So she's saying God obviously didn't create suffering, because it's bad, not good, but at the same time those who suffer find out it's actually good, not bad. C'mon Robert, you're a logical person, stop giving such illogical people a platform for their nonsense.
Plus she says "I don't think God created the world with suffering in it. I think he created the world with people in it." But what about people who are born suffering right out of the womb because they are born with serious medical conditions? Why would God create people in that way? And suffering isn't limited to humans. The animal kingdom has tons of suffering with animals eating other animals all the time.
Question avoided I agree but with the standard argument that you usually get ignoring the possibility that suffering is caused other than by humans. Apparently be suffering of sentient animals for millions of years was necessary so that a few beings with freedom of action could redeem themselves by helping each other.
@@DJMICA-bz3qz if humans were the only source of suffering on this world then she answered the question. Assuming this is the standard way of not answering the question.
She beautifully articulated something that Christians can't answer without epic mental gymnastics. As an agnostic, I wanted to watch this video with a completely open mind. I wanted to know what a Christian theologian would say to the suffering of the young and innocent. I just didn't find her argument compelling. If an all-powerful God knows and feels the suffering of his own creation made in his image but does nothing, I don't think he exists in the way that Christians think he exists. It is akin to watching a family member whom you love with all of your heart suffer and do nothing, even though you have the power to end the suffering. Or prevent it from being created in the first place. Could you watch a beloved family member suffer by some mechanism you created and continue to watch knowing at any moment you can stop it? If you did nothing, you would be considered sadistic in most people's minds. Or at least someone without empathy or the ability to truly love. I believe either God does not exist in the way people think he exists or is not all powerful, like people believe he is. At least the Hindu can explain suffering without any contradiction at all. In their faith, the world IS suffering, and it is our duty to transcend suffering, so we experience less of it in the next life. That makes a lot more sense to me when I look at the world.
I suggest He exists and is all-powerful BUT values giving us moral decisions to make and allows all the evil that results in order to conceal His presence. That's grim, but leaves open the possibility that He will straighten it out after the fact, and perhaps over-compensate the necessary victims then. That's my hope, as a Christian, and it goes way beyond salvation by faith as taught by Christianity.
@20july1944 I just feel that is bordering on apologizing for God's actions. Why did he create the most awful germs, viruses, and parasites that eat and destroy the human body? Surely, those have nothing to do with free will. And it would have been so easy to create the world without those. And mosquitoes! Why do we have mosquitoes! 😄
@20july1944 I have one more question. There is supposedly no sin in heaven. If there is no sin in heaven, does that mean we lose our free will in heaven? And if so, why create free will on earth to begin with?
@@taborturtle No, we'll have free will in heaven. As spiritually mature humans we won't choose to sin because we'll see the full dimensions of the evil of sin AND we will have learned to control our selfishness. God clearly values us having the maturing effects of challenges, moral decisions, and suffering.
lol. Can't? It's an ALMIGHTY God ... not a god. The Function & Intelligence categories and the origin of Thermodynamic Systems ... prove the Universe & Life are Functions composed entirely of Functions and were made in a UNNATURAL System by an UNNATURAL intelligence. There is absolutely zero evidence that nature & natural processes can make & operate the simplest physical Function 13.7 or 4 billion years ago. FFS Quantum particles, fields & forces ... are Functions/Systems. A religion is simply an organized FIRM BELIEF in something or someone responsible for this Universe & existence.. Theists have a firm belief in someone (deities). Atheists & Agnostics ave a firm belief in something (nature & natural processes). Science is simply a method to explain natural phenomena using fixed laws of nature ... and ... prove a FIRM BELIEF or hypothesis about some natural phenomena ... like the origin of the Universe & Life. lol. There is only evidence that someone made the Universe & life. And this someone ... is an INTELLIGENCE with freewill, nature, consciousness ... and UNNATURAL(not of the Universe). Man is someone ... who is an INTELLIGENCE with freewill, nature, consciousness ... and NATURAL (of the Universe). An UNNATURAL intelligence ... created the the space, time, laws of nature, matter & energy of the Universe ... and ..a NATURAL intelligence. And there is no evidence that the UNNATURAL intelligence is exactly like the NATURAL intelligence or worse in terms of free will & nature. You are wrong about there being no God, and then if there is you then blame this God for the suffering in the Universe .... ignoring the fact that you are an intelligence with FREE WILL and a nature .... to think & do whatever you want. Do you want freewill or not? And do you believe in morality, ethics, good & evil, ... and ... justice? Or not? God only created Adam & Eve ..... perfect with FREE WILL .... and the ability to pro-Create. They were to live forever ... but will die (body & soul) ... if they sin(break God's Law) Adam & Eve .. pro-CREATED .. every Human Being with a corrupted body but a perfect soul. Jesus (Son God) has confirmed with His virgin birth, and the Great Commandment ... that the Mind & nature of Man ... is the body & soul. Both the Body & soul ... can love or hate God. This is why Jesus had to be born of a virgin ... and not have the CORRUPTED body from Adam & Eve ... and why every single Human Being will freely choose to think & do evil. It's inevitable ... and God knows the exact moment that a sinless human being ... will sin. God removed Elijah & Enoch from the Earth ... before they sinned for the first time ... because He was pleased with them and did not want to see them actually sin. God is Almighty. God always knew that it would take 7 x 1000 years .... to save His Children ... from His just nature to punish all who sin with death. Again. God only created Adam & Eve ... with Freewill ... and can PROCREATE. This is why God must wait until the last Child of God ... is procreated by Man(Adam & Eve) ... before Judgement Day. It was a 6 day creation & the 7th Day belongs to God ... because God always knew ... Man will rule the Earth for 6 x 1000 years ..then God will rule for 1 x 1000 years ... then finally judgment Day. Jesus returns in the year 6 000 since the Fall of Man. Judgement day is in the year 7 000 since the Fall of Man. The current Jewish Year since they believe is the Fall of Man is .... 5783. Jesus is returning to rule for 1000 years with 144 000 Jews who were murdered during End Times believing in the Christ. Stop being a potato. Only an intelligence makes, maintains, improves, fine tunes abstract & physical Functions/System. Everything in the Universe is a Function/System.
Fact: God has never experienced suffering the same way you and I have. God doesn't have anyone more powerful above him making him go through it, nor does he understand what the unknown is like. He can't relate.
It's supposed to be an all knowing being so you're mistaken. The more basic problem here is that the sort of god presupposed to exist here is a cartoonish, anthropocentric god that writes books for humans; it's just not a very sophisticated conception of deity, yet people try to apply scholarly rigor to explain away the inevitable incongruencies and contradictions.
Hello Oswald. I personally think God does "relate" to our suffering and although this type of experience may be considered a spiritual realm, the incarnation of Jesus to become "flesh" speaks volumes about the willingness of Jesus to understand our suffering. I'm also curious as to what you mean by stating that God does not understand the "unknown"? That's interesting. Since many people believe that God is hidden from us, your statement seemingly says that "the unknown God doesn't understand the unknown". What do you think? Not trying to belittle what you said because actually your statements are thought provoking. Happy New Year to you and your family.
@johnbrzykcy3076 It's different when you have foreknowledge and know the outcome of everything. He didn't experience suffering the same way. His was also voluntary and not done to him against his will. That is another key difference.
@@johnbrzykcy3076 Your statement regarding the _willingness_ of Jesus to understand our suffering illustrates that the Christian conception of deity is incoherent. If God is omniscient and Jesus is god, he should innately have always had a complete understanding of human suffering and it should not have required any degree of "willingness to understand" or to "become flesh". These are the inevitable incongruencies and contradictions that emerge when philosophers and apologists are compelled to attempt to logically defend the indefensible. The concept of god requires it to have attributes such as omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence but those attributes cannot be reconciled with the requirements of the Jesus narrative. Putting aside for the moment the whole question of whether or not there is a god and assuming for the sake of argument here that there is one, I think it's clear we're long overdue for an upgrade so far as the major religions are concerned. These conceptions of deity involving anthropomorphic beings that write books for humans are shallow archaic vestiges of a time long gone and efforts to reconcile them with science and logic are doomed to failure.
Evil doesn't abolish God but it does prove God isn't all loving. No way an all loving all nipotent God would allow all these things that happens in this life.
Actually it proves that God loves us because he lets us experience evil here on Earth so that we can appreciate his love in the afterlife. Without evil life becomes meaningless. Without hardship and suffering life becomes meaningless You can even speculate that we are here on Earth as a form of entertainment for God therefore there has to be a clash between Good and Evil suffering and fulfillment punishment and reward They all go hand in hand
@@dongshengdi773 But what if evil here on earth actually might prevent us from appreciating "his love in the afterlife"? So could hell on earth become a signpost in the afterlife which says "welcome back to Hell". I'm not trying to negate or even refute what you said. But the thought popped into my head. To be honest, you might be correct. I'm not sure because suffering is such a difficult subject. I think God wants us to appreciate His love here and now. So can such a love be reconcilable with suffering here and now? Your comments are thought provoking. God bless you in the New Year.
Doesn’t all loving, include, loving sufferers/suffering -cause(r)s? If so, isn’t that all powerful because evil 👿 doers are not punished but loved as much as the suffering. This seemingly impossible contradiction might be all powerful while all loving.
An apology for suffering and an artificial hierarchy based around suffering, so the ones who suffer more have more authority. That's what I call a messed-up worldview. I know that thinking has created a lot of awful situations for religious people. Look for cases of OCD sufferers who are religious if you want to check it yourself. Wouldn't a loving being be committed to diminishing suffering instead of glorifying it? I know there should be a place to discuss these topics. Still, I can't help but feel a little disappointed with Closer to the Truth for producing this kind of low-quality content in terms of critical thinking and with Dr. Robert for not articulating more appropriate rebuttal questions in this discussion.
God created a world that has earthquakes and volcanoes. Why? If he is all powerful he didn’t have to. If he is all loving he wouldn’t. Ergo no all powerful all loving deity.
Her suggestion that God doesn't cause suffering as punishment is debunked by book after book in the bible. Read Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Amos. These books have page after page of God causing suffering to punish his people, regardless of their ages. It's not that evil abolishes God, it defines God as evil. After all, what could possibly be more evil than sending mere mortals who live but a handful of decades to an eternity of conscious torment, simply for failing to believe things for which there isn't a shred of compelling objective evidence? Gen 3:22 tells us that we, like the gods, know what good and evil are. The bible then goes on to describe an evil god that it insists we must call "good," thereby causing cognitive dissonance for billions of people for thousands of years.
I stopped watching after a few minutes. Thanks for confirming this as the right choice. I sometimes wonder about Robert's selection process for good discussion partners.
Eleonore is full of soup. Evil is incompatible with an all powerful, all good god. Since we know we have pain, suffering and evil, so god can’t be all powerful, pure good and loving. If god created us to love god or god to love us, god has mental issues.
If the Living Infinite Being exists - omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient; then it must be everything. It isn't doing anything to anybody other than "Self". To know everything requires existing at every level of contrast.
Nobody suggested that this being is doing anything to anyone; the question here is about why it's not doing anything to alleviate suffering if it can. You're babbling about some sort of pantheistic impersonal conception of deity; they're babbling about an anthropomorphic book writing bearded sort of deity.
@@b.g.5869 Perhaps there are metaphysical rules that cannot be broken. Perhaps God is doing everything possible to alleviate suffering. Perhaps suffering is simply an essential part of reality, and removing it would have consequences so dire that suffering and evil is the preferable option.
@@scottfree6479 In what meaningful sense could this being be considered "god" then? I personally, while not a theist, don't think "the problem of evil" is necessarily a problem for theism in the broadest sense; it _is_ a problem for the Christian conception of god, and for anthropocentric conceptions of god in general. I can easily imagine something that might reasonably be considered "god" for which the problem of evil doesn't pose a problem; the problem of evil is only a problem for anthropocentric conceptions of god. God doesn't necessarily have to care about human suffering, and not caring about human suffering isn't _necessarily_ objectively evil. Indeed, theists typically argue that right and wrong are whatever god says they are, not what humans think they should be.
