caused everything, including humans with free will. So I don't really see how Christians pretend God isn't responsible for _literally everything._ If God wasn't said to be all-knowing it'd be different, but they're said to definitely know the outcome, so they knew this would happen. So the Problem of Evil is unsolved. It's a real contradiction: a contradiction between different parts of Christian dogma (different things it says are true, like admitting that evil things happen, but also saying an all-knowing, all-powerful, entirely good God exists).
It Is Written! KJV - 1 Corinthians 3 : 19 “For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.”
Without hearing the rest of Tyson's talk, I believe he is just stating that because he draws this conclusion he doesn't believe. I don't think this is a case of him having capital or not. In the end he may not believe that the bad things are a result of evil but just random chance.
I belive what Jeff is trying to say is, once you admit that you don't believe, you have no basis (or capital) to appeal to things like universal truths, morality, etc. Once he does appeal to those things, he's being inconsistent with his worldview, because his worldview cannot give an account for the things he appeals to.
I put Tyson right up there next to Hugh Ross. Great voice. Speaks authoritatively. Yet almost everything he says makes me go, "Okay, well, I have a question about that..."
to play Devils advocate, Tyson may say we've evolved to have conscience and emotions which give them the right now to grieve at death and to ponder our existence.
I completely agree with you and was about to comment on it. Tyson would certainly say that. However, he would not be able to account for his feeling being nothing more than a mere subjective reaction to events. He still won't have grounds to appeal to a transcendental concept of the effects of a so called "catastrophe", let alone of "evil". In other words, when women and children are raped or killed, he may go as far as "feeling bad about it", but never to explain why it is "objectively wrong", unless he assumes the transcendental framework of the law of God as the point of reference to measure anything moral.
I don't agree with NDY on much of anything he says... I'm a believer, I read the Bible almost everyday but I've never read where it says humans or man is the pinnacle of creation. Could you help me with those verses? I have read that Lucifer was God's greatest creation. I've heard Justin Peterson say that man is the pinnacle also and when I asked for those verses I received no response. Any idea where they might be?
He is neither a brilliant scientist nor a wonderful educator. He doesn't do research. A good educator has standards for rigor and accuracy. Tyson does not. He gets so much wrong.
@@HopDavid yeah he gets a lot wrong on topics he’s not as familiar with. But the topics he does know, he’s a great educator. As for his scientific background, there’s a reason he’s the head of a department at the natural history museum in NY.
@@timothyvenable3336 For a few examples: In his rocket equation explainer he was saying propellent goes exponentially with payload mass. This is wrong. Propellent goes exponentially with delta V, the needed change in velocity. Larger rockets with larger payloads are actually a more efficient use of propellent. Or in his Lagrange explainer Neil says the James Webb Space Telescope is parked at the L2 point in earth's shadow. JWST is in a large halo orbit around L2 and never comes near earth's shadow. There are numerous examples of Tyson botching basic physics and astronomy. His focus is crafting dramatic sound bites, hawking his merchandise, building his cosmic themed wardrobe. I don't think he has opened a physics textbook or done research in three decades. He's a source of misinformation -- even in the fields of physics and astronomy.
No. The underlying principle of Humanism is that human life is precious. This unfounded belief is just their version of faith. You can call them hypocritical, but stop saying they are nihilists.
Neil is trying to do what Christopher Hitchens used to do, borrow the Christian worldview in order to argue their position, or as Doug Wilson said to Christopher, “You’re trying to jump into the Christian car and crash it into a tree”
Oddly, Christians are not seeing that Neil's comment is just the same old lazy "God bad because bad things happen" argument. Meaning, Neil isn't asking anything particularly challenging. He's not asking anything new, and he certainly isn't asking in good faith. This is just another atheist saying the same thing, and getting another Christian to respond, so that another atheist can raise the same issue for the billionth time. This is what I refer to as the "atheist merry-go-round." They make the same arguments that have been debunked, retorted, responded, and completely answered, yet they act as if it has not. That's it. That's all this is. And no atheists, saying "Well maybe if you stupid Christians would make better answers we wouldn't have to keep raising the same issues." Guy, we are not tasked with answering the same "concerns," until YOU find the answers satisfactory.
Get you an outline brotha 1. In order for Tyson to complain about disasters in the manner which he can conclude that there is a better way and God cannot be it, he has have some idea of what would be better. 2. What would be better is a perfect world in which disasters don't happen. (inferred position based on Tyson's comments) 3. God created the world perfect, therefore disaster didn't happen. 4. Tyson, in order to complain about God such that Not-God is a better answer invokes, "We should have a God who created the world perfectly" 5. Therefore Tyson is actually advocating for God. Little bit of repeating going on here, but still a decent video.
You’ve got some good stuff, but this is a pretty silly counter argument: “You’re not allowed to comment on my premise because you don’t believe in it.” His commentary is valid that we do need to explain the problem of evil in our worldview because we do believe in a good God. There are arguments to be made to this effect without resorting to “Neil’s not allowed to talk about this.”
but isn't Tyson saying that he could never accept a benevolent powerful creator BECAUSE of the sufferings? I fail to see how his worldview on origins negates his ability to acknowledge the problem of evil and how it jives with the concept of a good God. Certainly lots of people are atheists, and yet still struggle with the problem of evil. I don't see it as helpful to answer Tyson's objections by simply disqualifying him from the discussion altogether. Romans 1 is applicable here-Tyson ultimately knows he has a creator but has suppressed that truth in unrighteousness. Help please!
Nice! I’d love to see you debate him live. If I were your coach, I’d let you know your rebuttal doesn’t consider human empathy as a biological function with regards to the being by the bedside of dying people.
Yes certainly but Jeff is actually talking about having Justification for that empathy. He is talking in ultimate terms. The question is not whether we have empathy but more so WHY should we have it, or why OUGHT we empathize with other human beings? Sure, it's beneficial to work together in society to continue the species, in an evolutionary sense, it's certainly not beneficial to grieve and mope around when a loved one dies, or to sob at someone's bedside. So why have we evolved to do that? it seems like a pointless thing to do. Also, not all humans have empathy, but we usually call that a mental condition. Perhaps they are just realists and the rest of us are weirdos for caring about loved one's dying?
@@jamesemerson4102 yes, exactly. We have empathy as a biological mechanism because (the answer to the “why”) the offspring of those that have it have better survival statistics which compound over time. That is what Pastor Jeff could expect as a counter to his rebuttal if he ever did debate someone of NDT caliber live. The mourning question is super interesting from an evolutionary perspective as it is the first signs of spirituality among humanoids in the fossil record. The decorating of grave sites and the commemoration of our dead is what eventually birthed religion, art, music (and therefore math and logic). The “why?” is more challenging here. It opens the “space monkey” door.