@@b.g.5869 What if there are certain laws of logic (more specifically, mathematics) that cannot be broken by an omnipotent God? What if there are different levels of omnipotent? Could God make a triangle with 4 sides?
@@scottfree6479 You're not talking about laws of logic here you're essentially asking if omnipotence entails incoherence, to which the answer is obviously "no". Omnipotence doesn't mean you could make something simultaneously be a bird and a country.
Even though the children didn't sin, they still have the fleshy sin nature. The Bible alludes to age of accountability. When God tells Moses to number the males that are capable for war from 20yrs old and upward. With the children being born with deformities and disease, just verifies the Bible as we are living in a cursed world. This earth will pass away, and Jesus Christ will make a new heaven and earth.
That is why some believers are said to serve as rationalizing 'God''s insufficiencies. That was whitewashing the reality of evil in the world! What does God want to prove or teach to an infant with posing suffering on him?!
God is not only Almighty, he is also morally upright. This explains why things are the way they are. Are atheists not contradicting themselves? If you believe in evolution, you should have no concept of evil. Because for evolution, doing evil to others or when others are afflicted by evil, that should give us a better chance for survival and therefore there should be no concept of good or evil, right or wrong. For the fact that every normal person is repelled by evil, proves evolution totally false again on this ground. Now regarding why evil exists while there is supposedly an Almighty and loving God, one should first reason on whether it would have been morally upright for God to have created humans with all the capacity and abilities we currently possess and yet made us to do all his bidding without a choice of our own. If God had done that, wouldn't that make God a despot and immoral? Next, the Bible clearly explains that the life we live now is not how God meant it to be. By outrightly dismissing the Bible's account as some sort of nonsense, could this not somehow be an indication of atheists' susceptibility to the Dunning-Kruger effect?
Stump does this in her writing too: she jumps past the actual problem and begins talking about triage. In Wandering in Darkness she dismisses natural evil even though God created from nothing, meaning even mechanical processes are the design of a moral actor. Pushing further, I think it's interesting that God frequently uses natural disasters in scripture to exact judgement, and the Pat Robertson's of the world say God still judges in this way, but then when we can't imagine what reason God would have for some indiscriminately destructive natural disaster it gets lumped into the category 'natural evil.' God ought to have no scruples about arbitrarily controlling the weather or microbes. They have no free will to violate. Anyway, the more I learn the more theodicy looks like a shell game. Thanks for the upload tho.
@@23Hiya The reason I asked is that a lot of people don't understand what these video clips are; they think they're all recently filmed, made just for UA-cam, and posted by Kuhn himself as though this is his personal UA-cam channel and he's just another 'content provider'. The vast majority of the clips in this channel are well over ten years old (some are over 20 years old) and are clips from a US public television show that first aired in the year 2000. There are 'new' episodes being released now as "season 21", but considering the first episode featured a man who has been dead for three years (Freeman Dyson) I have no idea if it's actually new content or new edits of old content (they've released 'new episodes' before that were really just new edits of old footage). There might be some new interviews in 'season 21' but I'm not sure. The only way to tell is if Robert looks more or less the same as he does in his "Chats" videos (the one on one Zoom calls); _those_ are new and uploaded to UA-cam (certainly not by Kuhn personally but by staff). In any event, this particular clip is well over a decade old.
The question was “The problem of evil is the biggest one that those who believe in god have to face…what do you do with children who suffer the most horrible kinds of evil…when certainly they didn’t sin?”
Hello Zachary... the only answer I can give is that people should concentrate on being compassionate to the children to the best of their ability. To follow the example of doctors and nurses who care for the suffering child. Peace
@@johnbrzykcy3076 ..that answer says nothing about religion its just common sense reply this video is why innoncent children suffer and why a god would allow it... heres a little tip for you its allowed because no such entity exists..
@@davenchop you assume that god has some sort of personality which is bound my our conception of what it is like to be alive and think. You might as well say reality itself does not exist because evil occurs. Can you say that a single particle floating in space just “exists” on it’s own? That the wave function which it is, and fields in which its properties are propagated simply “exist” independently of anything else? If there is no conscious thing to perceive it’s existence, that it would simply exist in its own reality divorced from any perception which justifies its existence? Such a thing is by its own nature Inconceivable. If there is no perception, there is no existence. That thing, that fabric which all physical items and all consciousness rest upon might be called god. However, there is a chance that the person reading this isn’t a conscious being, in which case I wouldn’t expect him to understand anything about this.
@@davenchop You have to believe in God in order to believe in suffering. If you don't, there is no suffering. Without God, suffering is just some other meaningless thing that happens in a meaningless, accidental and temporary cosmos.
Honesty is important-first, I don't know anyone who thinks suffering is for losers-second, how do you reconcile innocent suffering, especially of children, from painful, refractory cancers, famine, genocides, etc., with a loving God? I think the question is unanswerable. She says God did not create suffering-this makes no sense-did God make or allow painful genetic mutations, so many illnesses and death, loss of loved ones, etc? Also, why do we keep referring to God as a He? This also makes no sense.
Suffering in this life…is for a blink of an Eye. If we believe in an ongoing life we must be humble in our short sighted conclusions about the ultimate fairness of the mystery of pain pleasure and suffering and evil.
Your comments are interesting but many people will not accept the " blink of an eye" or they will still seek to understand a logical reason behind suffering, especially the horrific pain that innocent children experience. I'm not trying to refute what you said. So do you basically believe that suffering is a mystery? Historically people have been asking "why?" since the dawn of civilization. You may be correct in stating "short sighted conclusions" but if suffering remains a mystery, can we ever expect to perceive any kind of fairness? Will the all-knowing God someday reveal the truth behind the mystery of suffering? I'm asking myself those questions. Sometimes instead of being "humble" I become frustrated or depressed. I appreciate your comments. I would like to be more humble and simply say to God, "Not my will Lord, but thine". Peace of God to you in the New Year.
They say that history is written by the winners, but it’s also written by the survivors. The living are the ones that propagate history and culture, perpetuate religion and get to justify the suffering of others. But there are also those who have no vice, because they were wiped out, their whole family, community and even civilisation were erased from existence. Cities washed away by floods, volcanic eruptions or laid waste by plague or warfare. So it’s nice to be able to tell stories about the redemption of suffering and how it’s some sort of prize, but that only works if the suffering has an end and the sufferer survives to transcend the experience. But what of those who died, not just them but their whole communities, their children, their entire community wiped out by disaster entirely beyond their control. Everything they even worked and lived for withering and snuffed out before their eyes. Where is the benefit for them? So no, I’m sorry, I don’t buy it.
I suppose one can argue that if there was a bigger designer out there, they would allow such tragedies to occur simply so that those who were not affected can be reminded of the random chance of life and circumstances. I don't really see how the demise of others in such horrific ways is necessary to convey that message however.
no one can be told or know what suffering is until they experienced it in the first person... but suffering of the children is really hard to understand...
I agree with you because I never understood much about suffering until I experienced the consequences of cancer treatments. I can't imagine how a suffering child thinks and feels. So yes, it's very difficult to understand.
@@johnbrzykcy3076 life is very mysterious... I run into this video that might say more in this topic though... ua-cam.com/users/shortse9olg0S6Dz4?feature=share
I have seen that often those who endure suffering often develop a lot more character and determination through that and can end up achieving at a much higher level than otherwise. Also, people who suffer often have much more compassion for others. So suffering can produce a more beautiful person. In some cases though, suffering only makes sense from if the sufferer receives something much better in the life to come that wiped away all the suffering experienced by say a small child who dies of some terrible disease.
@@tonynorriss379 when I compare suffering with the innocence of a child, my reasoning abilities become useless... since it's part of our life then I guess we have to accept our share for what it is and deal with all of its fury...
I watched my daughter suffer first as an infant with cancer and then as an 8 year child with a recurrence that took her life by 11. She endured 14 surgeries, radiation treatments, and numerous chemo and immunotherapy treatments. Despite all of her fighting, she ultimately lost her ability to walk and talk and eat and eventually she even lost her ability to communicate. She was aware of everything until her last breath. She was trapped and unable to communicate to us outside of moving her left foot. This haunts me. There is nothing more inhumane. There is nothing good that come from this - nothing that can make her suffering worth it. Nothing.
Evil can only exist if there is a god who defines evil. No god, no evil. Evil is a transgression against a god. Straw man at the beginning @ 30 seconds in. Physical suffering is not the same as evil. Our nervous system has nothing to do with good or evil. So lets start on a false premise on which Eleanor responds with how heart breaking it is that children have to physically suffer physical pain. Again, she changed the topic of evil to the suffering of children which are not interchangeable. Hey Eleonore, answer the question! Does evil abolish God? You never answer the question, nor did you want to. You just go off on tangents and then smugly claim triumph that you answered a question that you never answered!
I tend to agree that "physical suffering is not the same as evil". But I'd rather state that physical suffering is not necessarily evil or the results of evil. I struggle with understanding both the experience of suffering and the definition of "evil". I don't believe that evil can abolish God but it depends, as you implied, how we perceive the reality of evil. If people define God as a god of love and they view evil as the opposite of love, then they'll probably say "Yes, evil does abolish God." So as you implied in your comments, God "defines evil". Obviously we humans don't understand God's definition or we desire to make our own definition of evil. So what do you suggest we do? Does suffering remain a mystery? I dislike to criticize people. And I'm not very scholarly so I try to listen and be respectful. I appreciate your comments because they help me to think better. God bless you in the New Year - 2023.
@@johnbrzykcy3076 To answer your query in a nut shell... Suffering is a human condition, both physically and emotionally. All spiritual people experience pain just as much as those who like me, are not spiritual. I bawled my eyes out yesterday when I had to have one of my cats euthanized. True story. These sorts of pain are also felt in the animal kingdom as we have all seen in nature as well as owning pets. Pain does not equal evil, nor was pain spawn by evil. When you give a child a vaccine shot and he or she cries because of the pain of the shot, was it evil that you gave your child a vaccine? If some ones arm gets pulled out of it socket, is it evil to put them through the pain of popping it back into place? Living and suffering go hand in hand. We all have accidents, we all trip and fall or stub our toe or need a band aid at some point in life. We all experience pain. Pain is just our body telling us that something is wrong with our bodies. Evil and pain are not interchangeable. Though pain can be the result of a sadistic evil A-hole. Bible god admits to creating evil in Isaiah 45:7 KJV. Imagine if a world wide flood was even possible. How does killing by drowning kittens, puppies, human babies, etc make Bible god a virtuous being? As you said.. "Obviously we humans don't understand God's definition or we desire to make our own definition of evil." Oddly, have you ever noticed how individuals are the ones who do decide what is evil and what is not?
The example that she gave of her child and philosopher friend, goes right along with the word of God, the Bible. For the fact of giving comfort during suffering, by singing praises, and letting people know the suffering will end. How don't we cause God suffering? He suffered death on a cross for us, to abolish the suffering we brought upon ourselves, and him. He that spareth his rod hateth his son: But he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes. Proverbs 13:24 KJV And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful. And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. Revelation 21:1, 5-8 KJV
Actually, she didn't answer the question. She has no answer for this. Nobody has. If you believe in god, you forget about it. If you don't believe, this question is solved.
She shows distress emocional concern childrem pain. It isnt moral philosophy but GOD ethic proceedings. She doesnt know nothing about GOD atributes or philosophy moral. She emocional disturbing arent liking with GOD atributes.
"God ... [i]s all powerful ... like this, he can make something, that he can't control", when interpreted literally is contradictory, so is the number with opposite forms, -1 and +1 and consequently, anything including it, for example ABC Firm, Income Statement for the day ended today : Revenue 1 Less Expense 2 = Net Loss (1) for "( )" negative and the imaginary number * , equal to the square root of negative one, or equivalently negative one exponent one half, where one exponent three equals 1 x 1 x 1 for "x" multiplication, which is used to model time alongside real numbers for space in Relativity and momentum when calculating the total energy of a system using the Hamiltonian Operator in Quantum Mechanics. * Imaginary number is the length of the side of a square with area equal to negative one.
Even though I'm an atheist, I find the argument about evil silly. If you're ready to believe in an all-powerful god, then you could just assume that god rewinds time after death and completely undoes what has happened.
Evil dose not disprove God rather proves God's existence, in Bhagbat Gita Lord Krishna says this material world is a prison, sea of death , here life is full of sorrow and miseary and this is designed as such that we have to face death , miseary, sorrow , flood, diseases, temptation, suffering, the only way to escape from it we have to stop rebirth again and for that we have to surrender all omnipotent and omniscient God.
Yes it does! It proves if god does exist, he's a disgusting, despicable god, not worthy of worship. God says categorically he is the author of evil: “I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create evil; I, the Lord, do all these things.” (Isaiah 45:7). Amos echoes this: “If there is calamity in a city, will not the Lord have done it? (Amos 3:6).
So what I got from this is that a god created a world knowing that countless innocent lives would suffer horribly just so a lucky few can have a free choice to worship him. Sorry but I'm not willing to sacrifice my humanity on the alter of such a deity, even if that deity is going to send be to be tortured for ever.
After reading through the comments thread, I arrive at the conclusion Kamala is moonlighting as a comments section ghost writer. (here come the replies)🙄
This was extremely twisted thinking. Where does she get the idea that suffering will bring a greater eternal life? It pained me to hear her conclusions:
@@Xanadu2025 Babies lack free will, yet many are born into a world supposedly created by a god, suffer terribly and die.By your logic this is necessary so that the lucky few can live to have the free will to choose to worship the god.
Suffering is an experience so you can't end suffering without eliminating consciousness so the experience of suffering is inevitable for any conscious self with a material body.
I think you make a valid point. The problem is why does humanity seemingly experience so much horrific suffering without any awareness of it's necessity ? However I do wonder if we understood the reason for the horrific suffering, would we accept such experiences or would we still argue that God is unloving or a monster? What do you think?
@@johnbrzykcy3076 I think it's relative to what you think you are in truth. If you perceive yourself as a conscious self to be of a spiritual nature that is not of nature the suffering can be beneficial for developing renunciation towards it that ultimately leads to liberation from it.
Re: ' 'god doesn't cause suffering' ' - The OT god didn't have a problem with slaughtering the innocent children of the Egyptians, Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites (Deut.20:17). So is the OT god a false god? And if so who is the real god?
we as humans accept to suffer. life is real real simple but some of us have never suffered do not want to and those who have suffered do not know anything else. it takes our free will to move and make change in life simple physics. that is our creator's gift. free will to be ourselves good or bad...
What Development...? For thousands of years and even today... ...in poor villages...small children are put to “Field-work”... ...under the “Hot” Sun and “hard” farm work... children (and adults) often just drink from the streams (to crunch their thirst)... ...Terrible “Human Intestinal Parasites” (tapeworms/Giardia/etc eggs) are ingested.. ..often some kids are disabled; and without money; they just let the kid suffer and die... Needing “work-hands”... often the parents just have another replacement kid... Reconcile a “All Good; Powerful God” and Human Intestinal Parasites”...?? What is possibly Developed/Learned.......in the short life time of that suffering child..? ...and No; most villages don’t even have wood-fuel available to start a fire to boil the water.... ...let alone the time and cutting into the work schedule...! Again... What is Developed/Learned...?
There's a common misperception that it's God's job to save us from evil. John Lennox points out that this idea just annihilates man. Evil is a consequence of having free will. To prevent evil, would mean the stripping away of free will. Evil is another word for error, or mistakes, and we need the ability to make mistakes in order to learn. No, it's not God's job to save us from suffering, it's our job to do that. Which would mean working together, which tons of folk have no interest whatsoever in doing. If we want to stop children from suffering, we have to get all those pagan individualists on board as fellow children of our Divine Father-friend (ODFF). [Which will eventually happen, just not for a very long time yet.]
Through scientific medicine those pagan individualists have done more to alleviate human suffering than all of religion in the entirety of human history.
No you don't. I measure my actions against wellbeing and human flourishing. If I achieved this goal and eliminated all suffering from the world, there is no place or need for evil.
So... She doesn't actually say anything about the problem of evil or anything really.... She just kind of rambles on and doesn't say anything if substance whatsoever lol
It's such a preloaded question. How would a billion find true love is the thought experiment for this. To make sure it's not the money everyone loves leaves only one way to be sure and that's living like you wasn't .
Once you see this world ones, you must complete your task else comeback through a different mother elsewhere who was already in existence before death.
We have a right (and perhaps even an obligation) to question God about the suffering of children. It is beyond confusing. This confusion becomes evident at a very early age. As children, we love the flavor of finger food, like chicken nuggets. Eventually (unless we are raised by vegetarian parents) we learn that animals had to slaughtered and killed to provide us with that pleasure. That's just the start of this confusion. We are given very conflicting testimony about the Universe, as soon as we learn about it. Lawrence-Kuhn has made a profession out of it. The very fact of God is confusion and questioning. And it starts as soon as we become aware. Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)
I'm a Christian believer and I tend to agree with most of your comments. I struggle myself to understand suffering, especially in a theistic way. I'm not sure I will ever be able to fully comprehend the perplexing reasons for suffering. But my misunderstanding or lack of understanding cannot negate or even refute the foundational beliefs in a good God who created mankind and the Cosmos. Could it be possible that we exist in a multiverse whereby the earth is only one of the possible worlds that God created? Our planet happens to display both good and evil. But as you said, it's " beyond confusing". Wishing you and your family a happy and healthy New Year. From Florida.
@@johnbrzykcy3076 I took basic psychology courses in undergrad, but by profession, I am a surgeon (now retired.) I was drawn back into belief from the very convincing scientific evidence of God from everything including Intelligent Design, to the enormous complexity of life and of course its digital information storage in proteins, DNA and RNA. Even if we live in a multiverse, it is necessary to have a thinking being creating this level of complexity. I know that many non-believers suggest that complexity is automatically occurring as the result of the Universe itself. And their belief that it is "all a matter of chance." But the best arguments for atheism come directly from suffering and evil. It is virtually impossible to look at the complexity of proteins without Intelligent Design. This makes it even more confusing: On one hand we have terrible suffering. On the other hand we have obvious intelligent design and 10 to the 100 power presence of information complexity. Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)
@@sanjosemike3137 Thanks so much for the information. I've studied some basic biology but I'm still reading and learning about the "digital information storage" that our cells seemingly display. I personally don't see how "chance " can account for the complexity of biological systems and consciousness and even language itself. My belief is that God created us in His image, and that's one reason for all the complexity. Regarding suffering and evil, it's still a mystery to me. Only an all knowing God has the answer. Do you mind if I ask, what religion do you follow? I'm just a simple Christian believer. Peace to you in 2023.
Hard to listen to, nothing more than a series of convoluted meaningless statements regarding a fictitious god. At one point she argued that suffering was god’s way of helping people. These people are totally deluded.
"Does Evil Abolish God?" Only someone who has a minimalist view of who and what God is, could possibly even think of asking such an absurd question. Another way this could be framed: Does unreality abolish reality? That which has no "reality" could never abolish absolute reality.
"His disciples asked Him: Rabbi! who sinned, he or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered, "Neither he nor his parents have sinned, but this is so that the works of God may appear on him." (John). P.S. To the correspondent's question for Christmas: "What would you say to God at a possible meeting with Him?"; followed by a response from a passerby: "I would ask Him: aren't you ashamed?" Happy New Year!
These pretentious writings where they have someone addressing Jesus as "rabbi" are anachronistic since rabbis didn't exist during the time Jesus is believed to have lived.
GOD CAN MAKE SOMETHING THAT HE CANT CONTROL: Damn! That’s for all you people saying she dodged the question, this lady needs to debate Bart Ehrman she quite directly answered the question with the most defendable answer I ever heard and I’m a you tube scholar damn it.
I don’t think she was able to answer the question. I guess you can say she technically gave an answer but logically it’s so flawed it’s really no answer at all. I also am a UA-cam Scholar, I printed out my own phd and everything.
@@toddoman4636 lol nice!! So I would have to agree with you on some level because conception of a non-dual reality is by it’s very nature inconceivable UNLESS you got some really good shrooms, we all peak behind the curtain to have a laugh now and then. This woman is a very zen Christian in her comprehension of reality. Normal logic can not be applied without remembering that your entire experience is on purpose. You chose the outcome to be out of your control. That’s what god wants. It’s just like you can’t tickle yourself. God is stuck in that position, which is why the book of Job is such a deep section of the Bible. I’d say Jung hit the nail on the head in “Answers to Job”, are you familiar?
@@DJMICA-bz3qz Interesting. I have to read what Jung said in " Answers to Job". I am definitely Not a UA-cam scholar. I'm basically here to listen and learn. Peace to you in 2023.
@@realitycheck1231 Chill Child. I’m not embarrassed of anything about shrooms or anything I’ve done and don’t need your stigmas and preconceived notions throw out at me that you couldn’t be more wrong about. You wanna argue keep it on topic. First of all we can all now conclude you never took psychedelics and try to label me a drug addict cause I did mushrooms and weed. Which btw you are sooooo wrong, again u expect people to side with you. Then give me a reference of someone who opposes all the big names I mentioned. Alan watts, Terrence McKenna, Jordan Peterson, Jack Kornfield, Sam Harris, genius minds far smarter then me who I now know to be advocating fungi’s ability to induce genuine, clean, full blown enlightenment. Every one of them publicly talked about what the did and what the experience was like. Hit me back with fact checked sources like I provided to you. We both have the IQ of a termite compared to there minds except they all had no problem telling the world they experimented with and what the experience was like. When I was just a young truthseeker half my age I had the experience and have never been the same since. I am life preserving of course but I genuinely don’t fear death ever since it as well. I didn’t say here that taking mushrooms is ticket to an experience of enlightenment. Maybe it was the month long retreats I did every year and the 3 nights a week meditating at a Buddhist monastery. Maybe it was the 100s of books I read or the relentless UA-cam PHD I had to sit through. Could of been I was practicing beforehand for the experience and knew what it was supposed to be like kinda but it can not be normally imagined. It’s spontaneous, can be called like a cat or it won’t come and it’s pretty damn rare. People agree with you when you talk about it but then you immediately realize they don’t get it as the conversation goes on. It’s lonely in the real world but on the internet are people who have had the experience. I personally am not advocating for anyone to take mushrooms. If I had the choice I would probably pick no for him because one life is not better then the other. I claim nothing over anyone else, it’s just u picked an opponent who knows what the fuck he’s talking about. You say God did not create material / physical world. I say that is absurd. You know the only reason your hand stops at the table is because of wildly fast oscillation of electro magnetic forces. Where even is this physical world and how do you designate it’s origin (here and now is perhaps a good answer ) if there is something in the universe God did not create then what did. I have even using words like create - before - after, certain words skew the minds interpretation of reality like making a noun. A noun is a part of speech and not a element of reality out there, you point and say look at the cat on the matt, when it’s more truth preserving to say there is a catting on the matting. Only verbs used and a much more direct way of saying what you saw. The above argument is from Alan watts but look at his and look at mine. It’s totally MY retelling of his argument because I fully understand it not because I copied and looked up stuff. I already don’t need to debate you further for myself but will do so to entertain you. Look I was joking when I said something catty to get a ride outta you I didn’t mean for you to blow your top tho so let’s stop the back and forth with names and over pushy statements like I didn’t wanna make here. Clean slate here, I know I didn’t address your whole argument but this is way to much to type. Your turn if you want it. I know I deleted some of my responses to you, it wasn’t to hide anything but shitty writing cause I was rushing to answer you like and idiot while I was at work. So if something was left out or I didn’t make continuity it’s because I don’t really remember what I said
5:16 something of the theodicy that applies to grown-up human beings applies to them also you gotta change some things to make it apply to them but some of those things apply to them also and here 's the other thing to see when you think about sufferers you think about them as the losers the ones who didn't make it but actually that's a funny way to think about it see it's a funny way to think about it if suffering has some good for us if suffering is redeemed for us by some good that it brings to us then the ones who suffer are the Prize Winners not the losers they're the Prize Winners so it's the ones who have no suffering who are the losers that's a thing to say. 6:03 Bob: Would you believe that uh the God that you believe in who is all-powerful and all-knowing all good created this world maybe not as the best of all possible worlds which may not be possible but certainly a world that's good enough to accomplish God's purposes that has in it so much infant suffering? 6:26 ES: no is the answer to that question because I don't believe God created the world with suffering in it. That's a funny way to think about it (Bob: so God's not all-powerful). Well he's all-powerful all right but he's all powerful like this he can make something that he can't control, that's pretty powerful, that's pretty powerful, that's very powerful and here's why I can't control it because if he controlled it it wouldn't be what he wanted it to be. What he wanted it to be was something like him which can have a share in its destiny, something that can decide whether or not to love the way he can. If that's what you're powerful enough to create something that can reject you if it wants to then you've got the makings of a world with suffering in it so God doesn't create the suffering but he creates the conditions for suffering by making something that can love him or not as it chooses. That's what I would say. 7:28 so I don't think God created the world of suffering in it I think he created the world with people in it, and there's the beginning of the story see and so what we have in human beings, is people made in the image of God, even babies are made in the image of God and what I want to say something about suffering is a means to glory is a means to Greatness is a means to shining in love it's a kind of medicine for what ails us as humans those people who have it live everlasting leave the medicine does its job they live everlastingly in a condition that other people would envy and so although the suffering of infants is a heartbreaker and we have to bend everything in us to do what we can to stop it to prevent it nothetheless those who have it the losers they aren't the losers some thing for them it's something for them worth having has gotten through that suffering that's the message of theodicy and it applies to infants also not in a way that takes away our sorrow and grief over their suffering that in a way that doesn't consign them to the scrap heap of human history they're not the refuse they's the winners.