As a Christian this video is a joke we need to stop making assumptions of people thoughts and understanding. Christian’s please understand the science before you speak because we do sound stupid regardless of how many big words we use.
yep he said allot without saying anything, his example of evolution was so silly. That’s not what any scientist believes and it’s disingenuous explaining it the way he did, uneducated people will get the wrong idea of the theory. He based his whole view of tyson on ‘if’ tyson believed in certain views. Not once did he state anything that tyson had said. It was just a missive hypothetical argument on why you shouldn’t allow tyson to change your views on the way you look at the world. Just very interesting.
Well put! I do wonder if there is a direct correlation between (un)natural disasters and the evil (practices) of man? We see Haiti get hit time and time again by these said disasters, it being the voodoo capital of the world, I wonder if God is punishing them? Los Angeles being hit with the homeless epidemic. Etc….
Neil deGrasse Tyson is a very bright physicist. He is entitled to his opinion on different subjects, of course, but it doesn’t make sense on how culture continues to position him as an authority on God.
To get more content like Collison, subscribe to Apologia All Access for behind-the-scenes, exclusive podcasts and shows, and much more! Click here to learn more about All Access.
apologiastudios.com/all-access-sales/
@@KayleePrince-we5pb Hi Kaylee. If I'm an atheist, why would I feel any emotions for the passing away of a family member if we're all meaningless and the product of chance?
That's the atheist worldview. We're here because of pure chance along with a world that just is. That's why it's meaningless. I didn't put any words in your mouth. That is The actual atheist world view. Sorry for confusing you for an atheist
@@Andre_V_S wrong. An atheist is someone who does not believe in any God due to no demonstrable evidence ever being presented to support ANY God claim
@@LAndrewNext That's what an atheist believes, that there's no God. Their worldview is how you and I got to interact today. By complete chance that our fish ancestors evolve to philosophers and brought the topic we can talk about here.
@@Andre_V_S atheism has nothing to do with any particular world view. Atheists hold many different worldviews.
Jeff my brother, I hope and pray that someday you would be invited on the Joe Rogan podcast. What a conversation and Gospel opportunity that would be. God Bless
I'd love for the homosexual debate to come up so he can have an actual good retort over Matt Walsh not doing the best job.
I’d honestly rather see him on Shawn Ryan’s podcast
it would be nice but rogan would never have him on. He would be scared to debate Jeff
Or Russell Brand
@@mattverville9227Jeff has never entered a debate. He has never presented evidence for his claims
Neil is in love with the sound of his own voice.
The sound of his own voice is, sadly, why so many listen to him. I mean, it's a great voice! And he speaks so authoritatively. It's like he truly believes that he knows what he's talking about. And folks who wish to "lack belief" in the existence of God, don't need much more than impressive esthetics. They'll grab hold of whatever they can if that means they can go their own way.
@@sterlingfallsproductions3930
And? You do love your non-sequiturs, don't you? Always trolling, always being inconsistent, never listening-ever posting. That's that not-so-Sterling one for ya! 🤣
The bible is dung and the Abrahamic god is man-made BS
I’m praying he is saved so he can narrate Christian books
@@skaterman8180
What was once used to mislead, could indeed be used to guide toward truth. 🙏
Collision is such a great series for this modern time. Please keep them coming!
It's been 2 years and I am still trying to recover the brain cells I lost when I used to listen to Neil deGrasse.
He's definitely lost a lot of credibility since he's started spouting rubbish on Biblical matters. I too used to listen to him, and still think he knows a great deal about astrophysics, but he should stick to that and stop venturing into territory he clearly knows nothing about.
Kek
Tyson's understanding of science and philosophy is at Bill Nye levels
And Bill lye is just an engineer, not a scientist. 😂
@@sterlingfallsproductions3930 You must not watch must Bill Nye.. haha
@@sterlingfallsproductions3930 When it comes to research Neil's C.V. is a joke. And he's becoming more widely known for his inaccurate pop science.
Both engineers and scientists know that belief systems like Christianity - that don't comport to reality ....are pure dung
@@sterlingfallsproductions3930 I'm more so commenting on philosophy. I don't know enough about science to discredit his understanding of it, but I know a LOT of it goes against the bible. If you don't believe the bible is real we're going to have a tough time discussing it though..
Hey man, you just popped in my youtube feed and it was not by accident, I can see that clearly. Thank you a lot for this perspective on the problem with evil. You really helped me order some things in my mind and I am really grateful for that. I send my love and prayers to you. ❤
loving this Collision series, keep it up!
Great analysis Pastor Durbin! Thank you for sharing this!
Pastor Jeff, sou do Brazil e estou maratonando em seu canal, a Apologética sempre me fascinou e ainda mais com DEFENSORES preparados como o senhor. Vale ressaltar que tenho sido muito encorajado para o diálogo com pessoas de outras religiões e até com Ateus, Obrigado por tudo, que nosso Deus continue lhe usando bem como toda a sua equipe também!
Thanks Jeff. I’m actually going to respond to a video Tyson recently did with VladTV where he made some interesting claims about his stance on atheism. I was thinking it would cool if you responded to it as well because it was so juicy but I didn’t know how to reach you. Then a few days later you did this. Thanks to God.
Absolutely beautiful Glory to God! I learn so much from these videos.
I love you brother Jeff. You have helped me and my family more than you will ever know. Would love to meet you one day, to shake your hand and say thank you in person. ❤
SL,....You have been deceived. JD believes that the earth is a spinning ball, same as NDT. The 100% false manmade idea that the earth is a spinning ball is an atheist belief. No Christian can or does believe/think the earth is a planet.
Need to re listen to pastor Jeff a couple of time. This talk jitsu will be very practical in the future 💪
@@sterlingfallsproductions3930 ,....Atheism is a religion just like Christianity is. The religion of atheism/scientism is filled with different denominations/beliefs just as the apostate churches fake christianity is. This is just two atheists from different denominations disagreeing with each other.
@TM ,....Atheism absolutely is a religion. It is a belief system that believes anything other than what the Bible states. Any book that states anything about evolution or the earth being a spinning ball, or that there is a universe, ect. is an atheist book. It is all atheist dogma.
Atheism and its mother religion, scientism, is the religion of the spiritually dead and blind, of the vessels of wrath and the brute beasts made for destruction.
"What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:" Romans 9:22 KJV
"But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;" 2 Peter 2:12 KJV
"But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves." Jude 1:10 KJV
Those snared into the Godless worlds religion of atheism/scientism are those spoken of in 2nd Peter. They are the willingly ignorant. It is also made clear here in 2nd Peter that the earth is a flat stationary plane. We are told here that the earth is standing. Standing is not moving, a stationary object. And that the earth is standing in the water. Water is always 100% of the time at its surface completely flat. This is why water is used to level. Also why it is called sea level. Water is always flat at its surface and the earth is standing (not moving) out of the flat surface of the water that covers over 70% of the earth.
"For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:" 2 Peter 3:5 KJV
@@sterlingfallsproductions3930 we shall see if it's going help or not
Outstanding pastor. Excellent breakdown!
great cognitive dissonance. but the reality is, neil has the right to assert it because its a counterpoint to the existence of god. IF an all powerful all loving and all knowing being existed, how could he allow such things to occur when ALL powerful beings can do ANYTHING.
the simple concept is “with great power there must also come great responsibility” well if god is all powerful and he exists, then hes responsible for EVERYTHING. every rape, every molestation, every murder, every single thing the planet ever did as far as natural disasters go.
and before you say anything about free will, a child in pompei was frozen in ash as he clung to his puppydog. but the nazis had to be killed off by people with guns. this means god kills randomly if he exists at all. and what would we call a PERSON that kills at random? thats right psychotic and probably evil. especially if they kill a child and their dog, and you know, a whole city…
but your own bible basically says god is evil, go read the story of noah and ask yourself “what about all the babies that had to have drowned”
God bless u, Pastor Jeff!! Romans 10:13 🙂
High intellect and a sinful heart are a dangerous combination.
Well done brother. Love you man keep up the good work.
That was awesome pastor Jeff. Thanks 😎😃
As a Christian I do have to say I've got a big problem with this video. Half of it is spent time just going after Tyson and asking if he has the right to ask these questions the way he is. I think it's less of him trying to pull on the heart strings, and ask a question in the mindset of Christians. He's only giving these things like disasters a (purpose) because he's asking it from the viewpoint of Christians believing everything has a purpose. These are serious questions that both believers and non believers ask. And to tackle the question by taking jabs at the one asking the question is no way to go about this in a way that glorifies God and opens the door for them to get meaningful answers and a chance to see things differently. This unfortunately looks to be in the same category as many ministers and pastors that seem to attack the questioner rather than focus on the question itself.
You are right. Great point. Believers in gods don't like questions about their gods
The Bible states we live in a fallen world due to Adam and Eve sinning.
@@MrTmenzo I wonder why god created a fallen world. He knew Adam and eve would sin( because he is all knowing) he could have created a perfect world if he wanted to, but instead he chose to create evil
@@LAndrewNext could God have created a world with no evil? Maybe, but I don't think so with free creatures. He gave us free will because he didn't want robots, because he is loving He can't force us to love him. he created the possibility for evil, WE disobeyed him causing the downfall of man.
@@smalltownlivin so god is not all knowing then, because we can't have free will if he already knows the outcome of our lives
Pastor Jeff nails it again! 👌😁 This series is fantastic and the Collision intro is really nice 👍😎
NDT is truly one of the most arrogant, unintelligent ‘scientists’ out there
He engages in sciencisim rather than science. He has absolutely made an idol of it and has long since lost the plot with the scientific method.
He’s so smart that he’s dumb… and so are his lil minions
Lmfao
@@sterlingfallsproductions3930 There are numerous examples of Neil getting math, science and history wrong. But UA-cam seems to be filtering my comments pointing to a page.
Regarding history the most publicized fiction was his Bush and Star Names story.
What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence
Those who make the claim and cant provide verifiable, falsifiable evidence....are thus dismissed
This definitely a great response pastor you are very intelligent about what these men believe so it’s easy to maneuver around the emotional strings he’s trying to pull on 🙏💯🔥
@@sterlingfallsproductions3930you seem to be trolling a lot
@@sterlingfallsproductions3930 you're on like 5 different conversations pushing your anti God humanist agenda
Christianity provides the best answer to why good and evil exist. Our world is truly corrupted and made incomplete by our rebellion against God and the grace of Christ shows us how beauty of God's creation was clouded by sin. Sin is evil, as God himself embodies the good, rebelling against the good is to choose evil. Every good thing within this world is a mere fraction of the goodness and grace of God. However, God has shown us the true good and the pleasures of goodness, (relations, music, family, etc.). He was made this world good and us good and gave us the ultimate answer to evil: Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
I don't know man, that answer doesn't really do it for me.
The bible has already been debunked. It is crap
Awesome! Thank you!
Oh this ought to be good. Watching two people who love to hear themselves talk and are their own best friends will be fun.
This was powerful 🔥
I really like this approach.
Pastor, His personal belief doesnt prevent him from being able to try to see it from the other perspective. Just because he doesnt believe in an omnipotent creator, doesnt mean he can put himself in that frame of reference. Just like we can use scientific evidence to refute their arguments.
Love everything Jeff says here but can something be done about that background music?
Great discussion! It’s unfortunate that these conversations are completely shut down within the scientific and educational circles; that our children are only exposed to these topics within the context of an outside “abnormal” conversation.
What did I miss-what conversations are completely shit down ?
yah they are distracting to scientists. who just want to study the finer points of string theory or some specific species of bird mating patterns
Tyson is lost. Pray for his salvation.
Hi Yvonne, if you pray to God and your living in sin God don’t listen to sinners Amén 🙏 thank you Jesús Christ cause Jesús Christ is holy and Jesús Christ spirit don’t dwell in a dirty body or temple Amén 🙏 John 9:31 read the Bible very clear and simple that even a sixth grader understand it Amén 🙏
He is fallen. We were there. My aunt and mother in law prayed faithfully for me. I was 42 in the Corps when my eyes were opened. SF.
He is long suffering
Wanting none to perish
Repent.
Turn to Him.
We pray this for Neil and all atheist in Jesus name AMEN
I love Neil, I pray he gets saved, but I see his content everywhere and it’s maddening every time I hear it.
Pray for him
Great observations.
All powerful and all good are not common. Usually too much power produces more evil and greed.
can you explain why the level of human suffering isn't equal? and tangible elements seem to predict the sort of suffering that one would face, not exclusively but as a majority?
Why don't you debate him? I would love to see this.
NDT is never going to open himself up to the Truth. He's well known to be thin skinned, he'd be ridiculed into nothingness even if the Pastor tried not to.
@@alisterrebelo9013 the truth?
@@therick363 capital T. The Truth that God's love and mercy have never been more accessible to us and yet without faith in the risen Christ, this eternal salvation will remain out of reach. NDT's atheism will be the end of his arrogance in the end, but I pray he is saved before that.
@@alisterrebelo9013 oh you mean your personal Truth and not Truth and fact of reality.