To the extent that herd immunity and natural selection exist, human suffering is probably seen as a sacrifice for the greater good of humanity. Also -you can’t have good without evil . You can develop compassion without watching suffering….
Lame rationalization. An omnipotent and omnibenevolent god could certainly allow for good without evil if it existed, and could certainly have created a world without disease. It's a total contradiction as well because all of these things believers struggle to explain away by trying to argue they're necessary and you can't have one without the other are simultaneously said to not exist in heaven.
@@downenout8705 No. The Problem of Evil is that there are 3 statements that create a contradiction. The statements are (1) God is all Good; (2) God is all powerful; (3) Evil exists. If God was all powerful and allows Evil to exist, then God is not all good. If God is all good, but is unable to prevent Evil, then God is not all powerful. This dates back from the Greeks. So it is going to be hard to find a solution that hasn't been proposed (and already defeated). There is ONE solution: do what the Greeks did. They made their gods very human-like, with jealousy, anger, hate, lust, etc. The interviewee's opinion, which she carefully shrouds from view, is that we have to let God do what God wants to do - including killing/torturing innocent children. They claim that, as mere humans, we cannot know the mind of God. But this leads some obviously wrong stuff. For example, do we make Hilter a saint - because he was no doubt doing God's work and we're no doubt the better for it. And can we have a criminal code, or even The Ten Commandments, if the transgressors are, apparently, doing God's work?
@@januslast2003 What a strange reply, you say "no" but then go on to agree with what I said. There is no "problem of evil" for a less than perfect god. For example a god that creates the cosmos and then having realised the terrible mistake that it has made extinguishes itself from existence. You are only disproving a perfect god, because if we can imagine a better world then a perfect god would have logically created that world.
@@downenout8705 Apologies, I was not clear. I was thinking along these lines: The Problem of Evil forces one to say, "God is not all good", OR "God is not all powerful", OR BOTH. Given this, we shouldn't be worshiping God, and being ready to sacrifice everything (up to and including our lives) on the promise(!) that we will have eternal life. Apparently, there is a solution to the Problem of Evil. What we call God is actually the Devil. This is referenced by Youval Noah Harare in his book "Sapiens" but I haven't found a full explanation so I don't know the details.
@@januslast2003 The argument that god could be omnimalevolent is often used when a theist attempts to justify the suffering of the innocent by asserting that humans cannot know the mind of god and therefore cannot know that the suffering isn't necessary. The counter to this is to say, if we cannot know the mind of god then how did the theist determine that god is not omnimalevolent and allows a certain amount of "goodness" to achieve his "unknowable" malevolent ends. Expect the theist to counter with ad hominems; tu quoque and strawman fallacies.
You can't have freewill without temptation and bad choices. That there is suffering and consequences because of them is what makes them "hard" decisions to make, or should be. Disease is another form of life getting by, it's not evil, just bad for us. 4:26 you met a person like that, zero ability to emphasize or understand the most simplistic form of comfort. incredible. Even if a 200lb guy is hurt the first thing you do is comfort with touch. I bet he got good grades though eh, able to emulate and watch the grass waving in the wind for hours.
No, basic common sense denies god. Jesus man, do you believe in the Easter Bunny too? I thought you were a thinker, not just another narcissist who wants to live forever and have fake meaning assigned to your life.
Our Creator created this first temporary generation with all it's deception in order to draw out the chosen prophets, saints and believers who would end up being involved with the eternal programmed thoughts of his in the form of eternal vibrations. We all learn that our Creator is in total control of everything we experience by programming each mind and the AI that awakens as the mind begins processing his programmed thoughts both temporary and eternal.
Existence is based on a dichotomic template: _Particle-Antiparticle._ Evil is the necessary antiparticle for Good, atheism is the antiparticle for theism, and Satan is the antiparticle for God. The reason for these existential dichotomies it to offer conceivability for both. Asking if *Evil* can abolish *God* is like asking if *Negative* can abolish *Positive,* or asking if *Up* can abolish *Down.* ... Abolish the existence of one side of any _particle-antiparticle_ pairing and you abolish conceivability for both sides. This is the requirement of the *"3rd Law of Existence."*
@@irfanmehmud63 *"So a perfect being couldn't have made existence conceivable without introducing evil?"* ... No, you wouldn't be able to "conceive" the existence of a perfect being (God) without the existence of Evil. You also would not comprehend "Positive" without the existence of "Negative." ... 3rd law of Existence. In fact, the only reason you comprehend you are alive is because of the existence of death.
@@EKDupre *"Here's a great example of a little knowledge being dangerous."* ... Yours is a great example of offering the least amount of information possible to support your claim. Talk is cheap.
Arrrrgh! Eleonore Stump, you are definitely related to me, my dearest aunty. A pregnant woman that wont understand the technology of patience and kindness will suffer and bring a child that will suffer without knowing how to grow STRENGTH that surpasses suffering so they could achieve afterwards ENDURANCE and CHARACTER of HOPE, which is also called GRACE of GOD.
I do not reckon that these points made warrent the the discussion concering evil, rather the condition of man and matter. It is the very condition of man that he must learn about natures so applying his intellect and Reason as the first remedy so to maintain a balance. Matter is said to be the furthest away from the Good, and therefore necessatatively 'evil' because it lacks the good, so we see deprivation, illness, disease. Regarding evil, what I understand is that nature, because she's harsh & although she doesn't lie or deceive, man must come together and work as one, a unity is disposed because of her. So too the use of Intellect is indispensable. Majority of evils is due to spiritual ineptness and love of excess. Evil is not so much a thing itself, rather is the least of the Good; much like a shadow, is the obscurity of light.
_"... Does Evil Abolish God ..."_ Yeah, of course. It was just waiting. It had no time. But now, It will do the right thing. I'm pretty sure. We are saved very much.
I don't quite understand what you mean. Yes, many people do assume that physical and emotional pain is some kind of evil. I'm not sure about the truth of that assumption. Are we to perceive our pain and the pain of others as something "good"? Whether the suffering is good or bad, the consequences of the pain certainly affect the way we think. Sometimes we can't pinpoint the source for the horrific experience of suffering. So we call it "evil". What do you think?
@@jamespower5165 without god, there is no concept of evil. The entire idea of a thing being “objectively revolting” (evil) relies on the idea of an objective reality, which relies on the idea of god. If you are conscious, you understand this. If you are just a collection of particles with no mind, you do not.
So she's saying God obviously didn't create suffering, because it's bad, not good, but at the same time those who suffer find out it's actually good, not bad. C'mon Robert, you're a logical person, stop giving such illogical people a platform for their nonsense.
Plus she says "I don't think God created the world with suffering in it. I think he created the world with people in it." But what about people who are born suffering right out of the womb because they are born with serious medical conditions? Why would God create people in that way? And suffering isn't limited to humans. The animal kingdom has tons of suffering with animals eating other animals all the time.
Question brilliantly avoided.
A great speaker, with no answers.
Question avoided I agree but with the standard argument that you usually get ignoring the possibility that suffering is caused other than by humans. Apparently be suffering of sentient animals for millions of years was necessary so that a few beings with freedom of action could redeem themselves by helping each other.
Her answer starts at 8:53 of the video but it was sadly cut during editing…
Nooooo man, you can’t say she dodged the question, you can disagree with her but she did focus on answering the question.
@@DJMICA-bz3qz if humans were the only source of suffering on this world then she answered the question. Assuming this is the standard way of not answering the question.
She beautifully articulated something that Christians can't answer without epic mental gymnastics.
As an agnostic, I wanted to watch this video with a completely open mind. I wanted to know what a Christian theologian would say to the suffering of the young and innocent. I just didn't find her argument compelling.
If an all-powerful God knows and feels the suffering of his own creation made in his image but does nothing, I don't think he exists in the way that Christians think he exists. It is akin to watching a family member whom you love with all of your heart suffer and do nothing, even though you have the power to end the suffering. Or prevent it from being created in the first place. Could you watch a beloved family member suffer by some mechanism you created and continue to watch knowing at any moment you can stop it? If you did nothing, you would be considered sadistic in most people's minds. Or at least someone without empathy or the ability to truly love.
I believe either God does not exist in the way people think he exists or is not all powerful, like people believe he is. At least the Hindu can explain suffering without any contradiction at all. In their faith, the world IS suffering, and it is our duty to transcend suffering, so we experience less of it in the next life. That makes a lot more sense to me when I look at the world.
I suggest He exists and is all-powerful BUT values giving us moral decisions to make and allows all the evil that results in order to conceal His presence.
That's grim, but leaves open the possibility that He will straighten it out after the fact, and perhaps over-compensate the necessary victims then.
That's my hope, as a Christian, and it goes way beyond salvation by faith as taught by Christianity.
@20july1944 I just feel that is bordering on apologizing for God's actions. Why did he create the most awful germs, viruses, and parasites that eat and destroy the human body? Surely, those have nothing to do with free will. And it would have been so easy to create the world without those. And mosquitoes! Why do we have mosquitoes! 😄
@20july1944 I have one more question. There is supposedly no sin in heaven. If there is no sin in heaven, does that mean we lose our free will in heaven? And if so, why create free will on earth to begin with?
@@taborturtle No, we'll have free will in heaven. As spiritually mature humans we won't choose to sin because we'll see the full dimensions of the evil of sin AND we will have learned to control our selfishness.
God clearly values us having the maturing effects of challenges, moral decisions, and suffering.
lol. Can't?
It's an ALMIGHTY God ... not a god.
The Function & Intelligence categories and the origin of Thermodynamic Systems ... prove the Universe & Life are Functions composed entirely of Functions and were made in a UNNATURAL System by an UNNATURAL intelligence.