Is his atheism arrogance or something else?
In a whole 2000 years, Chrischuns have not been able to show a SINGLE piece of hard EVIDENCE for their belief system. Its no wonder they hide from debates
It would be great to see you guys debate Aaron Ra, and other atheists on Modern Day Debate.
I love your content, your preaching, and your evangelism. You're truly inspiring to myself and others. I have a question though, toward the end you mention that God created the earth, it was good, with no evil. If so, if there was no evil, where did it come from if God didn't create it? I guess maybe evil is a bi-product of our free will? I have a strong calling to God lately and I'm seeking knowledge and I have a lot of questions as my relationship with Jesus grows.
Thank you & God bless.
Matthew
@Apologia Studios
In the clip you showed Tyson didn’t couch his reasoning in terms of human sufferings and natural disasters being evil; he simply stated that the types of disasters and sufferings that we observe make it unlikely that a perfectly good being exists. That line of reasoning is perfectly consistent with the “Neo-Darwinian Worldview” that you attribute to Tyson.
He most certainly does connect human suffering with evil, just like you do in your comment. He says people frequently connect all powerful and all good when talking about God. Then he contrasts the world we live in against that idea of all good. The contrast to good is evil. He is saying that natural disasters, disease, etc are in opposition to the idea all good.
Even your comment is inconsistent with atheism and can't escape appealing to good and evil. You try to hide it, but you implicitly appeal to evil. "Disaster" and "suffering" are loaded terms that imply natural evil.
In a consistent atheist worldview, there are no disasters, there is no suffering. There just is. A volcano that destroys a city and ends the life of a million people is just a neutral, cosmic event. It's meaningless.
I saw a nature documentary where these grizzly bears pull salmon from a stream, walk into the woods, eat only the best meat from the guts of the still living salmon, then walk back to the stream get another salmon. When the bear walks away the salmon is still alive, writhing on the ground in pain. That is just a neutral, meaningless cosmic event. It just is. From an atheist perspective, how is that different than someone shooting another person, taking only the best jewelry and cash, and then walking away while the other person is left writhing in pain, dying in the street? It's just a meaningless cosmic event.
If you want to be consistent as an atheist, you have to speak neutrally. You have to say natural events like volcanos, disease, birth defects, and war are things that happen. They aren't good or evil. Sometimes these events are less than optimal for overall survival, and sometimes these events improve overall survivability. These events are just the result of an indifferent universe where random events happen. These neutral random events neither point to, nor point away from, a God.
PWPP,....The fact is, JD is also an atheist. Just an atheist that believes in a god in a way he wants to believe. He does not believe in the God of the Bible.
@@TheAaronYost speaking of “suffering,” “pain,” and “disasters” descriptively does not at all involve any value-laden language. It’s an empirical fact that there is suffering in the world, and an empirical fact that living beings are made worse off by natural disasters. Pointing out those empirical realities has nothing to do with whether those things are “evil.”
Likewise, saying “If an all-powerful and perfectly good God existed, there would not be the sort of suffering/disasters that we observe” ALSO implies nothing about ethics. The atheist can consistently say that there is pointless suffering, and that if God existed there would be no instances of pointless suffering without calling pointless suffering “evil.”
@@PhilosophywithProfessorParsons Lol except that this whole comment implicitly appeals to good and evil.
What does “worse off“ even mean? Worse than what? Worse than another meaningless cosmic event? How is one meaningless cosmic event better or worse than another meaningless cosmic event?
You are a meaningless pile of molecules. Can you be “worse off“? We don’t say the rocks are worse off. We don’t say bacteria is worse off. The idea of “worse off” assumes there’s a better off, and that better is good and worse is bad. This implicitly appeals to good and evil. Even if you won’t use the words, you cannot escape the concepts. You can try, but you cannot escape them. You are incapable of speaking neutrally about events that your worldview requires be meaningless.
As far as your all powerful, all good God precluding the existence of evil, how do you know that? Where did you learn that? How do you know that’s true? Do I have access to that knowledge? If so, where do I find it? Is your knowledge of all powerful, all good, and the existence of evil exhaustive that I should trust it? The truth is you don’t know that an all powerful, all good God is inconsistent with evil. You are assuming that based on what? That problem of evil statement is a failed internal critique because you can’t justify anything that you said.
@@PhilosophywithProfessorParsons Also, if there is no good, and there is no evil then why are you appealing to one thing that doesn’t exist to critique another thing that doesn’t exist?
Like, what are you even saying?
Jeff what do you think about Joshua Swamidas’ new hypothesis on Adam And Eve and evolution ?
A 12 minute video explaining the argument: "No you".
Tell me the video was over your head without telling me the video was over your head.
Made it all the way to 2 minutes before dodging the argument entirely with the VERY tired "who are you to say" bologna. Just because someone isn't using YOUR source, doesn't mean they don't have a source.
God is spirit and needs worship
He isn't "appealing to emotions" he's appealing to logic. It's simply a question of common sense. As a parent would you sit and watch your child suffer when you have the power to bring them everlasting joy? Of course not & please save the talk about his deeper wisdom. If he were as gracious,, protecting, comforting as you say there wouldn't be any or at least not as much suffering on this planet.
The logic of the problem of evil is basically this:
1.) If there is an all-good and all-powerful God, there would be no evil in the world.
2.) But, there is evil in the world.
3.) Therefore, there is no God who is all-good and all-powerful.
However, there is an error here-- in the first premise. For, it does not logically follow that there would be no evil in the world with an all-good and all-powerful God, since such a God may have a good reason for permitting moral evils (and, in some cases, willing physical evils) in order to bring about a greater good.
To begin to see this as a possibility, we can consider that a human father, in certain occasions, permits/wills his children to suffer in order to bring about a greater good. Eg., he may will his child to undergo a painful surgery in order that the child may be healed; he may permit his child to experience difficulties with peers-- even though he, the father, COULD intervene to stop them-- in order that his child may grow in certain virtues and social skills; etc. So, we can see that a good human father may have reason to permit/will his children to suffer, even when he (the father) could prevent it, so that the children can gain greater benefits. This is similar to the way that God, the heavenly Father, governs and cares for His Children: whatever evils they experience are permitted or willed by Him in order that, in the end, His Children may have an opportunity for a greater good, indeed, in the end, the infinite joy of heavenly glory.
------
Further, even by assuming there is actual evil, one must assume there is also actual good. Once one does that, one is on the road to actually PROVING the existence of God, for He is the standard and source of goodness (this is St. Thomas Aquinas' 4th Way for proving God's existence). This was how C. S. Lewis converted from atheism.