There is absolutely zero evidence that nature & natural processes can make & operate the simplest physical Function 13.7 or 4 billion years ago. FFS Quantum particles, fields & forces ... are Functions/Systems.
A religion is simply an organized FIRM BELIEF in something or someone responsible for this Universe & existence..
Theists have a firm belief in someone (deities).
Atheists & Agnostics ave a firm belief in something (nature & natural processes).
Science is simply a method to explain natural phenomena using fixed laws of nature ... and ... prove a FIRM BELIEF or hypothesis about some natural phenomena ... like the origin of the Universe & Life. lol.
There is only evidence that someone made the Universe & life.
And this someone ... is an INTELLIGENCE with freewill, nature, consciousness ... and UNNATURAL(not of the Universe).
Man is someone ... who is an INTELLIGENCE with freewill, nature, consciousness ... and NATURAL (of the Universe).
An UNNATURAL intelligence ... created the the space, time, laws of nature, matter & energy of the Universe ... and ..a NATURAL intelligence.
And there is no evidence that the UNNATURAL intelligence is exactly like the NATURAL intelligence or worse in terms of free will & nature.
You are wrong about there being no God, and then if there is you then blame this God for the suffering in the Universe .... ignoring the fact that you are an intelligence with FREE WILL and a nature .... to think & do whatever you want.
Do you want freewill or not?
And do you believe in morality, ethics, good & evil, ... and ... justice? Or not?
God only created Adam & Eve ..... perfect with FREE WILL .... and the ability to pro-Create. They were to live forever ... but will die (body & soul) ... if they sin(break God's Law)
Adam & Eve .. pro-CREATED .. every Human Being with a corrupted body but a perfect soul.
Jesus (Son God) has confirmed with His virgin birth, and the Great Commandment ... that the Mind & nature of Man ... is the body & soul.
Both the Body & soul ... can love or hate God.
This is why Jesus had to be born of a virgin ... and not have the CORRUPTED body from Adam & Eve ... and why every single Human Being will freely choose to think & do evil. It's inevitable ... and God knows the exact moment that a sinless human being ... will sin. God removed Elijah & Enoch from the Earth ... before they sinned for the first time ... because He was pleased with them and did not want to see them actually sin.
God is Almighty.
God always knew that it would take 7 x 1000 years .... to save His Children ... from His just nature to punish all who sin with death.
Again. God only created Adam & Eve ... with Freewill ... and can PROCREATE. This is why God must wait until the last Child of God ... is procreated by Man(Adam & Eve) ... before Judgement Day.
It was a 6 day creation & the 7th Day belongs to God ... because God always knew ... Man will rule the Earth for 6 x 1000 years ..then God will rule for 1 x 1000 years ... then finally judgment Day.
Jesus returns in the year 6 000 since the Fall of Man.
Judgement day is in the year 7 000 since the Fall of Man.
The current Jewish Year since they believe is the Fall of Man is .... 5783.
Jesus is returning to rule for 1000 years with 144 000 Jews who were murdered during End Times believing in the Christ.
Stop being a potato. Only an intelligence makes, maintains, improves, fine tunes abstract & physical Functions/System.
Everything in the Universe is a Function/System.
Fact: God has never experienced suffering the same way you and I have. God doesn't have anyone more powerful above him making him go through it, nor does he understand what the unknown is like. He can't relate.
There are no real gods.
It's supposed to be an all knowing being so you're mistaken.
The more basic problem here is that the sort of god presupposed to exist here is a cartoonish, anthropocentric god that writes books for humans; it's just not a very sophisticated conception of deity, yet people try to apply scholarly rigor to explain away the inevitable incongruencies and contradictions.
Hello Oswald. I personally think God does "relate" to our suffering and although this type of experience may be considered a spiritual realm, the incarnation of Jesus to become "flesh" speaks volumes about the willingness of Jesus to understand our suffering.
I'm also curious as to what you mean by stating that God does not understand the "unknown"? That's interesting. Since many people believe that God is hidden from us, your statement seemingly says that "the unknown God doesn't understand the unknown".
What do you think? Not trying to belittle what you said because actually your statements are thought provoking.
Happy New Year to you and your family.
@johnbrzykcy3076 It's different when you have foreknowledge and know the outcome of everything. He didn't experience suffering the same way. His was also voluntary and not done to him against his will. That is another key difference.
@@johnbrzykcy3076 Your statement regarding the _willingness_ of Jesus to understand our suffering illustrates that the Christian conception of deity is incoherent.
If God is omniscient and Jesus is god, he should innately have always had a complete understanding of human suffering and it should not have required any degree of "willingness to understand" or to "become flesh".
These are the inevitable incongruencies and contradictions that emerge when philosophers and apologists are compelled to attempt to logically defend the indefensible. The concept of god requires it to have attributes such as omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence but those attributes cannot be reconciled with the requirements of the Jesus narrative.
Putting aside for the moment the whole question of whether or not there is a god and assuming for the sake of argument here that there is one, I think it's clear we're long overdue for an upgrade so far as the major religions are concerned. These conceptions of deity involving anthropomorphic beings that write books for humans are shallow archaic vestiges of a time long gone and efforts to reconcile them with science and logic are doomed to failure.
Evil doesn't abolish God but it does prove God isn't all loving. No way an all loving all nipotent God would allow all these things that happens in this life.
Actually it proves that God loves us because he lets us experience evil here on Earth so that we can appreciate his love in the afterlife.
Without evil life becomes meaningless.
Without hardship and suffering life becomes meaningless
You can even speculate that we are here on Earth as a form of entertainment for God therefore there has to be a clash between Good and Evil suffering and fulfillment punishment and reward
They all go hand in hand
@@dongshengdi773 gay
@@dongshengdi773 But what if evil here on earth actually might prevent us from appreciating "his love in the afterlife"?
So could hell on earth become a signpost in the afterlife which says "welcome back to Hell".
I'm not trying to negate or even refute what you said. But the thought popped into my head.
To be honest, you might be correct. I'm not sure because suffering is such a difficult subject. I think God wants us to appreciate His love here and now. So can such a love be reconcilable with suffering here and now?
Your comments are thought provoking.
God bless you in the New Year.
He could be all loving but not all powerful
Doesn’t all loving, include, loving sufferers/suffering -cause(r)s? If so, isn’t that all powerful because evil 👿 doers are not punished but loved as much as the suffering. This seemingly impossible contradiction might be all powerful while all loving.
An apology for suffering and an artificial hierarchy based around suffering, so the ones who suffer more have more authority. That's what I call a messed-up worldview. I know that thinking has created a lot of awful situations for religious people. Look for cases of OCD sufferers who are religious if you want to check it yourself.
Wouldn't a loving being be committed to diminishing suffering instead of glorifying it?
I know there should be a place to discuss these topics. Still, I can't help but feel a little disappointed with Closer to the Truth for producing this kind of low-quality content in terms of critical thinking and with Dr. Robert for not articulating more appropriate rebuttal questions in this discussion.
God created a world that has earthquakes and volcanoes. Why? If he is all powerful he didn’t have to. If he is all loving he wouldn’t. Ergo no all powerful all loving deity.
Her suggestion that God doesn't cause suffering as punishment is debunked by book after book in the bible. Read Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Amos. These books have page after page of God causing suffering to punish his people, regardless of their ages. It's not that evil abolishes God, it defines God as evil. After all, what could possibly be more evil than sending mere mortals who live but a handful of decades to an eternity of conscious torment, simply for failing to believe things for which there isn't a shred of compelling objective evidence? Gen 3:22 tells us that we, like the gods, know what good and evil are. The bible then goes on to describe an evil god that it insists we must call "good," thereby causing cognitive dissonance for billions of people for thousands of years.
Wow! This lady has lost her mind. Most suffering has no good outcome. At first, I thought she was going to be logical, but not as she kept speaking.
I stopped watching after a few minutes. Thanks for confirming this as the right choice. I sometimes wonder about Robert's selection process for good discussion partners.
Eleonore is full of soup. Evil is incompatible with an all powerful, all good god. Since we know we have pain, suffering and evil, so god can’t be all powerful, pure good and loving. If god created us to love god or god to love us, god has mental issues.
No real answers for this question except maybe God makes a lot of errors too.
"I bring good and evil, bring all these things." - God (The Bible)
Stating the obvious is no explanation as to why the innocent are forced to suffer at the hands of a supposedly all loving god.
- .. yes, and up is down ....
If the Living Infinite Being exists - omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient; then it must be everything. It isn't doing anything to anybody other than "Self". To know everything requires existing at every level of contrast.
Nobody suggested that this being is doing anything to anyone; the question here is about why it's not doing anything to alleviate suffering if it can.
You're babbling about some sort of pantheistic impersonal conception of deity; they're babbling about an anthropomorphic book writing bearded sort of deity.
@@b.g.5869 Perhaps there are metaphysical rules that cannot be broken. Perhaps God is doing everything possible to alleviate suffering. Perhaps suffering is simply an essential part of reality, and removing it would have consequences so dire that suffering and evil is the preferable option.
@@scottfree6479 In what meaningful sense could this being be considered "god" then?
I personally, while not a theist, don't think "the problem of evil" is necessarily a problem for theism in the broadest sense; it _is_ a problem for the Christian conception of god, and for anthropocentric conceptions of god in general.
I can easily imagine something that might reasonably be considered "god" for which the problem of evil doesn't pose a problem; the problem of evil is only a problem for anthropocentric conceptions of god.
God doesn't necessarily have to care about human suffering, and not caring about human suffering isn't _necessarily_ objectively evil.
Indeed, theists typically argue that right and wrong are whatever god says they are, not what humans think they should be.
@@b.g.5869 What if there are certain laws of logic (more specifically, mathematics) that cannot be broken by an omnipotent God? What if there are different levels of omnipotent? Could God make a triangle with 4 sides?
@@scottfree6479 You're not talking about laws of logic here you're essentially asking if omnipotence entails incoherence, to which the answer is obviously "no".
Omnipotence doesn't mean you could make something simultaneously be a bird and a country.
It’s the ones that have no suffering that are the losers
The Lion was born to be Enlightened by the Hindu to eat Grass. That's true. Can't do anything.
Even though the children didn't sin, they still have the fleshy sin nature. The Bible alludes to age of accountability. When God tells Moses to number the males that are capable for war from 20yrs old and upward.
With the children being born with deformities and disease, just verifies the Bible as we are living in a cursed world. This earth will pass away, and Jesus Christ will make a new heaven and earth.
That is why some believers are said to serve as rationalizing 'God''s insufficiencies. That was whitewashing the reality of evil in the world! What does God want to prove or teach to an infant with posing suffering on him?!
God is not only Almighty, he is also morally upright. This explains why things are the way they are.
Are atheists not contradicting themselves? If you believe in evolution, you should have no concept of evil. Because for evolution, doing evil to others or when others are afflicted by evil, that should give us a better chance for survival and therefore there should be no concept of good or evil, right or wrong. For the fact that every normal person is repelled by evil, proves evolution totally false again on this ground.
Now regarding why evil exists while there is supposedly an Almighty and loving God, one should first reason on whether it would have been morally upright for God to have created humans with all the capacity and abilities we currently possess and yet made us to do all his bidding without a choice of our own. If God had done that, wouldn't that make God a despot and immoral?
Next, the Bible clearly explains that the life we live now is not how God meant it to be. By outrightly dismissing the Bible's account as some sort of nonsense, could this not somehow be an indication of atheists' susceptibility to the Dunning-Kruger effect?
Stump does this in her writing too: she jumps past the actual problem and begins talking about triage. In Wandering in Darkness she dismisses natural evil even though God created from nothing, meaning even mechanical processes are the design of a moral actor.
Pushing further, I think it's interesting that God frequently uses natural disasters in scripture to exact judgement, and the Pat Robertson's of the world say God still judges in this way, but then when we can't imagine what reason God would have for some indiscriminately destructive natural disaster it gets lumped into the category 'natural evil.' God ought to have no scruples about arbitrarily controlling the weather or microbes. They have no free will to violate.