@@blessedvirginmaryisqueen8448 Your example seems to lack proportionality. A parent allowing their child to feel a little pain/discomfort to learn a larger lesson is almost completely irrelevant/unrelated to suffering on a massive scale. I won't go down the list because it's too depressing.. But many many reasonable people can see it with their own eyes - reality seems to comport almost 100% to one in which there is only cold indifference shown to us by any deity. I will grant that 2,000 years ago, when miracles were allegedly occurring regularly, a thinking person could integrate those supernatural 'purposeful' experiences with philosophical arguments such as yours. But here in the present, all we have is the philosophy and apologists like Durbin's arrogant proclamations. I guarantee you this: he is converting no one by telling them their emotions are meaningless or not justified.
@@BScott7220 To stick with the argument at hand: I encourage you to not too easily dismiss the analogy I presented, and for the following reasons. Consider the better known example of our own human experience: when we were younger, our parents willed/permitted us to experience certain things which, at the time, we very truly thought was absolutely cruel, but, looking back now, we see the proportionality of it all. Eg., Mom sending me into a painful medical procedure to fix an injury-- why would Mom be so cruel? I see now why she was so "cruel". Or, even simpler things, like being sent away to school for the first time or told I need to do my homework instead of play with my friends, or grounding me when I misbehaved ("Do Mom and Dad no longer love me?"). We see that such things were not only not cruel, but actually signs of their love. From our adult perspective, we see the proportionality of it all.
Bringing this experience and applying it to life, in general, and possible motives for a Supreme Being to allow or will painful experiences: it is absolutely true that life is filled with horrors beyond description, no doubt. We may be TEMPTED-- and I use that word intentionally, "tempted"-- to conclude that there cannot POSSIBLY be ANY good/proportional reason for a God to allow such things to take place. But, could we be CERTAIN that our conclusion-- that there cannot POSSIBLY be ANY reason to allow such things to take place-- is true? No, we can't (and, to assert that we can is to jump to a rash conclusion). For, it very well COULD be the case (and, according to the Christian faith, and even sound philosophy, it IS the case), that the Supreme Being DOES have a proportional reason for allowing such evils, but that our vision right now is simply too limited: we cannot see what the Supreme Being can see, we cannot see the plan He has in place (and, if we did, we would understand that He has valid/proportional reasons for allowing the evils He allows in order to bring about the goods that occur on occasion of those evils). Again, MUCH like the young child who cannot POSSIBLY fathom why his father would painfully clean out a festering wound until that child grows up, we, too, are not yet in a position to fully understand why God is allowing the evils He does...we need to wait until we have a better vision of reality, closer to the one that He has of the whole universe and of all times (and, He has helped us by beginning to reveal His plan, i.e., that He has an eternity of indescribable bliss waiting for those who stay faithful to Him; so, just consider, for now, that, at the very least, perhaps, perhaps Heaven is SO good that, in the end....all of this will make sense....you cannot say that that is IMPOSSIBLE...and, therefore, it is possible...and, in the end, the Holy Scriptures reveal that not only is it possible, but it actually is TRUE. "I came that they might have joy, and have it to the fullest."-- Jesus Christ)
Further, this God actually enters INTO and EXPERIENCES our suffering-- the Cross of Christ-- but, that is another, though very much related, topic.
You can say the same thing to Durbin. He condemns grief on the part of an evolutionist, when grief is the cost of love. He asserts that Tyson has no business having emotions, when emotions are part of what has evolved. We would not survive without them. Durbin has no business telling us what an evolved human is allowed to feel.
One point on natural disasters. If you check the coverage of these things it’s rarely about an event where people aren’t involved in some deserted location. It’s always about a disaster where people have chosen to live. MOST disasters are actually man made - by that I mean we choose to live on flood plains, tornado alley, hurricane affected coastlines, near volcanoes, on earthquake faults. And in some cases we don’t even do the least we can to to fortify our dwellings. We make a cost benefit calculation because it’s nice to live near the beach or in mountains. Or to farm in places where the soil is fertile like near a volcano or on the plains. But WE make those choices. So to blame God for our free will choice to live in a susceptible area is unfair bordering on childish.
This is a good argument but it's still weak. Science has pushed God out of the created universe and it is likely God resides outside of His creation in the same way that Michaelangelo cannot be physically found in any of his paintings.
If you happen to be a child born in one of these areas you're not going to have much say in the matter, so your argument doesn't hold.
@@rhrrtt lol. Children have parents. Parents make the decisions. My argument most definitely holds. Families do not have to choose to live in disaster prone areas.
@@joelapp So, if I understand correctly, you're claiming that the parents (and not God) inflicted the suffering on the children (although God allowed the poor children to suffer in the first place!). Well, that might be the case in parts of the modern world, but not in the past when parents may not have had a great deal of choice about where they lived. Their ancestors may have lived in that area for generations, so in practice it probably wouldn't even have occured to them to move. There are also unpredictable natural disasters that happen in places that have no previous history of such disasters. These can't be blamed on the people who happen to live there.
@@rhrrtt if you don't believe in God, you would understandably think life on Earth is the be all end all, a narcissistic centering of humanity. But if you believe in YHVW, you would know he has promised to make right the injustices one experienced in the mortal world of the type in the examples being talked about.
We live in a bizarre time in history where everyone thinks they're a competent philosopher with little or no training in that discipline. I don't argue the finer points of astrophysics because that's not my area of expertise. If only Prof. Tyson would adhere to the same principle.
he was asked a question. and gave a personal thought on the matter. and it was about HIM being a atheist. not like he is asking for a philosophy debate. it really felt he is talking past tense in that this was his thoughts years ago.
Brother Jeff this was a great point, but I do have one issue. I understand the importance in pointing out the hypocrisy of his worldview, but I would like to see a bit more focus on directly refuting his points themselves about the problem of evil. I am happy that you brought it to a more specific answer towards the end, but I would like to see you go straight after this point without necessarily going after other things surrounding Neil's worldview as much (though they are important to point out).
You didn't let Tyson finish his statement. He said this statement from the Christan perspective of things being evil ,and made a following statement from this perspective.
If we are products of evolution and the big bang, there is no good or evil. Everything is a product of chaos so how can he assert that the chaos in the universe, including natural disasters on Earth, be considered evil or bad?
Thanks for the conversation. In the clip he started the sentence with if there is a God who is all powerful and all good ,and there are things that aren't good on earth ( under the precedence of the things called evil in the bible )Then God if he exists is either not all powerful or not all good.( Under the biblical view of good things and bad things)
The problem with atheism is that the worldview is impossible to live out consistently.
The problem with Christians is that they just want death and destruction. They can't wait to see that happens 😂😂😂
Yes, exactly. Because the deveplopment of the universe according to their worldview wasn't even lead by consistent Prozesses, but by sudden impact ( in this case Big Bang Theory)
Yes! I don't know why people can't see that in just a few minutes of thinking it through!
@@gianlucadraskov6918there is no Atheistic worldview. Atheism is the lack of a belief in ANY God due to the lack of evidence
@@Yesica1993atheists don't believe in ANY gods because there has never been any demonstrable evidence presented for any of them
Hi Pastor Jeff I noticed on the website I am not able to get the Mormon tract. It keeps saying that an error has occurred and to try again later. Don’t know if it’s something on my part or your guys, but thought you should know.
I have a relationship with our Lord and savior! I have experienced God in my life many times over the years. It then, when faced with doubt, that I go back and draw off of those experiences to prove to me who God really is! God is real, but so is satan. You must keep your whole armor of God on to be able to distinguish between God and satan! Stay strong people! There is a lot of confusion (from satan) going on in the world 🌎. Prayers for strength and peace!
And if they can have sadness about death, the naturally existing complement is to rejoice over the gift of life.
hey the music is a little distracting !
I think the last minute or so of your answer should have been the first minute or so. Many might have shut off this video because it seemed like you were going to dodge the direct question posed by Tyson. Just a practical review of your reply. I agree with everything you said
Amen to that!
Just to address your initial comments, where you said Tyson couldn't borrow from the Christian worldview to question how God could be good since he didn't believe in absolute good. I'm not sure this follows. Surely he can point out the seeming inconsistency in the Christian position where absolute good is posited and yet doesn't match with the evil we see in the world. I don't see how pointing out he doesn't hold to absolute morality prevents him from doing this.
Correct. There is no objective morality. Even the god of the Bible had conflicting positions
@@LAndrewNext I didn't say that. Morality is obviously an objective standard, or we would have no right to hold anyone to it. I was just saying that Tyson was in his right to question how the existence of objective morality could fit with the God of the Old Testament. But the answer I would give is that just because an objective morality exists doesn't mean that we know it perfectly as human beings. History is a testament to how human beings get morality twisted.
@@MrTypingsound you need to travel more. Morals are subjectine to time, environment and necessity.
Do you think your God sets these moral standards then, does he follow his own morals?
I don't understand why believing that there is no God responsible for our existence necessarily means that your desire to engage in philosophical discussions isn't founded on anything or "meaningful".
I’m so glad you agree with Mr Tyson. This is the only channel where I see a harmonious bridge between science and faith. It’s dope to see religious leaders who also love Carl Sagan. You are the future! 🙌
Not a fan of Tyson in the least but I don't follow this particular line of criticism. From what I heard Tyson didn't say there shouldn't be disasters and such, he said it was inconsistent with an all powerful benevolent God. I think this is listed as the number one reason given for disbelief. So he's not saying anything many others haven't thought at one time or another.
The problem is that he says these things are “evil”. He can’t say that since according to atheism there is no good or evil, we’re merely stardust/chemicals. Besides as Christians we know that not only is the presence of evil not inconsistent with God’s existence, but rather, it points to Him.
If we are only a cosmic accident, made up of stardust, having no purpose or greater meaning - why is anything 'good' or 'bad' according to an atheist? The Bible is more complicated than 'God is all powerful and super nice' in the first place, but the point is that if you can see that some things are objectively bad, evil, disastrous, etc., why deny the things that are good, beautiful, miraculous, etc.? And of course, according to atheism, there is no source of morality or purpose anyway. So as soon as an atheist brings up moral standards, the response is always, 'According to whom?' By what standard is he judging something to be good or bad?
@@wonderbuilds6523 I didn't hear him mention evil. The gist of what he said was that an all.powerful benevolent God wasn't evidenced by the random disease and destruction we see on the earth. It's an age old question. I've read several books on the problem of suffering and none have really settled the question in my mind. They mostly point to human will, original sin and God's ultimate wisdom and sovereignty to do as He pleases. The lack of answers doesn't make me an atheist, but it sometimes makes me briefly wonder if the Deists might be right. I don't think Christians should fear questions and doubts like these for they often lead to deeper faith in the end.
@@jerseyjim9092 he talks about evil when he mentions these natural disasters, pestilences etc at the beginning of the video. If you want the answers you really have to read the Bible. Because while creation and the universe points to the existence of God, only the Word can actually show what He’s like. Otherwise you’re merely hoping that the abstract God is kind and merciful and caring. Personally in my experience in my faith and from other Christians, we aren’t afraid of questions and you’re absolutely right when you say dealing with the doubts makes you stronger.
@@wonderbuilds6523 i had to rewatch the video a few times, but NDT never actually says the word "evil". He gives a series of examples of how life is made miserable by natural causes. You don't have to be a theist to make this same observation about the world around us.
Jeff is a Calvinist. Calvinist believe that 100% of the thoughts and actions of people are controlled by God. Jeff says that humans are in rebellion against God. However, if God is fulling controlling their behavior, it is not a real rebellion.
I’m a Christian and I’ve always struggled with other this, why would God create man capable of sin? He knows what we do or are going to do before we do it. I’m born again but have trouble grasping this.
You are not born again first off
Believing following and being a disciple are different things you know nothing clearly. You are the judge of God because you are too lazy to want to have to do work in life 😅😅😅😅😅
Luke, don't listen to Iacopone Furio.
God gave us free will. We have the will to do what we want or to follow God. If we didn't have the choice and He had to force us, our relationship with Him would be meaningless. We will never be unable of sin and that's ok because thats why Jesus died. God planned this from the beginning. God does know what we're going to do before we do it, that's why He sent Jesus.
Does this help? God bless you 🙏
This is a very good explanation that brings a lot more clarity. Thank you
@@luke7750 you're very welcome 🤗
1000th like!!!
We experience suffering because WE ARE FALLEN.
We are to turn to our Faith in those moments, not give into the Sin.
We also become stronger in those hard moments even death. It’s something we must experience because it’s the human experience.
Natural disasters. We didn’t use to Live In areas that had hurricanes, earthquakes, volcanoes etc.. people knew that these areas had risk and over time we disregarded that risk and now live there.
The Earth is its own entity and no Government can “eliminate or Control” the elements or planets cycles.
The earth is not a planet. The 100% false manmade idea that the earth is a planet comes from atheists like NDT. Anyone that believes the earth is a planet is not a Christian and is in reality an atheist.
What is the Earth 🌎 then?
@@LAndrewNext ,...The earth is a flat stationary plane just as the entire Bible clearly tells us. The idea of the earth being a spinning ball comes from the Godless world's (churches) atheist religion of scientism. All actual Christians know, understand, hold to, and defend the Bibles earth.