Anyway, the more I learn the more theodicy looks like a shell game. Thanks for the upload tho.
Who are you thanking for the upload?
She seems like she's probably a lovely person but as a philosopher she's not at all impressive.
@@b.g.5869 Whoever runs the channel? Seemed like common courtesy. 😁
@@23Hiya The reason I asked is that a lot of people don't understand what these video clips are; they think they're all recently filmed, made just for UA-cam, and posted by Kuhn himself as though this is his personal UA-cam channel and he's just another 'content provider'.
The vast majority of the clips in this channel are well over ten years old (some are over 20 years old) and are clips from a US public television show that first aired in the year 2000.
There are 'new' episodes being released now as "season 21", but considering the first episode featured a man who has been dead for three years (Freeman Dyson) I have no idea if it's actually new content or new edits of old content (they've released 'new episodes' before that were really just new edits of old footage).
There might be some new interviews in 'season 21' but I'm not sure. The only way to tell is if Robert looks more or less the same as he does in his "Chats" videos (the one on one Zoom calls); _those_ are new and uploaded to UA-cam (certainly not by Kuhn personally but by staff).
In any event, this particular clip is well over a decade old.
@@b.g.5869 Wow. Didn't realize it was that old.
The question was “The problem of evil is the biggest one that those who believe in god have to face…what do you do with children who suffer the most horrible kinds of evil…when certainly they didn’t sin?”
There's no answering that question, that's why they waffle around it
Hello Zachary... the only answer I can give is that people should concentrate on being compassionate to the children to the best of their ability. To follow the example of doctors and nurses who care for the suffering child. Peace
@@johnbrzykcy3076 ..that answer says nothing about religion its just common sense reply
this video is why innoncent children suffer and why a god would allow it... heres a little tip for you
its allowed because no such entity exists..
@@davenchop you assume that god has some sort of personality which is bound my our conception of what it is like to be alive and think. You might as well say reality itself does not exist because evil occurs.
Can you say that a single particle floating in space just “exists” on it’s own? That the wave function which it is, and fields in which its properties are propagated simply “exist” independently of anything else? If there is no conscious thing to perceive it’s existence, that it would simply exist in its own reality divorced from any perception which justifies its existence? Such a thing is by its own nature Inconceivable. If there is no perception, there is no existence. That thing, that fabric which all physical items and all consciousness rest upon might be called god.
However, there is a chance that the person reading this isn’t a conscious being, in which case I wouldn’t expect him to understand anything about this.
@@davenchop You have to believe in God in order to believe in suffering. If you don't, there is no suffering. Without God, suffering is just some other meaningless thing that happens in a meaningless, accidental and temporary cosmos.
Honesty is important-first, I don't know anyone who thinks suffering is for losers-second, how do you reconcile innocent suffering, especially of children, from painful, refractory cancers, famine, genocides, etc., with a loving God? I think the question is unanswerable. She says God did not create suffering-this makes no sense-did God make or allow painful genetic mutations, so many illnesses and death, loss of loved ones, etc? Also, why do we keep referring to God as a He? This also makes no sense.
Suffering in this life…is for a blink of an Eye. If we believe in an ongoing life we must be humble in our short sighted conclusions about the ultimate fairness of the mystery of pain pleasure and suffering and evil.
Your comments are interesting but many people will not accept the " blink of an eye" or they will still seek to understand a logical reason behind suffering, especially the horrific pain that innocent children experience. I'm not trying to refute what you said.
So do you basically believe that suffering is a mystery? Historically people have been asking "why?" since the dawn of civilization. You may be correct in stating "short sighted conclusions" but if suffering remains a mystery, can we ever expect to perceive any kind of fairness? Will the all-knowing God someday reveal the truth behind the mystery of suffering?
I'm asking myself those questions. Sometimes instead of being "humble" I become frustrated or depressed.
I appreciate your comments. I would like to be more humble and simply say to God, "Not my will Lord, but thine".
Peace of God to you in the New Year.
So much BS...not worth critiquing
They say that history is written by the winners, but it’s also written by the survivors. The living are the ones that propagate history and culture, perpetuate religion and get to justify the suffering of others. But there are also those who have no vice, because they were wiped out, their whole family, community and even civilisation were erased from existence. Cities washed away by floods, volcanic eruptions or laid waste by plague or warfare. So it’s nice to be able to tell stories about the redemption of suffering and how it’s some sort of prize, but that only works if the suffering has an end and the sufferer survives to transcend the experience. But what of those who died, not just them but their whole communities, their children, their entire community wiped out by disaster entirely beyond their control. Everything they even worked and lived for withering and snuffed out before their eyes. Where is the benefit for them? So no, I’m sorry, I don’t buy it.
I suppose one can argue that if there was a bigger designer out there, they would allow such tragedies to occur simply so that those who were not affected can be reminded of the random chance of life and circumstances. I don't really see how the demise of others in such horrific ways is necessary to convey that message however.
@@Woodesies Yeah can't this God do CGI instead? Even James Cameron can do it
happy new year
Gnostics state the creator god is evil.
Never heard so much pure nonsense.
A character in one of my novels says, Only when I'm really suffering can I say for certain I'm not a fool.
no one can be told or know what suffering is until they experienced it in the first person... but suffering of the children is really hard to understand...
I agree with you because I never understood much about suffering until I experienced the consequences of cancer treatments. I can't imagine how a suffering child thinks and feels. So yes, it's very difficult to understand.
@@johnbrzykcy3076 life is very mysterious... I run into this video that might say more in this topic though...
ua-cam.com/users/shortse9olg0S6Dz4?feature=share
I have seen that often those who endure suffering often develop a lot more character and determination through that and can end up achieving at a much higher level than otherwise. Also, people who suffer often have much more compassion for others. So suffering can produce a more beautiful person.
In some cases though, suffering only makes sense from if the sufferer receives something much better in the life to come that wiped away all the suffering experienced by say a small child who dies of some terrible disease.
@@tonynorriss379 when I compare suffering with the innocence of a child, my reasoning abilities become useless... since it's part of our life then I guess we have to accept our share for what it is and deal with all of its fury...
I watched my daughter suffer first as an infant with cancer and then as an 8 year child with a recurrence that took her life by 11. She endured 14 surgeries, radiation treatments, and numerous chemo and immunotherapy treatments. Despite all of her fighting, she ultimately lost her ability to walk and talk and eat and eventually she even lost her ability to communicate. She was aware of everything until her last breath. She was trapped and unable to communicate to us outside of moving her left foot. This haunts me. There is nothing more inhumane. There is nothing good that come from this - nothing that can make her suffering worth it. Nothing.
Evil can only exist if there is a god who defines evil. No god, no evil. Evil is a transgression against a god.
Straw man at the beginning @ 30 seconds in. Physical suffering is not the same as evil. Our nervous system has nothing to do with good or evil. So lets start on a false premise on which Eleanor responds with how heart breaking it is that children have to physically suffer physical pain. Again, she changed the topic of evil to the suffering of children which are not interchangeable.
Hey Eleonore, answer the question! Does evil abolish God? You never answer the question, nor did you want to. You just go off on tangents and then smugly claim triumph that you answered a question that you never answered!
I tend to agree that "physical suffering is not the same as evil". But I'd rather state that physical suffering is not necessarily evil or the results of evil.
I struggle with understanding both the experience of suffering and the definition of "evil". I don't believe that evil can abolish God but it depends, as you implied, how we perceive the reality of evil. If people define God as a god of love and they view evil as the opposite of love, then they'll probably say "Yes, evil does abolish God."
So as you implied in your comments, God "defines evil". Obviously we humans don't understand God's definition or we desire to make our own definition of evil.
So what do you suggest we do? Does suffering remain a mystery?
I dislike to criticize people. And I'm not very scholarly so I try to listen and be respectful.
I appreciate your comments because they help me to think better.
God bless you in the New Year - 2023.
@@johnbrzykcy3076 To answer your query in a nut shell...
Suffering is a human condition, both physically and emotionally. All spiritual people experience pain just as much as those who like me, are not spiritual. I bawled my eyes out yesterday when I had to have one of my cats euthanized. True story. These sorts of pain are also felt in the animal kingdom as we have all seen in nature as well as owning pets.
Pain does not equal evil, nor was pain spawn by evil. When you give a child a vaccine shot and he or she cries because of the pain of the shot, was it evil that you gave your child a vaccine? If some ones arm gets pulled out of it socket, is it evil to put them through the pain of popping it back into place? Living and suffering go hand in hand. We all have accidents, we all trip and fall or stub our toe or need a band aid at some point in life. We all experience pain. Pain is just our body telling us that something is wrong with our bodies. Evil and pain are not interchangeable. Though pain can be the result of a sadistic evil A-hole.
Bible god admits to creating evil in Isaiah 45:7 KJV.
Imagine if a world wide flood was even possible. How does killing by drowning kittens, puppies, human babies, etc make Bible god a virtuous being?
As you said..
"Obviously we humans don't understand God's definition or we desire to make our own definition of evil."
Oddly, have you ever noticed how individuals are the ones who do decide what is evil and what is not?
As a Christian, I understand where she's coming from, but this is just a nonsensical argument in the face of evil (and good). 💯
Being able to say "As a christian" and "nonsensical" in the same sentence is truly magical lol
*rare
@zurc_bot , there's no such thing as magic, and sorcery is contrary to my faith. 💯
No.
The example that she gave of her child and philosopher friend, goes right along with the word of God, the Bible. For the fact of giving comfort during suffering, by singing praises, and letting people know the suffering will end. How don't we cause God suffering? He suffered death on a cross for us, to abolish the suffering we brought upon ourselves, and him.
He that spareth his rod hateth his son: But he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.
Proverbs 13:24 KJV
And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful. And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
Revelation 21:1, 5-8 KJV
experience God's love
Actually, she didn't answer the question. She has no answer for this. Nobody has. If you believe in god, you forget about it. If you don't believe, this question is solved.
She shows distress emocional concern childrem pain. It isnt moral philosophy but GOD ethic proceedings. She doesnt know nothing about GOD atributes or philosophy moral. She emocional disturbing arent liking with GOD atributes.
"God ... [i]s all powerful ... like this, he can make something, that he can't control", when interpreted literally is contradictory, so is the number with opposite forms, -1 and +1 and consequently, anything including it, for example ABC Firm, Income Statement for the day ended today : Revenue 1 Less Expense 2 = Net Loss (1) for "( )" negative and the imaginary number * , equal to the square root of negative one, or equivalently negative one exponent one half, where one exponent three equals 1 x 1 x 1 for "x" multiplication, which is used to model time alongside real numbers for space in Relativity and momentum when calculating the total energy of a system using the Hamiltonian Operator in Quantum Mechanics.
* Imaginary number is the length of the side of a square with area equal to negative one.
Not an impressive interview subject. Very shallow, evasive, and unconvincing.
Even though I'm an atheist, I find the argument about evil silly. If you're ready to believe in an all-powerful god, then you could just assume that god rewinds time after death and completely undoes what has happened.
God is physics , if you don't follow physics/nature - then you run the risk of becoming evil.🖖
Evil dose not disprove God rather proves God's existence, in Bhagbat Gita Lord Krishna says this material world is a prison, sea of death , here life is full of sorrow and miseary and this is designed as such that we have to face death , miseary, sorrow , flood, diseases, temptation, suffering, the only way to escape from it we have to stop rebirth again and for that we have to surrender all omnipotent and omniscient God.
Of course evil doesn't "prove God's existence", nothing can prove that because "God" in fact does not exist.
Yes it does! It proves if god does exist, he's a disgusting, despicable god, not worthy of worship. God says categorically he is the author of evil: “I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create evil; I, the Lord, do all these things.” (Isaiah 45:7). Amos echoes this: “If there is calamity in a city, will not the Lord have done it? (Amos 3:6).
So what I got from this is that a god created a world knowing that countless innocent lives would suffer horribly just so a lucky few can have a free choice to worship him.