Those that believe in, hold to, and defend the Godless worlds fake spinning ball earth are not Christians. They are in the religion of scientism and scientism's counterfeit version of christianity. They have all been deceived just as the Bible warned them not to be.
once again Tyson is proof that intelligence doesn't equate to comprehension.
@@sterlingfallsproductions3930 my reasoning isn't based on this clip alone, but my position would remain the same if it were solely based on just this "five second clip."
@@sterlingfallsproductions3930 looks like you seem to have a differing opinion but instead of telling us what you think you are only replying to other commentors. feel free to share your ideologies.
Regardless, the bible is still 100% man made nonsense
That is because intellect is the servant of morality.
Only an idiot would think that working Sundays, eating shellfish or wearing mixed fabrics had something to do with morality
Hey Jeff, where does Lord Jesus teach us to be called by our divine given gift or gifts. Also, you will never find the word PASTOR IN THE SINGULAR
The argument being made is that of ultimate value and purpose. I think Tyson would argue that we make up our own value and purpose and. based on that, natural disasters are bad because they hurt people whom we value.
That's right Rebecca 👏
@@pistachio-cat1043 Agreed. I wonder if the question becomes something like "Is individual, subjective value placement as powerful as objective value?" We behave as if it is objective, aka ultimate, because we feel and respond powerfully to it. We definitely don't behave as if it is our own personal opinion. In other words, we don't treat the concept "children are valuable" in the same way we treat the concept "chocolate ice cream is better". We'd be willing to die for the first but definetely not the second. But it seems the two concepts are equivalent if they are both subjective and therefore opinion.
@@sterlingfallsproductions3930 I don't think he is claiming that a lack of belief in God leaves one with the lack of understanding of grief. But I do think that if God does not exist grief is inconsistent with reality.
@@LAndrewNext Do you think the 'would be' Tyson argument is consistent with the idea of evolution with a guiding principle of survival of the fittest?
@@thisslightlysweetlife3402 we learn our morals from those around us. Morality changes with time, environment and necessity
Either Durbin missed the point or I did. He was saying, "If God is good and powerful, why do bad things happen? Since I see bad things happen (from a Christian perspective) that isn't consistent with this powerful, good God existing." What Degrasse missed was sin and death can enter the world while a good, powerful God exists. Those two things (sin and God) can obviously coexist for a time.
There is probably more to this video, but you are making a good point that I would just say is the second step in dismantling NDT's argument.
Jeff's point is the first step, which is to say from an atheist worldview, what are you even talking about?
The second step, after you have shown his argument to be foundationless, is to grant him his argument and then dismantle that. I think that is what you're saying. NDT is making a failed attempt at an internal critique. To do an internal critique you have to assume that all premises of a worldview are true, and then show how those premises are inconsistent. NDT is saying religions that believe in all good/all powerful beings are inconsistent. Well, first of all you can't lump every religion with an all good/all powerful being into one bucket. They are all very different, so immediately his internal critique fails. But let's say he chooses one religion like Christianity to level his criticism at. That's fine. With Christianity, the worldview is fully fleshed out in the Bible. So, to do an internal critique you have to assume the truth of the Bible and begin there. Well, the Bible lays out a very consistent understanding of evil in the presence of an all powerful/all good God. Again, your internal critique fails.
The only way you make the Christain worldview inconsistent is to isolate the classic Problem of Evil (which is like 5 sentences) and discuss those 5 sentences in a vacuum. Surely, we can agree that Christianity is more than merely 5 sentences.
_Ryan,_ do you really believe that addresses the problem? Imagine an engineer is designing a robot with free will, but a computer tells the engineer there's a 100% chance it will nuke New York due to how the engineer designed it. The engineer finishes creation anyway, and the robot nukes New York.
_Is the engineer responsible for those deaths?_ I think they are, because we hold people accountable when they knew the consequences of their action but took the action anyway.
Well in Christianity a God exists who's all-knowing, all-powerful, and caused everything, including humans with free will. So I don't really see how Christians pretend God isn't responsible for _literally everything._ If God wasn't said to be all-knowing it'd be different, but they're said to definitely know the outcome, so they knew this would happen.
So the Problem of Evil is unsolved. It's a real contradiction: a contradiction between different parts of Christian dogma (different things it says are true, like admitting that evil things happen, but also saying an all-knowing, all-powerful, entirely good God exists).
As a person bored with sentences that begin with "As a..."
Bravo sir .
It Is Written! KJV - 1 Corinthians 3 : 19 “For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God.
For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.”
GFDJB,....So, is the earth a globe? Or is it flat?
“We don’t typically shed tears rocks tumble of cliffs and shatter, but what’s the different between rocks and human beings”
Amen. Great video Jeff
Wow.✌️👊
So sin created Volcanos. Got it.
Without hearing the rest of Tyson's talk, I believe he is just stating that because he draws this conclusion he doesn't believe. I don't think this is a case of him having capital or not. In the end he may not believe that the bad things are a result of evil but just random chance.
I belive what Jeff is trying to say is, once you admit that you don't believe, you have no basis (or capital) to appeal to things like universal truths, morality, etc. Once he does appeal to those things, he's being inconsistent with his worldview, because his worldview cannot give an account for the things he appeals to.
I never understood the fascination with him. He to put it nicely he is an intellectual lightweight.
I put Tyson right up there next to Hugh Ross. Great voice. Speaks authoritatively. Yet almost everything he says makes me go, "Okay, well, I have a question about that..."
It Is Written! KJV Job 38 : 4 “Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?
declare, if thou hast understanding.”
GFDJB,....So, since you have understanding,... is the earth a globe? (spinning ball) Or is it flat and stationary?
to play Devils advocate, Tyson may say we've evolved to have conscience and emotions which give them the right now to grieve at death and to ponder our existence.
I completely agree with you and was about to comment on it. Tyson would certainly say that. However, he would not be able to account for his feeling being nothing more than a mere subjective reaction to events. He still won't have grounds to appeal to a transcendental concept of the effects of a so called "catastrophe", let alone of "evil".
In other words, when women and children are raped or killed, he may go as far as "feeling bad about it", but never to explain why it is "objectively wrong", unless he assumes the transcendental framework of the law of God as the point of reference to measure anything moral.
@juansaa1866 Well stated! God is the source of all life and morality! Amen, brother Amen!!!
We need you to debate AronRa
"I would imagine..."
"I would imagine..."
"I would imagine..."
I've heard him say we are all stardust.
We are
I don't agree with NDY on much of anything he says...
I'm a believer, I read the Bible almost everyday but I've never read where it says humans or man is the pinnacle of creation.