Sorry but I'm not willing to sacrifice my humanity on the alter of such a deity, even if that deity is going to send be to be tortured for ever.
Yikes! Those who suffer are the winners?! That's pretty sick and twisted thinking.
After reading through the comments thread, I arrive at the conclusion Kamala is moonlighting as a comments section ghost writer. (here come the replies)🙄
Right action in the spirit of Jesus, St Francis, Gandhi, Martin Luther King is the antidote to evil.
I’ll never understand believing in things with literally zero evidence. It seems to be quite common in certain circles.
And also it's not just did god creat suffering it's also why they haven't don't any thing about it lol.
This was extremely twisted thinking. Where does she get the idea that suffering will bring a greater eternal life?
It pained me to hear her conclusions:
"...the sufferers are the prize winners not the losers." What heartless nonsense!
Why do humans imagine such a being to be good? From whence does that come from?
What is this woman even talking about????!!!!
Evil is a consequence of free will and human beings are not the only things with free will. God also gave free will to the entire universe.
this
Are you seriously trying to suggest that innocent babies have to suffer just so the lucky few have free will?
@@downenout8705 WHAAAAAT?????
@@Xanadu2025 Babies lack free will, yet many are born into a world supposedly created by a god, suffer terribly and die.By your logic this is necessary so that the lucky few can live to have the free will to choose to worship the god.
@@downenout8705 wow that sounds craaaazy.
Suffering is an experience so you can't end suffering without eliminating consciousness so the experience of suffering is inevitable for any conscious self with a material body.
I think you make a valid point. The problem is why does humanity seemingly experience so much horrific suffering without any awareness of it's necessity ? However I do wonder if we understood the reason for the horrific suffering, would we accept such experiences or would we still argue that God is unloving or a monster? What do you think?
@@johnbrzykcy3076 I think it's relative to what you think you are in truth. If you perceive yourself as a conscious self to be of a spiritual nature that is not of nature the suffering can be beneficial for developing renunciation towards it that ultimately leads to liberation from it.
"Can we even talk about the suffering of children?" Well, you better do!
Re: ' 'god doesn't cause suffering' ' - The OT god didn't have a problem with slaughtering the innocent children of the Egyptians, Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites (Deut.20:17). So is the OT god a false god? And if so who is the real god?
Are you an atheist, John?
@@20july1944 "I have excellent scientific evidence for God and decent historical evidence for Jesus's resurrection." No you do not.
@@notanemoprog Yes, I do.
Would you like to discuss either?
@@20july1944 No, you do not.
@@notanemoprog Yes, I do.
Innocence must be so very big and bright it must make Guilt feel empowered.
we as humans accept to suffer. life is real real simple but some of us have never suffered do not want to and those who have suffered do not know anything else. it takes our free will to move and make change in life simple physics. that is our creator's gift. free will to be ourselves good or bad...
what a moronic statement
All evil, pain and suffering is for our development without it we would be ignorant.
Only a moral imbecile could truly believe that after all the horrors of history that we witnessed
What Development...?
For thousands of years and even today...
...in poor villages...small children are put to “Field-work”...
...under the “Hot” Sun and “hard” farm work... children (and adults) often just drink from the streams (to crunch their thirst)...
...Terrible “Human Intestinal Parasites” (tapeworms/Giardia/etc eggs) are ingested..
..often some kids are disabled; and without money; they just let the kid suffer and die...
Needing “work-hands”... often the parents just have another replacement kid...
Reconcile a “All Good; Powerful God” and Human Intestinal Parasites”...??
What is possibly Developed/Learned.......in the short life time of that suffering child..?
...and No; most villages don’t even have wood-fuel available to start a fire to boil the water....
...let alone the time and cutting into the work schedule...!
Again... What is Developed/Learned...?
Not true
@@notanemoprog I study history that is why I believe that.
@@kricketflyd111
Reconcile God and Human Intestinal
parasites...!
There's a common misperception that it's God's job to save us from evil. John Lennox points out that this idea just annihilates man. Evil is a consequence of having free will. To prevent evil, would mean the stripping away of free will. Evil is another word for error, or mistakes, and we need the ability to make mistakes in order to learn.
No, it's not God's job to save us from suffering, it's our job to do that. Which would mean working together, which tons of folk have no interest whatsoever in doing. If we want to stop children from suffering, we have to get all those pagan individualists on board as fellow children of our Divine Father-friend (ODFF). [Which will eventually happen, just not for a very long time yet.]
Through scientific medicine those pagan individualists have done more to alleviate human suffering than all of religion in the entirety of human history.
maybe the dumbest comment ive ever read on you tube... children dying of cancer has nothing to do
with free will...
You need evil to have a reference for good.
No you don't. I measure my actions against wellbeing and human flourishing. If I achieved this goal and eliminated all suffering from the world, there is no place or need for evil.
So... She doesn't actually say anything about the problem of evil or anything really.... She just kind of rambles on and doesn't say anything if substance whatsoever lol
It is truly remarkable what the human mind can create in order to bolster their beliefs. Staggering.
@@austacker1786 I agree we should "let go of the human magic man in the sky theory" because that certainly is not the God that I believe in.
It's such a preloaded question.
How would a billion find true love is the thought experiment for this. To make sure it's not the money everyone loves leaves only one way to be sure and that's living like you wasn't .
Once you see this world ones, you must complete your task else comeback through a different mother elsewhere who was already in existence before death.
We have a right (and perhaps even an obligation) to question God about the suffering of children. It is beyond confusing. This confusion becomes evident at a very early age. As children, we love the flavor of finger food, like chicken nuggets. Eventually (unless we are raised by vegetarian parents) we learn that animals had to slaughtered and killed to provide us with that pleasure.
That's just the start of this confusion. We are given very conflicting testimony about the Universe, as soon as we learn about it. Lawrence-Kuhn has made a profession out of it. The very fact of God is confusion and questioning. And it starts as soon as we become aware.
Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)
I'm a Christian believer and I tend to agree with most of your comments. I struggle myself to understand suffering, especially in a theistic way. I'm not sure I will ever be able to fully comprehend the perplexing reasons for suffering.
But my misunderstanding or lack of understanding cannot negate or even refute the foundational beliefs in a good God who created mankind and the Cosmos.
Could it be possible that we exist in a multiverse whereby the earth is only one of the possible worlds that God created? Our planet happens to display both good and evil.
But as you said, it's " beyond confusing".
Wishing you and your family a happy and healthy New Year. From Florida.
@@johnbrzykcy3076 John, what a lovely post! Happy New Year and good health to you too!
Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)
@@sanjosemike3137 Thanks. I think your post reflects s good understanding of Psychology. Have you studied Psychology?
.. Peace from Florida.
@@johnbrzykcy3076 I took basic psychology courses in undergrad, but by profession, I am a surgeon (now retired.)
I was drawn back into belief from the very convincing scientific evidence of God from everything including Intelligent Design, to the enormous complexity of life and of course its digital information storage in proteins, DNA and RNA.
Even if we live in a multiverse, it is necessary to have a thinking being creating this level of complexity. I know that many non-believers suggest that complexity is automatically occurring as the result of the Universe itself. And their belief that it is "all a matter of chance."
But the best arguments for atheism come directly from suffering and evil. It is virtually impossible to look at the complexity of proteins without Intelligent Design.
This makes it even more confusing: On one hand we have terrible suffering. On the other hand we have obvious intelligent design and 10 to the 100 power presence of information complexity.
Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)
@@sanjosemike3137 Thanks so much for the information. I've studied some basic biology but I'm still reading and learning about the "digital information storage" that our cells seemingly display.
I personally don't see how "chance " can account for the complexity of biological systems and consciousness and even language itself. My belief is that God created us in His image, and that's one reason for all the complexity.
Regarding suffering and evil, it's still a mystery to me. Only an all knowing God has the answer.
Do you mind if I ask, what religion do you follow? I'm just a simple Christian believer.
Peace to you in 2023.
Hard to listen to, nothing more than a series of convoluted meaningless statements regarding a fictitious god. At one point she argued that suffering was god’s way of helping people. These people are totally deluded.
No
8:35 The point of the Odyssey is that Odysseus is a loser. Odysseus' name literally means "loser".
9 minutes of mumbo jumbo talking all around the facts... typical
Nobody’s of winter because they suffered, what a stupid idea.
A pantheistic god is a determinist whose children play dice.
"Does Evil Abolish God?" Only someone who has a minimalist view of who and what God is, could possibly even think of asking such an absurd question. Another way this could be framed: Does unreality abolish reality? That which has no "reality" could never abolish absolute reality.
God is not _any_ sort of reality, let alone the "absolute"
Hello Eric.
. What do you mean by "That which has no 'reality' could never abolish absolute reality"?
Can you explain a bit more what you mean? Thanks
Mothers understand this gift but their way of describing it by default.
"His disciples asked Him: Rabbi! who sinned, he or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered, "Neither he nor his parents have sinned, but this is so that the works of God may appear on him." (John).
P.S. To the correspondent's question for Christmas: "What would you say to God at a possible meeting with Him?"; followed by a response from a passerby: "I would ask Him: aren't you ashamed?"
Happy New Year!
These pretentious writings where they have someone addressing Jesus as "rabbi" are anachronistic since rabbis didn't exist during the time Jesus is believed to have lived.
Yea...the hurting unlucky bunch are the winners!!! That's it! Genius! Yea right..
GOD CAN MAKE SOMETHING THAT HE CANT CONTROL: Damn! That’s for all you people saying she dodged the question, this lady needs to debate Bart Ehrman she quite directly answered the question with the most defendable answer I ever heard and I’m a you tube scholar damn it.
I don’t think she was able to answer the question. I guess you can say she technically gave an answer but logically it’s so flawed it’s really no answer at all. I also am a UA-cam Scholar, I printed out my own phd and everything.
@@toddoman4636 lol nice!! So I would have to agree with you on some level because conception of a non-dual reality is by it’s very nature inconceivable UNLESS you got some really good shrooms, we all peak behind the curtain to have a laugh now and then. This woman is a very zen Christian in her comprehension of reality. Normal logic can not be applied without remembering that your entire experience is on purpose. You chose the outcome to be out of your control. That’s what god wants. It’s just like you can’t tickle yourself. God is stuck in that position, which is why the book of Job is such a deep section of the Bible. I’d say Jung hit the nail on the head in “Answers to Job”, are you familiar?
@@DJMICA-bz3qz Interesting. I have to read what Jung said in " Answers to Job".
I am definitely Not a UA-cam scholar. I'm basically here to listen and learn.
Peace to you in 2023.
@@realitycheck1231 Chill Child. I’m not embarrassed of anything about shrooms or anything I’ve done and don’t need your stigmas and preconceived notions throw out at me that you couldn’t be more wrong about. You wanna argue keep it on topic.
First of all we can all now conclude you never took psychedelics and try to label me a drug addict cause I did mushrooms and weed. Which btw you are sooooo wrong, again u expect people to side with you. Then give me a reference of someone who opposes all the big names I mentioned. Alan watts, Terrence McKenna, Jordan Peterson, Jack Kornfield, Sam Harris, genius minds far smarter then me who I now know to be advocating fungi’s ability to induce genuine, clean, full blown enlightenment. Every one of them publicly talked about what the did and what the experience was like. Hit me back with fact checked sources like I provided to you. We both have the IQ of a termite compared to there minds except they all had no problem telling the world they experimented with and what the experience was like. When I was just a young truthseeker half my age I had the experience and have never been the same since. I am life preserving of course but I genuinely don’t fear death ever since it as well. I didn’t say here that taking mushrooms is ticket to an experience of enlightenment. Maybe it was the month long retreats I did every year and the 3 nights a week meditating at a Buddhist monastery. Maybe it was the 100s of books I read or the relentless UA-cam PHD I had to sit through. Could of been I was practicing beforehand for the experience and knew what it was supposed to be like kinda but it can not be normally imagined. It’s spontaneous, can be called like a cat or it won’t come and it’s pretty damn rare. People agree with you when you talk about it but then you immediately realize they don’t get it as the conversation goes on. It’s lonely in the real world but on the internet are people who have had the experience. I personally am not advocating for anyone to take mushrooms. If I had the choice I would probably pick no for him because one life is not better then the other. I claim nothing over anyone else, it’s just u picked an opponent who knows what the fuck he’s talking about.
You say God did not create material / physical world. I say that is absurd. You know the only reason your hand stops at the table is because of wildly fast oscillation of electro magnetic forces. Where even is this physical world and how do you designate it’s origin (here and now is perhaps a good answer ) if there is something in the universe God did not create then what did.
I have even using words like create - before - after, certain words skew the minds interpretation of reality like making a noun. A noun is a part of speech and not a element of reality out there, you point and say look at the cat on the matt, when it’s more truth preserving to say there is a catting on the matting. Only verbs used and a much more direct way of saying what you saw.
The above argument is from Alan watts but look at his and look at mine. It’s totally MY retelling of his argument because I fully understand it not because I copied and looked up stuff. I already don’t need to debate you further for myself but will do so to entertain you.
Look I was joking when I said something catty to get a ride outta you I didn’t mean for you to blow your top tho so let’s stop the back and forth with names and over pushy statements like I didn’t wanna make here.
Clean slate here, I know I didn’t address your whole argument but this is way to much to type. Your turn if you want it.
I know I deleted some of my responses to you, it wasn’t to hide anything but shitty writing cause I was rushing to answer you like and idiot while I was at work. So if something was left out or I didn’t make continuity it’s because I don’t really remember what I said
An all powerful god certainly would be able to control humans, but that would make us like slaves or robots.
6:41 He can control us. He just chooses not to.
That's irrelevant to the problem of evil.
5:16 something of the theodicy that applies to grown-up human beings applies to them also you gotta change some things to make it apply to them but some of those things apply to them also and here 's the other thing to see when you think about sufferers you think about them as the losers the ones who didn't make it but actually that's a funny way to think about it see it's a funny way to think about it if suffering has some good for us if suffering is redeemed for us by some good that it brings to us then the ones who suffer are the Prize Winners not the losers they're the Prize Winners so it's the ones who have no suffering who are the losers that's a thing to say. 6:03 Bob: Would you believe that uh the God that you believe in who is all-powerful and all-knowing all good created this world maybe not as the best of all possible worlds which may not be possible but certainly a world that's good enough to accomplish God's purposes that has in it so much infant suffering? 6:26 ES: no is the answer to that question because I don't believe God created the world with suffering in it. That's a funny way to think about it (Bob: so God's not all-powerful). Well he's all-powerful all right but he's all powerful like this he can make something that he can't control, that's pretty powerful, that's pretty powerful, that's very powerful and here's why I can't control it because if he controlled it it wouldn't be what he wanted it to be. What he wanted it to be was something like him which can have a share in its destiny, something that can decide whether or not to love the way he can. If that's what you're powerful enough to create something that can reject you if it wants to then you've got the makings of a world with suffering in it so God doesn't create the suffering but he creates the conditions for suffering by making something that can love him or not as it chooses. That's what I would say. 7:28 so I don't think God created the world of suffering in it I think he created the world with people in it, and there's the beginning of the story see and so what we have in human beings, is people made in the image of God, even babies are made in the image of God and what I want to say something about suffering is a means to glory is a means to Greatness is a means to shining in love it's a kind of medicine for what ails us as humans those people who have it live everlasting leave the medicine does its job they live everlastingly in a condition that other people would envy and so although the suffering of infants is a heartbreaker and we have to bend everything in us to do what we can to stop it to prevent it nothetheless those who have it the losers they aren't the losers some thing for them it's something for them worth having has gotten through that suffering that's the message of theodicy and it applies to infants also not in a way that takes away our sorrow and grief over their suffering that in a way that doesn't consign them to the scrap heap of human history they're not the refuse they's the winners.
Her book "Wandering in Darkness" is one of the best modern works on the problem of evil ever written.
Evil is a man-made concept. It has no reality. Only a species with language could invent it. I doubt any other species believes in it.
To the extent that herd immunity and natural selection exist, human suffering is probably seen as a sacrifice for the greater good of humanity. Also -you can’t have good without evil . You can develop compassion without watching suffering….
Lame rationalization. An omnipotent and omnibenevolent god could certainly allow for good without evil if it existed, and could certainly have created a world without disease.
It's a total contradiction as well because all of these things believers struggle to explain away by trying to argue they're necessary and you can't have one without the other are simultaneously said to not exist in heaven.
A whole lot of ducking the question. The Problem of Evil is the proof that God does not exist. No getting around that.
Yes there is a way to get around that, just accept that a god does evil things and the problem goes away.
@@downenout8705 No. The Problem of Evil is that there are 3 statements that create a contradiction. The statements are (1) God is all Good; (2) God is all powerful; (3) Evil exists.
If God was all powerful and allows Evil to exist, then God is not all good. If God is all good, but is unable to prevent Evil, then God is not all powerful.
This dates back from the Greeks. So it is going to be hard to find a solution that hasn't been proposed (and already defeated).
There is ONE solution: do what the Greeks did. They made their gods very human-like, with jealousy, anger, hate, lust, etc.
The interviewee's opinion, which she carefully shrouds from view, is that we have to let God do what God wants to do - including killing/torturing innocent children. They claim that, as mere humans, we cannot know the mind of God.
But this leads some obviously wrong stuff. For example, do we make Hilter a saint - because he was no doubt doing God's work and we're no doubt the better for it. And can we have a criminal code, or even The Ten Commandments, if the transgressors are, apparently, doing God's work?
@@januslast2003 What a strange reply, you say "no" but then go on to agree with what I said. There is no "problem of evil" for a less than perfect god. For example a god that creates the cosmos and then having realised the terrible mistake that it has made extinguishes itself from existence.
You are only disproving a perfect god, because if we can imagine a better world then a perfect god would have logically created that world.
@@downenout8705 Apologies, I was not clear.
I was thinking along these lines:
The Problem of Evil forces one to say, "God is not all good", OR "God is not all powerful", OR BOTH. Given this, we shouldn't be worshiping God, and being ready to sacrifice everything (up to and including our lives) on the promise(!) that we will have eternal life.
Apparently, there is a solution to the Problem of Evil. What we call God is actually the Devil. This is referenced by Youval Noah Harare in his book "Sapiens" but I haven't found a full explanation so I don't know the details.
@@januslast2003 The argument that god could be omnimalevolent is often used when a theist attempts to justify the suffering of the innocent by asserting that humans cannot know the mind of god and therefore cannot know that the suffering isn't necessary.
The counter to this is to say, if we cannot know the mind of god then how did the theist determine that god is not omnimalevolent and allows a certain amount of "goodness" to achieve his "unknowable" malevolent ends. Expect the theist to counter with ad hominems; tu quoque and strawman fallacies.
❤️🙌🏼❤️
You can't have freewill without temptation and bad choices. That there is suffering and consequences because of them is what makes them "hard" decisions to make, or should be.
Disease is another form of life getting by, it's not evil, just bad for us.
4:26 you met a person like that, zero ability to emphasize or understand the most simplistic form of comfort. incredible.
Even if a 200lb guy is hurt the first thing you do is comfort with touch.
I bet he got good grades though eh, able to emulate and watch the grass waving in the wind for hours.
No, basic common sense denies god. Jesus man, do you believe in the Easter Bunny too?
I thought you were a thinker, not just another narcissist who wants to live forever and have fake meaning assigned to your life.
🙂🌎⏳🙏♥️
Reverence for suffering. Suffering not punishment (as long as you believe in a punishing diety)... Another eight minutes of nothingness.
Our Creator created this first temporary generation with all it's deception in order to draw out the chosen prophets, saints and believers who would end up being involved with the eternal programmed thoughts of his in the form of eternal vibrations. We all learn that our Creator is in total control of everything we experience by programming each mind and the AI that awakens as the mind begins processing his programmed thoughts both temporary and eternal.
Brad you are off your meds again. Get the help that you desperately need.
Man o Man.. this little lady SURE did rattle some cages.. 😄
Eleonore Stump - beautifully articulated, concise and insightful.
Are you drunk?
Click Bait !! I am reporting this video.
Evil does not abolish God; it confirms it on the contrary. It is evil in the world that justifies God today. It proffers scientific evidence for God.
Existence is based on a dichotomic template: _Particle-Antiparticle._ Evil is the necessary antiparticle for Good, atheism is the antiparticle for theism, and Satan is the antiparticle for God. The reason for these existential dichotomies it to offer conceivability for both. Asking if *Evil* can abolish *God* is like asking if *Negative* can abolish *Positive,* or asking if *Up* can abolish *Down.* ... Abolish the existence of one side of any _particle-antiparticle_ pairing and you abolish conceivability for both sides.
This is the requirement of the *"3rd Law of Existence."*
So a perfect being couldn't have made existence conceivable without introducing evil?
Here's a great example of a little knowledge being dangerous.
@@irfanmehmud63 *"So a perfect being couldn't have made existence conceivable without introducing evil?"*
... No, you wouldn't be able to "conceive" the existence of a perfect being (God) without the existence of Evil. You also would not comprehend "Positive" without the existence of "Negative." ... 3rd law of Existence.
In fact, the only reason you comprehend you are alive is because of the existence of death.
@@EKDupre *"Here's a great example of a little knowledge being dangerous."*
... Yours is a great example of offering the least amount of information possible to support your claim. Talk is cheap.
You obviously haven't heard of monopole
Arrrrgh! Eleonore Stump, you are definitely related to me, my dearest aunty.
A pregnant woman that wont understand the technology of patience and kindness will suffer and bring a child that will suffer without knowing how to grow STRENGTH that surpasses suffering so they could achieve afterwards ENDURANCE and CHARACTER of HOPE, which is also called GRACE of GOD.
I do not reckon that these points made warrent the the discussion concering evil, rather the condition of man and matter. It is the very condition of man that he must learn about natures so applying his intellect and Reason as the first remedy so to maintain a balance. Matter is said to be the furthest away from the Good, and therefore necessatatively 'evil' because it lacks the good, so we see deprivation, illness, disease.
Regarding evil, what I understand is that nature, because she's harsh & although she doesn't lie or deceive, man must come together and work as one, a unity is disposed because of her. So too the use of Intellect is indispensable. Majority of evils is due to spiritual ineptness and love of excess. Evil is not so much a thing itself, rather is the least of the Good; much like a shadow, is the obscurity of light.
_"... Does Evil Abolish God ..."_
Yeah,
of course.
It was just waiting.
It had no time.
But now,
It will do the
right thing.
I'm pretty
sure.
We are saved very
much.
CTT, could you interview Deirdre Carabine, concering Negative Theology and here book, 'The Unknown God'.
This woman is so good!
She is unflappable in her faith. What a gal
The “problem of evil” usually rests on the assumption that physical and emotional pain is evil.
I don't quite understand what you mean. Yes, many people do assume that physical and emotional pain is some kind of evil. I'm not sure about the truth of that assumption. Are we to perceive our pain and the pain of others as something "good"?
Whether the suffering is good or bad, the consequences of the pain certainly affect the way we think.
Sometimes we can't pinpoint the source for the horrific experience of suffering. So we call it "evil".
What do you think?
That's not an assumption. It's literally the definition of "evil" in the context of this problem
The only people who don't think so are probably serial killers and religious apologists - a very appropriate combination
@@jamespower5165 without god, there is no concept of evil. The entire idea of a thing being “objectively revolting” (evil) relies on the idea of an objective reality, which relies on the idea of god.
If you are conscious, you understand this. If you are just a collection of particles with no mind, you do not.
@@ljuhan2 assumption and definition both refer to the same concept here. Is a definition not itself assumed prior to proceeding with a thought?