Could you help me with those verses?
I have read that Lucifer was God's greatest creation.
I've heard Justin Peterson say that man is the pinnacle also and when I asked for those verses I received no response.
Any idea where they might be?
Why is there music playing through the talk.its a total distraction,just like your opening music.
I love NDT. Brilliant scientist and wonderful educator… been praying for him for a while
He is neither a brilliant scientist nor a wonderful educator. He doesn't do research.
A good educator has standards for rigor and accuracy. Tyson does not. He gets so much wrong.
@@HopDavid yeah he gets a lot wrong on topics he’s not as familiar with. But the topics he does know, he’s a great educator.
As for his scientific background, there’s a reason he’s the head of a department at the natural history museum in NY.
@@timothyvenable3336 For a few examples:
In his rocket equation explainer he was saying propellent goes exponentially with payload mass. This is wrong. Propellent goes exponentially with delta V, the needed change in velocity. Larger rockets with larger payloads are actually a more efficient use of propellent.
Or in his Lagrange explainer Neil says the James Webb Space Telescope is parked at the L2 point in earth's shadow. JWST is in a large halo orbit around L2 and never comes near earth's shadow.
There are numerous examples of Tyson botching basic physics and astronomy.
His focus is crafting dramatic sound bites, hawking his merchandise, building his cosmic themed wardrobe. I don't think he has opened a physics textbook or done research in three decades.
He's a source of misinformation -- even in the fields of physics and astronomy.
@@HopDavid huh… interesting. That’s good to know!
@@HopDavid huh… interesting. That’s good to know!
He isn't an atheist- he just doesn't agree with how God is handling things- truly arrogant who thinks he knows more than God
Instead of collision, this should be called deflection.
No. The underlying principle of Humanism is that human life is precious. This unfounded belief is just their version of faith. You can call them hypocritical, but stop saying they are nihilists.
Neil is trying to do what Christopher Hitchens used to do, borrow the Christian worldview in order to argue their position, or as Doug Wilson said to Christopher, “You’re trying to jump into the Christian car and crash it into a tree”
yea, because it's clearly flawed and makes no sense in the real world
BY….WHAT….STANDARD
Oddly, Christians are not seeing that Neil's comment is just the same old lazy "God bad because bad things happen" argument.
Meaning, Neil isn't asking anything particularly challenging. He's not asking anything new, and he certainly isn't asking in good faith. This is just another atheist saying the same thing, and getting another Christian to respond, so that another atheist can raise the same issue for the billionth time.
This is what I refer to as the "atheist merry-go-round." They make the same arguments that have been debunked, retorted, responded, and completely answered, yet they act as if it has not. That's it. That's all this is.
And no atheists, saying "Well maybe if you stupid Christians would make better answers we wouldn't have to keep raising the same issues."
Guy, we are not tasked with answering the same "concerns," until YOU find the answers satisfactory.
Get you an outline brotha
1. In order for Tyson to complain about disasters in the manner which he can conclude that there is a better way and God cannot be it, he has have some idea of what would be better.
2. What would be better is a perfect world in which disasters don't happen. (inferred position based on Tyson's comments)
3. God created the world perfect, therefore disaster didn't happen.
4. Tyson, in order to complain about God such that Not-God is a better answer invokes, "We should have a God who created the world perfectly"
5. Therefore Tyson is actually advocating for God.
Little bit of repeating going on here, but still a decent video.
You’ve got some good stuff, but this is a pretty silly counter argument:
“You’re not allowed to comment on my premise because you don’t believe in it.”
His commentary is valid that we do need to explain the problem of evil in our worldview because we do believe in a good God. There are arguments to be made to this effect without resorting to “Neil’s not allowed to talk about this.”
but isn't Tyson saying that he could never accept a benevolent powerful creator BECAUSE of the sufferings? I fail to see how his worldview on origins negates his ability to acknowledge the problem of evil and how it jives with the concept of a good God. Certainly lots of people are atheists, and yet still struggle with the problem of evil. I don't see it as helpful to answer Tyson's objections by simply disqualifying him from the discussion altogether. Romans 1 is applicable here-Tyson ultimately knows he has a creator but has suppressed that truth in unrighteousness. Help please!
Nice! I’d love to see you debate him live. If I were your coach, I’d let you know your rebuttal doesn’t consider human empathy as a biological function with regards to the being by the bedside of dying people.
Yes certainly but Jeff is actually talking about having Justification for that empathy. He is talking in ultimate terms. The question is not whether we have empathy but more so WHY should we have it, or why OUGHT we empathize with other human beings? Sure, it's beneficial to work together in society to continue the species, in an evolutionary sense, it's certainly not beneficial to grieve and mope around when a loved one dies, or to sob at someone's bedside. So why have we evolved to do that? it seems like a pointless thing to do. Also, not all humans have empathy, but we usually call that a mental condition. Perhaps they are just realists and the rest of us are weirdos for caring about loved one's dying?
@@jamesemerson4102 yes, exactly. We have empathy as a biological mechanism because (the answer to the “why”) the offspring of those that have it have better survival statistics which compound over time. That is what Pastor Jeff could expect as a counter to his rebuttal if he ever did debate someone of NDT caliber live. The mourning question is super interesting from an evolutionary perspective as it is the first signs of spirituality among humanoids in the fossil record. The decorating of grave sites and the commemoration of our dead is what eventually birthed religion, art, music (and therefore math and logic). The “why?” is more challenging here. It opens the “space monkey” door.
As a Christian this video is a joke we need to stop making assumptions of people thoughts and understanding. Christian’s please understand the science before you speak because we do sound stupid regardless of how many big words we use.
What on earth are you talking about? Did we watch the same video?
yep he said allot without saying anything, his example of evolution was so silly. That’s not what any scientist believes and it’s disingenuous explaining it the way he did, uneducated people will get the wrong idea of the theory.
He based his whole view of tyson on ‘if’ tyson believed in certain views. Not once did he state anything that tyson had said. It was just a missive hypothetical argument on why you shouldn’t allow tyson to change your views on the way you look at the world.
Just very interesting.
Jeff, the quick answer is that this life is not our destiny.
Well put! I do wonder if there is a direct correlation between (un)natural disasters and the evil (practices) of man? We see Haiti get hit time and time again by these said disasters, it being the voodoo capital of the world, I wonder if God is punishing them? Los Angeles being hit with the homeless epidemic. Etc….
Neil deGrasse Tyson is a very bright physicist. He is entitled to his opinion on different subjects, of course, but it doesn’t make sense on how culture continues to position him as an authority on God.
I bet this guy is amazing at Dungeons and Dragons.
He’s the best
Did he not say "IF" ? If God....